Global Research

The prospect of nuclear war with North Korea sits near the top of the list of unthinkably bad things about Donald Trump’s presidency. We all worry that a personal slight from Kim Jung Un could prompt Trump to do something horrific.

But the conflict with North Korea didn’t begin with Trump. It stretches back to World War II, and it includes all sort of US actions that are rarely discussed — from laying waste to North Korea during the Korean War to supporting military despotism in South Korea.

In the following interview — which first aired last month on Daniel Denvir’s Jacobin Radio podcast The Dig — veteran journalist Tim Shorrock details this often overlooked history and explains how it shapes the present standoff.

*

Daniel Denvir: Donald Trump’s presidency has intensified many bad realities — many of which were expected. But during the campaign, a heated-up conflict with North Korea was not a major topic of discussion. Why has 2017 become the year that we suddenly feel we are so uncomfortably close to the prospect of catastrophic nuclear war?

Tim Shorrock: The current situation is directly related to the year 2006, which is when, during the Bush administration, North Korea exploded its first atomic weapon after agreeing to shut down their nuclear program under the Clinton administration. The agreement broke down under the Bush administration. North Korea threw out the inspectors who had been there and started to build a plutonium bomb.

Bush did try to negotiate with the six-party talks [a series of meetings with six participating states — North Korea, South Korea, Japan, the United States, China, and Russia — aiming to find a negotiated solution with North Korea]. The situation kept escalating partly because conservative governments in South Korea had taken power in 2007 and 2008. The situation continued to intensify during the latter years of Bush.

Obama’s policy was to hope that North Korea would collapse. It was called strategic patience. There were no negotiations with North Korea at that time. It just kept escalating. So Trump did inherit a very tense situation, but President Trump made it far worse by doing these open threats; by saying he was going to change the policy, but also threatening them with annihilation, feeding into the North Korean justification for having nuclear weapons and advanced missile capabilities, which is that the United States was going to attack them at any time.

DD: What do you see as the main forces within the Trump administration pushing such a confrontational line in North Korea and to what extent should we see this as being more pushed by Trump himself?

TS: The key person in Trump’s policy is H.R. McMaster, who is the national security adviser. He has been pushing this idea of what he calls “preventive war” which would basically involve preemptive strikes by the US military.

During the summer, information began to emerge in the media of Pentagon battle plans. There was one report on NBC that said that the Pentagon had plans, if ordered to, to destroy two dozen missile sites and nuclear sites in North Korea led by B1B bombers stationed in Guam that would lead air attacks in these sites. They would be flying in international skies which means that they could do a unilateral strike in North Korea without South Korea being involved at all.

Talk of a war — maybe they would call it a limited war — but talk about war really began to accelerate in Washington. Any forum you would go to people would say that we are at a 50 percent chance of a war. From all these think tanks to people in Congress, the talk was about what it will take to destroy these sites; there is very little talk of negotiation or the roots of the crisis or anything.

I think Trump sees himself as MacArthur or something like that and he wants to show the world American might can destroy a terrible enemy. He thinks he can build himself up that way.

DD: A combination of MacArthur and Pershing?

TS: He loves Pershing and the counterinsurgency. This is the militant imperialism that he represents. They’ve rejected “strategic patience.” The press backs them up on this. They say that North Korea just breaks every agreement. But agreements have been held for quite some time — particularly the agreement that was signed during the Clinton administration.

DD: Can we talk about this idea that the North Korean regime is unlike other regimes that are operating within the interstate global system?

TS: There is certainly nothing irrational about a country that wants to defend itself from an outside power that has threatened to destroy them. They are even quite predictable actually.

At the beginning of this year, Kim Jong Un said he wanted to complete his nuclear weapon development in a New Year’s address. That means nuclear development, completing their missile program, and building missiles. These would be ICBMs that can launch weapons to the United States or any other foreign target. They said they were going to do that and they proceeded to test and work on that program.

For a state trying to defend itself from an outside power, there is nothing irrational about that. They saw what happened. I mean the pretense of WMDs in Iraq is what led the Bush administration to invade and occupy Iraq. So, he sees nuclear weapons capable of being fired by an ICBM as his protection or deterrent from that attack from outside by the United States.

DD: The lesson for any rational actor, as twisted and dangerous as this is for the whole world, is that not having weapons of mass destruction means that the United States and its allies might try to overthrow your government.

TS: The Libya example is very pertinent. A couple of weeks ago, the highest level defector from North Korean government since 1979, Thae Yong Ho, the deputy ambassador to London for North Korea, gave a speech here at the Center for Strategic International Studies in which he talked about the impact of the US NATO intervention in Libya on Kim Jong Un.

He said, here was a country that agreed to stop building nuclear weapons that was essentially disarmed in that way, and then a few years later was overthrown by a coalition and US bombing campaign. Later, several groups in Libya overthrew him and he was murdered by these groups. Giving up nuclear weapons is not a very good idea in that context.

They also see, there’s this line under Kim Jong Un that has developed. It is the Byungjin line. This is the overriding philosophy behind what they are doing militarily. Nuclear development, nuclear weapons, missile technology, and long-range and short-range missiles development go together with the development of the economy. These high-tech missiles help the economy grow as well.

DD: In the most hawkish corners of US foreign policy establishment at present, preventive war is being touted as a solution to the North Korea nuclear weapons program. What you’ve laid out is a very clear track record of US preventative unilateral offensive war actually becoming a major driver of nuclear proliferation, so quite the opposite of what it purports to be a solution to.

TS: Yes, besides the fact that the United States has had nuclear weapons aimed at North Korea for sixty years.

North Korea began thinking about building its own nuclear weapons capability in the 1980s when the United States still had thousands of tactile nuclear weapons in South Korea. Those weapons were withdrawn in a unilateral move by President George H. W. Bush as part of a move to withdraw such weapons from countries around the world. But the United States has a vast armada of Navy ships that are based in Japan that carry nuclear weapons, and it also has B-52s that can carry them.

So the weapons have always been pointed there at North Korea, so they have felt under threat because of that. One of the drivers behind North Korean policy is these massive US–South Korean military exercises that take place twice a year. They run through training exercises of invading North Korea in what they call “decapitation strikes” to take out the North Korean leadership, including Kim Jong Un.

DD: Dress rehearsals for invasion. Not remotely provocative.

TS: They say this over and over in their statements: that is a key concern. The other day there was a statement put out by the North Korean government which said — of course, the first line was captured in the press, which is “they will not negotiate on nuclear weapons” — the second part is “until the United States and South Korea stop these provocative military exercises.” I think that’s where the grounds for some kind of negotiation and solution lie.

DD: I want to ask you now about South Korean politics because I think they are so often rendered invisible in the United States amid the conflict with North Korea. I think it’s important to highlight the historical context here before we get into Moon Jae-in and the present in South Korea. Can you sketch out the important contours of that history and how that led to the current moment?

TS: Well, in the 1950s right before and after the Korean War, South Korea was ruled by Syngman Rhee, an autocrat who was much hated for his repressive policies and was even despised by the United States because he talked about conquering North Korea and unifying Korea under his rule. After the Korean War, the United States did not want to have any part of that.

That’s when I was a kid and when Rhee was still president. Something I’ll always remember is that when I was in Korea in 1960, people were on the streets for days and people were shot by the police, but he was overthrown. There was this big push to get him out from all ages, from all classes really. This was at a time, 1960, when Korea’s fortune was not clear. A lot of people in the North and South wanted unification. They had been divided. There had been this terrible war. People wanted reconciliation and unification. There was talk of a united Korea being neutral between the Soviet Union and United States during the Cold War.

In that period from 1960 to 1961, there was a relatively liberal-left government in South Korea. There was a lot of turmoil politically. Actually, young students were going to the border and meeting with North Koreans. There was a big change afoot in South Korea and with its relationship with the United States.

This all ended in 1961, when this general, Park Chung-hee, took over in a military coup. He had been trained by the Japanese Imperial Army. He had actually served in Manchuria during World War II fighting Korean Communists who were fighting the Japanese.

DD: Who were led by Kim Il Sung?

TS: They were led by Kim Il Sung and others. So there is this dichotomy that defines Korean history right there. The Syngman Rhee government and the United States saw any move toward unification as a communist move.

Cold War thinking really descended on South Korea in the late forties, therefore any movement to unify the country was stifled by the South, and violently so. There were a lot of uprisings in South Korea in the 1940s that were brutally suppressed by the Korean military with the support of the United States. The United States and the South ruled through a military government, and the Soviet Union occupied the North.

The agreement by the United States and Soviet Union basically concluded that Korea by itself was incapable of ruling itself. It was incapable of self-rule or taking itself out of colonialism. So they thought they could occupy it for a while and then oversee the unification depending on what Koreans wanted.

But the Cold War thinking deepened division and of course led in the 1950s to all-out war. When North Korea decided it was time to liberate South Korea, Rhee came into South Korea to cut off North Korean forces and push them north. President Truman made a critical decision to keep it going. They called it rollback at the time. They invaded North Korea to try to make one Korea under Syngman Rhee, but that’s when the Chinese military came in with millions of soldiers to push the United States back with a tremendous loss.

DD: People forget that United States and Chinese forces actually traded fire with one another on the battlefield.

TS: Many people do. The Chinese haven’t forgotten that. Mao Zedong’s son lost his life in Korea. It’s also important for the US Marines. Generals like James Mattis, though he wasn’t there, certainly remembers this. It was a tremendous loss for the Marines. The US Marines led the push into North Korea. There were several divisions that went way up to the North. The idea was to get to the Yalu River in China. That is when the Chinese army surrounded them.

They had to withdraw in terrible conditions. Thousands died and froze to death. It was an unbelievable situation for the Marines. When they were negotiating a truce, during the last two years of the Korean War, the United States completely controlled the skies and just obliterated North Korea, there was nothing left.

DD: It was one of the most brutal bombing campaigns in world history.

TS: One of the worst because there was nothing left. I grew up in Japan during the 1950s, I can still remember seeing destruction from the bombing of Tokyo. The firebombing of Tokyo in April 1945 obliterated large parts of the city, just burned it down to cinders with napalm.

In North Korea, every single city and every single village was burnt down to the ground.

Of course, North Koreans never forgot that, and they don’t let their people forget it. From when you are a baby to when you are an adult, you are imbued in the terrible history of that war. You see Americans as people out to kill you. Part of the ruling ideology is this fear of another war. It’s really important for people to understand this very complex history. The Japanese collaboration part of it actually lasted for a long time in South Korea. South Korea became more democratic, but I wouldn’t call it fully democratic due to the national security law [established in 1948].

This national security law is still on the books and was never changed. The protests in the eighties were sparked by a young student being tortured to death. People had just had enough of this police state. Park Chung-Hee, the military dictator, was assassinated in 1979 in the midst of very widespread protests led by labor and by workers and by students. Then another general assumed control of the military and the government declared martial law.

DD: He was far more brutal than Park even.

TS: He was very brutal. There was an uprising in the city of Gwangju where they sent special forces who massacred people just standing up for democracy. People fought back with guns. The United States at that time decided to back the South Korean army to try to put down this uprising. This angered South Koreans and a lot of South Koreans have never forgotten that.

So Chun, the second general who was in power when people protested, forced a major change. They got the right to elect their own president as opposed to a parliament where one third of the members were picked by the dictators. There were popular elections.

In the late nineties, under Kim Dae-Jung, a longtime opposition leader who had almost been executed by the Chun government, South Korea opened up and started the so-called Sunshine Policy. They opened up to North Korea and Kim led this push to defuse tensions and build up trust through economic and political exchanges that lasted for quite a while.

DD: Could you explain a little bit about what the Sunshine Policy was?

TS: The policy came after President Clinton had negotiated an “agreed framework” with North Korea under which they decided to suspend their nuclear bomb program in 1994. There was an atmosphere already for defusing the crisis and ending the military standoff between the United States, North Korea, and South Korea.

Kim Dae-Jung expanded citizen exchanges, investment in North Korea by South Korean companies, sports teams, family visits by people who had not seen each other for decades. Also, ordinary citizens, people who are involved in academia, culture, music, and so on began to meet each other.

That was important for breaking down the idea of North Korea as an enemy. Getting back and meeting people, seeing North Koreans as ordinary human beings like you. It broke down a lot of animosity.

One of the lasting monuments to that period of time was this Kaesong Industrial Zone, built just north of the DMZ in North Korea where South Korean companies set up factories and North Korean workers made products for the world market. This was seen as helping North Korea with its technological development and employment. It was that kind of program that they thought would lay the seeds for a larger peace.

It must be said that at this time Kim Dae-Jung was often seen by US intelligence as a leftist and out of sync with long-range US policy. He was rumored to be a communist.

DD: Too conciliatory towards North Korea at the end of the day?

TS: Too conciliatory, and his roots were in the Left. His successor, Roh Moo-Hyun, was the same way. He was a human rights activist and had been very involved in the anti-dictatorship movement. He continued a lot of these policies, but they did come under tremendous pressure.

Kim Dae-Jung made a state visit to George W. Bush in 2001. He came here to get an official stamp of approval toward his Sunshine Policy and negotiating with North Korea. Bush completely turned his back on him and embarrassed Kim Dae-Jung, this courageous dissident leader. He came to Washington and Bush said, “We don’t trust North Korea, and we’re not going to negotiate with them and that’s that.”

DD: That’s a remarkable thing to say to a South Korean president given that it’s South Koreans who are sitting within range of a surreal amount of conventional weaponry that could destroy Seoul in a day.

TS: It’s their country, right? They have the right to talk to the North however they want. If they want to unify, it’s their country. The United States sees it as a protectorate that the United States controls. They expect South Korea to go along with whatever the US strategic policy is.

DD: Did the United States ultimately undermine the effectiveness of the Sunshine Policy?

TS: Actually, it worked to the Unites States’ advantage. The United States was able to negotiate with Kim Jong Il after the agreement was signed with Clinton. The United States and North Korea came very close to signing an agreement which would have ended North Korea’s missile production. They were very close in 2000, but the negotiations were never completed and the agreement was never signed.

Bush took over with the neocons and they were against the “agreed framework” from the beginning. They didn’t go along with Kim Dae-Jung’s sunshine policies. They accused North Korea of violating the agreement by trying to build a uranium route to the bomb. The North Koreans denied it; the North Koreans said they would be happy to negotiate because they thought they would have a right to such a uranium bomb, but they did not have a bomb at that time.

The Bush people that were sent there, sort of low-level diplomats of the State Department, had no authority to negotiate so they just delivered an ultimatum to North Korea saying you’re doing this, you’re violating this, and we’re ripping up the agreement. As I said at the beginning of this interview, that’s when this nuclear crisis really began.

DD: 2002 is when Bush labels North Korea part of the “axis of evil” as well.

TS: Exactly. As part of the nineties agreement, North Korea and the United States were pledged publicly to move as soon as possible to full political and economic normalization. In other words, recognizing each other, having embassies in each other’s capital, and so on. Starting a normal relationship.

When the agreement came under fire in Congress, North Koreans started seeing that the United States was pulling away from the agreement. A lot of analysts and people who were in the government at that time think that North Korea started this program as a hedge in case the United States did violate it.

At any rate, the agreement fell apart in 2002–3. In the latter part of the Bush administration, he started negotiating with North Korea again in the six-party talks — amazingly he opened negotiations with North Korea three weeks after they exploded their first nuclear bomb.

DD: Six-party talks included the United States, South Korea, Japan, China —

TS: And Russia. They made some progress there. That was when North Korea’s designation as a supporter of terrorism was dropped by the Bush administration. It was just renewed the other day by Trump. There were talks that were going on.

Roh Moo-hyun and Kwon Yang-sook at the 2006 APEC gala dinner with President Vladimir Putin of Russia (centre) and George W. Bush and his wife Laura Bush (right) (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

At the time, Roh Moo-Hyun, the progressive in South Korea who was in favor of the Sunshine Policy and was still carrying it out, was president. That set the stage for negotiations with the North and these six-party talks because South Korea and North Korea were still talking and engaging in these measures both political and economic.

But in 2008, a right-winger was elected president of South Korea, Lee Myung-bak. That’s when the policy really changed. He ran, sort of like Bush did and the Republicans did, with a policy against the agreed framework and normalization of ties with North Korea. He did not like the Sunshine Policy.

DD: What popular conservative sentiment was he tapping into at the time that was hostile to these negotiations?

TS: There is a very strong conservative, anti-communist streak in South Korea. It’s older people, and there were economic issues that played into it as well. As they often do, the more progressive liberal candidates split.

Lee Myung-bak was against the negotiations with North Korea and the Sunshine Policy. He started making demands as part of the six-party talks that North Korea rejected. Those talks floundered as a result.

Under Park Guen-hye, negotiations got worse. When military tensions peaked a few years ago, the last remnant of the Sunshine Policy, the Kaesong Industrial Zone — which I used to call the canary in the Korean coal mine — was shut down. As long as that was open, I thought things would be okay. South Korean businesspeople were crossing the border to go to this industrial zone. A lot of people in South Korea also believed that it was holding up something with North Korea, some semblance of normalcy.

Obama’s policies really made things a lot worse. North Korea under Obama tested three more nuclear weapons. Obama’s advisers were pretty hardline on North Korea. I think it’s accurate to say that Trump inherited a tense situation that’s not of its own making, but as I said he’s making it much worse.

DD: To what extent did a collapse of the South Korean right allow Moon to win? And to what degree did his victory reflect growing popular support for both a more left-of-center domestic and economic program and growing support for renewed dialogue with North Korea?

TS: When he ran for president, his main focus was economic. In South Korea, there is a huge problem of youth employment. There is a serious problem of Walmart-like jobs where people don’t have full benefits and full pay. You work under contract from year to year and sometimes month to month.

DD: Highly flexible, casual workers?

TS: Casual workers. It’s a terrible situation for many Korean workers. That’s how many Korean conglomerates survive. They have this core of full-time workers and then they just employ at will when they need contract workers. It’s about 50 percent of the total Korean workforce.

That, combined with unemployment and people’s unhappiness with the previous Park Geun-hye government, is how Moon won. When I interviewed him two days before the election, when it was pretty much assured that he was going to win, he said that was basically the result of the “Candlelight Revolution” [the mass protests that forced Park Geun-hye’s impeachment].

He put the Candlelight Revolution in the long line of protest movements that led the way for democracy. Starting with the 1960 uprising against Syngman Rhee and the 1979 assassination of Park Chung-hee, which took place during a huge uprising in his own city of Pusan. Then the June uprising in 1987, the democratic uprising, and then the Candlelight Revolution. The way he sees it is the way a lot of South Koreans see it as well.

DD: What chance does Moon have to pursue a negotiation-based relationship, with Trump’s provocations on one side and Kim Jong Un’s provocations on the other?

TS: It’s made it very difficult obviously. He reached out immediately after becoming president, saying he wanted to have military-to-military and Red Cross talks with North Korea. North Koreans basically ignored him. They consider him and the South Korean government as tools of the United States. They don’t think that he has real independence.

They can point to some things that are true. For example, the South Korean and US military are joined in this Joint Military Command. It is now headed by a South Korean general, but during wartime the commander is a US general. If there is a war in Korea and the South Korean military is mobilized, it goes under a US general who is their commander. That is the only country in the world where a foreign general is in charge of their army during the war. How can South Korea really be a sovereign country in that situation?

DD: They are technically not.

TS: They are technically not.

DD: And so it’s rational for North Korea to say that if I have this belligerent enemy in the United States that is ultimately in charge of South Korea, then why am I going to talk to Moon when he, at the end of the day, cannot be the guarantor of anything?

TS: Exactly. His overtures have been largely rejected. Moon Jae-In on security and military issues didn’t really run as a conservative; he didn’t really run as a liberal. He has taken steps that the Korean left and the liberal middle support, like putting dialogue first with North Korea. He agreed to the deployment of THAAD, the theater anti-missile system installed by the United States that was agreed to by Park Geun-hye.

He has praised some of Trump’s hardline policies and statements. The day after Trump said that the United States will totally destroy North Korea if they continue to threaten the United States, Moon Jae-In complimented him on his speech in a meeting with Trump. They follow this very hardline sanctions-first policy of trying to isolate North Korea economically to force them into talks.

But he’s taken some very important steps independent of the United States. My latest in the Nation focuses on when Trump was in South Korea recently. Just before that Moon Jae-In took steps that were independent of what the United States wants. For example, they reached an agreement with China that normalized relations and put the issue of THAAD behind them. That was to get China to support negotiations.

He also flatly rejected the American push for a trilateral military alliance between the United States, South Korea, and Japan. Moon said that South Korea will take part with certain kinds of cooperation with the Japanese military, but they do not want to form an alliance. The next day, his foreign minister said that they are not going to join this US-Japan anti-missile defense system that has been set up in north East Asia.

He’s trying to play this in a way to be able to operate independently. He always stresses that we cannot have a war in South Korea. It is unthinkable. They went out of their way to show Trump when he was there that when he says to totally destroy North Korea what that could mean for South Korea. Trump flew over Seoul; he saw how close Seoul was to the DMZ. I’m sure he’s got plenty of intelligence that tells him where the artillery was and how much damage could occur in the next few hours and days if that happened. North Korea has massive amounts of conventional weapons on the border that could strike not only Seoul, and US bases in South Korea, but also bases in Japan and Okinawa as well, Guam even.

DD: Trump has massive amounts of intelligence, but not massive amounts of “intelligence.” That’s the problem. What does China want out of this?

TS: China does not want a unified Korea under South Korean–US control. They don’t want US troops on their borders. They don’t want a war and all the chaos that would result from a war. They are playing a pretty important role.

Both Russia and China have voted for these increased sanctions at the UN Security Council. They are trying to defuse the situation by trying to increase pressure on the DPRK and Kim Jong Un. During the UN debates, they push for negotiation. They pushed this proposal where North Korea would freeze their nuclear program and the United States and South Korea would freeze or scale back their military exercises. A lot of people think that’s the only way for there to be negotiations.

Moon Jae-In is trying to thread that needle. He continues to say that war is unthinkable. I think that was part of the reason for his visit to China. He has also had similar discussions with Russia and Putin’s government.

Trump’s hard line about trying to put them back on the terrorist list is only going to complicate things. North Korea is already very angry about that, and South Korea officially approved it. If you read between the lines in the Korean media, there is a lot of criticism of that too. How in the world do they expect to get negotiations going if they don’t give North Korea any type of off-ramp to exit this tense situation?

DD: What is the current state of the North Korean regime and how Kim Jong Un fits into his dynastic predecessors?

TS: North Korea has an incredibly repressive apparatus where even former ambassadors are recalled and put into prison for going against the political line of the day. It rules through a pervasive police state. This makes it very difficult for people to differ publicly with any kind of regime policy. They have an intranet in North Korea but it’s cut off from the world. The only information they get comes from electronic devices smuggled into South Korea. There is a lot of that going on.

On the other hand, it is not a backward country economically. Despite the controls and sanctions, you can see the results of it. A backward country cannot develop nuclear weapons and missile technology. You have ICBMs that could hit the United States. They have developed this pretty much on their own, with borrowed scientists from Russia, Pakistan, and possibly Iran. I think the idea is to build a deterrent against the United States and then negotiate from a position of strength. Then they want to focus on economic development.

Kim Jong Un is trying to use his nuclear prowess as a wedge to get the United States to negotiate; his father was negotiating out of a position of weakness. His father was trying to trade his nuclear and military program for a better relationship with the United States and countries in the region. Kim Jong Un is trying to project this idea of a very powerful North Korea able to hold the United States to a draw momentarily — which is foolish because he knows damn well that the United States could destroy North Korea, as Trump says.

There are all these predictions in the United States that the North Korean regime is coming apart, and they point to defectors like this high-level guy at the London embassy and others. They point to the alleged assassination of Kim Jong Un’s half-brother in the Malaysian airport as a sign that they are trying to destroy any dissidents within the North Korean regime. I don’t see any signs of mass revolt or anything. I don’t think there are grounds to say that it’s going to collapse in the next year. You can read fifty years of reporting that North Korea is going to collapse in the next two years.

It has strong internal cohesion partially due to the nature of its repressive police state apparatus. There is enough belief in the regime and economic developments. When there was famine and starvation in the 1990s, they came back from that. They’ve maintained this independence from China and Russia, these great powers. You can even see this in interviews with North Korean defectors. There is a certain respect for that ability to maintain that independence. People are unhappy about other things there. Deservedly so. It’s not going to collapse. The only way to have a solution is to negotiate with them and talk directly to them.

DD: Has the external pressure and bellicosity towards North Korea strengthened internal cohesion and could negotiations actually play a role in opening up North Korean society and in the long run potentially transforming it into something better?

TS: I think it could but it needs to be open-ended. After Otto Warmbier died [the American student who was imprisoned in North Korea], the US Congress passed a law outlawing travel to North Korea. They are trying to get all countries to cut off their ties. In South America, Central America, Asia, there are countries that are ending diplomatic relations with North Korea. They are further isolating them.

If you want North Korea to change, it has to talk to people from outside. If you completely cut them off, then things will not change. The United States does not have the right to change the regime because we don’t like it. I think change could come gradually if the United States would lessen its military involvement.

North and South Korea are totally capable of negotiating and working things out by themselves. It could happen. They’ve made progress in the past. I think it requires a major change in US policy and the region.

Ultimately, engagement is the way to change minds on both sides. When Dennis Rodman went over there, a lot of people made fun of him, but, for young North Koreans, who have been taught that Americans are devils and trying to kill them, to see NBA players laughing it up and hamming it up with Kim Jong Un changes their views of Americans. We need to have reciprocity with North Koreans. Ordinary North Koreans if possible.

I think engagement is the way to go. I just hope there can be a negotiated solution to this. I really do not think at this point that the United States is going to war. Trump is quite unpredictable. South Koreans are more worried about what Trump will do than what Kim Jong Un will do.

*

Tim Shorrock is a Washington-based journalist who grew up in Tokyo and Seoul. He has been writing about Korea, North and South, since the late 1970s. His reporting appears regularly in the Nation and Newstapa / The Korea Center for Investigative Journalism.

Daniel Denvir is a fellow at Harvard Law School’s Fair Punishment Project and the host of the Dig on Jacobin Radio.

It has been said that what is required in dealing with the Trump administration is less an army of diplomats than keen and attentive psychiatrists.  Those psychiatrists would have had dreams of splendour contemplating how a statement about having access to a nuclear button could quite become this. 

It all began, as it tends to do, with a goading remark from North Korea’s Kim Jong-un.  Evidently relishing an opportunity to give President Donald J. Trump a good new year’s poke, that man in Pyongyang informed the world that had had his nuclear button within easy reach on the table.

Trump duly went for the bait, claiming that his nuclear button “is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!”  Was this a statement of his unfitness for office?  Not so, claimed White House spokesperson Sara Sanders.

“The president and the people of this country should be concerned about the mental fitness of the leader of North Korea.”

The nursery of politics is not a sophisticated place, and Sanders was keeping an appropriate front for the fiery show, suggesting that Trump was not a person who was “going to cower down and who’s not going to be weak and is going to make sure that he does, what he’s promised to do and that is stand up and protect the American people.”

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2018

All this talk about buttons has more cultural than substantive reality.  For one thing, those in circles in the know find any reference to a neatly defined button amateurish.

“The image of a leader with a finger on a button – a trigger capable of launching a world-ending strike,” writes Russell Goldman, “has for decades symbolised the speed with which a nuclear weapon could be launched, and the unchecked power of the person doing the pushing.”

The stress on symbolism is exactly the point. For one thing, procedure must still be complied with: the formation of a coherent order; communicating that order to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is duly relayed to US Strategic Command HQ in Nebraska for subsequent dissemination.  There is also the slim chance that the order in question might be disobeyed.

Notions of having that ease of access to a button, one that will incinerate enemy and earth at a moment’s notice, are stretched.  Political speak, however, has generated a mythology of buttons and triggers gazing at the summit of the apocalypse.  As President Lyndon B. Johnson told Barry M. Goldwater in an exchange in 1964, the leader had to “do anything that is honourable to avoid pulling that trigger, mashing that button that will blow up the world.”

Nuclear footballs (or the nuclear football in the case of the US presidency) would be more accurate, a creature of promised mayhem that never leaves the President’s side.  To keep that particular ball company is the biscuit, a card containing the relevant codes.  (The sense of the absurd is unavoidable before the enormity of possible catastrophe.)

Within that particular ball, far more accurately termed a briefcase, is essentially a package of war plans and communication tools.  It is carried by one of five military aides, with each branch of the armed forces represented.  Those plans are far from sophisticated, coming down to what former director of the White House Military Office Bill Gurley termed “rare, medium or well done.”

Such talk does resemble the triggers of a boy hood nightmare.  There is something of the disturbed in the articulations of the President.  “Little Rocket Man” sounds like a leitmotif for past familial abuse; references to matters of size and questionable potency suggest much the same: somewhere, in that dark subconsciousness, lie certain answers.

As the president fantasises about such adolescent competitiveness, the two Koreas have been getting busy in an unfussy way.  Fury in public; quiet deliberation behind the scenes.  This is a show that is of much interest, even if US officials might be looking at it with skewed eyes.  Kim has, for instance, expressed interest in re-opening channels of dialogue with South Korea, feeding on signals from Seoul about the possibility of Olympic diplomacy centred on the winter events.

According to North Korea’s KCNA news agency, making reference to Ri Son Gwon, chairman of North Korea’s Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland,

“We will try to keep close communications with the south Korean side sincere stand (sic) and honest attitude, true to the intention of our supreme leadership, and deal with the practical matters related to the dispatch of our delegation.”

The response from Seoul on Tuesday was swift: a proposal to open high-level discussions at the Korean border, followed by Wednesday’s reopening of a border hotline closed since October 2016.  Such small steps are to be viewed favourably, but the jaundiced in Washington only see wedge politics at work.  A continued insistence on all or nothing, and more to the point, all at once or nothing at all regarding the nuclear imbroglio, remains Washington’s continuing problem.

*

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

Featured image: John Rood (Source: Lockheed Martin)

Fifty-seven years ago this month President Dwight D. Eisenhower presented this warning in his farewell address: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” That warning has largely fallen on deaf ears.

The United States government has in the decades since been participating, both directly and via third parties, in overt and covert military actions across the world, with very little of the violence even arguably justified as necessary to defend America. Yet, no matter the lack of defensive justification, companies and individuals in the military-industrial complex profit from the high military spending and the destruction wrought abroad.

President Donald Trump’s high-level military appointments exemplify the strong bond between the US military and companies that profit from military spending, war, and foreign intervention. As I noted in the September 2 episode of Five Minutes Five Issues, Trump chose James Mattis, who had been a board of directors member of major military contractor General Dynamics to be secretary of defense and chose Mark Esper, who over the prior 12 months had earned over 1.5 million dollars lobbying for Raytheon, another prominent military contractor, to be secretary of the Army. Esper’s nomination was since confirmed by the US Senate.

This week we saw a new example of a high-level employee at a military contractor moving over to the US Department of Defense. On Wednesday, the Senate confirmed Trump’s nomination of John Rood to be under secretary for policy at the Defense Department. Travis J. Tritten reports at the Washington Examiner that Rood’s most recent job before being confirmed for “the Pentagon’s No. 3 position” was “as a Lockheed Martin vice president in charge of growing the defense giant’s international business in about 70 countries.”

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

For the first time since December 2015, officials from both countries will meet in Panmunjom near the DMZ on January 9.

According to Seoul’s unification ministry spokesman Baik Tae-hyun, talks will focus on Pyongyang’s participation in the February Winter Olympics, along with ways to improve inter-Korean relations, adding:

His government’s position on denuclearizing the peninsula remains unchanged. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s New Year’s day address called for reducing tensions between the two nations.

On Thursday, Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in postponed scheduled military exercises until after the Winter games conclude.

Pyongyang justifiably considers them provocative rehearsals for war. They’re unrelated to defending against possible DPRK aggression.

Trump “took credit” for upcoming North/South talks, tweeting:

“Does anybody really believe that talks and dialogue would be going on between North and South Korea right now if I wasn’t firm, strong and willing to commit our total ‘might’ against the North.”

38 North provides “analysis of events in and around the DPRK.” It’s a Johns Hopkins University Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies US-Korea Institute program – managed by former State Department official Joel Wit and USKI assistant director Jenny Town.

On January 4, it headlined “North Korea Likely Preparing for New Rocket Engine Test at Sohae,” saying:

“An examination of commercial satellite imagery from November 23, December 25 and December 31 shows no indications of preparations for a new satellite launch mission at Sohae, where all satellite launches have taken place since 2012,” adding:

“There are, however, several indicators that suggest preparations for an upcoming rocket engine test at the facility’s vertical engine test stand.”

“Both color and near-infrared imagery, however, show no indications that an engine test has taken place since November 23, suggesting that if the current activity is test related, it is likely preparations for a future test.”

Or perhaps they’re related to “normal maintenance and repair…”

Days earlier, Nikki Haley ranted about provocative reports of an upcoming DPRK missile test – highly unlikely ahead of upcoming talks with Seoul.

Hawkish Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is a reliable US ally. At a time his nation faces no threats, he lied claiming otherwise, saying Japanese security is more endangered than any time since WW II – vowing to boost the country’s defenses, instead of reducing tensions by conciliatory outreach to North Korea.

In 2017, Tokyo increased its defense budget for the sixth consecutive year at a time its only enemies are invented ones.

Abe wants Japan’s pacifist constitution amended, aiming to loosen constraints on his regime’s militarism, something public sentiment in the country opposes.

Possible US aggression is the region’s only serious threat. It’s why Pyongyang continues developing its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities – strictly for defense, not offense, an agenda polar opposite Washington’s.

*

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

Users of social media have been increasingly reporting that their accounts have been either censored, blocked or suspended during the past year. Initially, some believed that the incidents might be technical in nature, with overloaded servers struggling to keep up with the large and growing number of accounts, but it eventually emerged that the interference was deliberate and was focused on individuals and groups that were involved in political or social activities considered to be controversial.

At the end of last year a number of Russian accounts on Facebook and elsewhere were suspended over the allegations that social media had been used to spread so-called false news that had possibly materially affected the 2016 presidential election in the United States. Even though it proved impossible to demonstrate that the relatively innocuous Russian efforts had any impact in comparison to the huge investment in advertising and propaganda engaged in by the two major parties, social media quickly responded to the negative publicity.

Now it has been learned that major social media and internet service providers have, throughout the past year, been meeting secretly with the United States and Israeli governments to remove content as well as ban account holders from their sites. The United States and Israel have no legal right to tell private companies what to do but it is clearly understood that the two governments can make things very difficult for those service providers that do not fall in line. Israel has threatened to limit access to sites like Facebook or to ban it altogether while the U.S. Justice Department can use terrorist legislation, even if implausible, to force compliance. Washington recently forced Facebook to cancel the account of the Chechen Republic’s leader Ramzan Kadyrov, a Putin loyalist that the White House has recently “sanctioned.”

Israel is not surprisingly most active in patrolling the Internet as it is keen to keep out any material sympathetic to the Palestinian cause or critical of Israeli treatment of Arabs. Its security services scan the stories being surfaced and go to the service providers to ask that material be deleted or blocked based on the questionable proposition that it constitutes “incitement” to violence. Facebook reportedly cooperates 95% of the time to delete material or shut down accounts. Palestinian groups, which use social networking on the internet to communicate, have been especially hard hit, with ten leading administrators’ accounts being removed in 2017. Israeli accounts including material threatening to kill Arabs are not censored.

Microsoft, Google, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are all also under pressure to cooperate with pro-Israel private groups in the United States, to include the powerful Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The ADL seeks “to engineer new solutions to stop cyberhate” by blocking “hate language,” which includes any criticism of Israel that might even implausibly be construed as anti-Semitism. Expanding restrictions on what is being defined as “hate speech” will undoubtedly become common in social media and more generally all across the internet in 2018.

The internet, widely seen as a highway where everyone could communicate and share ideas freely, is actually a toll road that is increasingly managed by a group of very large corporations that, when acting in unison, control what is seen and not seen. Search engines already are set up to prioritize information from paid “sponsors,” which come up prominently but often have nothing to do with what material is most relevant. And the role of intrusive governments in dictating to Facebook and other sites who will be heard and who will be silenced should also be troubling, as it means that information that would benefit the public might never be seen, particularly if it is embarrassing to powerful interests. And speaking of powerful interests, groups like the ADL with partisan agendas will undoubtedly be able to dictate norms of behavior to the service providers, leading to still more loss of content and relevancy for those who are looking for information.

All things considered, the year 2018 will be a rough one for those who are struggling to maintain the internet as a source of relatively free information. Governments and interest groups have seen the threat posed by such liberty and are reacting to it. They will do their best to bring it under control.

*

Philip Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest.

Featured image is from the author.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani did the right thing going on television and at least acknowledging popular anger over hard economic times. Inflation is high at 12% but down from 40% at the start of Rouhani’s first term. And the recent increase in fuel and food prices by up to 40% has hardly helped.

That was part of Team Rouhani’s 2018 budget, which cuts subsidies for the poor – a key feature of the previous Ahmadinejad administration.

Then there is youth unemployment, which hovers around the 30% mark. Similar figures recently came out of Spain, a member of the European Union. Of course, that explains why the bulk of the protesters are under 25 from working class backgrounds.

What Rouhani should have explained to Iranians in detail is the direct consequences of hard economic times and United States sanctions, which are affecting the country.

These were coupled with financial threats against western firms now back in business, or at least contemplating opening up operations, in Iran.

Rouhani did promise after signing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal, in the Austrian capital of Vienna in 2015 that it would lead to more jobs and stimulate the economy.

While that has not been the case, legitimate protests singling out economic problems have never gone away. In fact, they have been part of the Iranian picture for decades.

If we consider the Islamic Republic experiment, a sort of “theocracy with democratic characteristics,” the most striking element is how deeply rooted it is in the country.

I learned this during my many trips to Iran and it has a great deal to do with the basij, or voluntary militias. They have permeated all aspects of social life from unions to student bodies and civil servant groups.

In this respect, there is a strong similarity to China, where the Communist Party is embedded in the very fabric of society.

Talking to young people in places such as Kashan or Mashhad showed me how solid the popular base was behind the Islamic Republic experiment. It was certainly more thought-provoking than listening to ayatollahs in Qom.

Still, what is happening now in Iran is that legitimate protests related to economic hardships have been hijacked by the usual suspects in a move to influence the minority. After all, Rouhani’s administration is comparatively liberal compared to the populist Ahmadinejad government.

So, what we have is a concerted attempt to turn legitimate protests into a “revolutionary” movement with the aim of bringing about a regime change. In all practical purposes, this would be civil war.

Well, it will simply not work. Anyone familiar with Iran knows the country’s civil society is far too sophisticated to fall into such a crude and obvious trap.

For a clear take on the foreign influence angle, you should watch Professor Mohammad Marandi, of the University of Tehran, an academic of absolute integrity, arguing with a former BBC employee on the Qatari-owned Al Jazeera television network.

Indeed, what is certain is that foreign elements are acting as provocateurs to influence the protests. This “whole world is watching” tone is meant to intimidate Tehran’s response.

Yet there has to be a crackdown against the violence as Rouhani strongly hinted. Imagine the police response if the level of violence seen on Iranian streets was happening in France or Germany?

Regime change is unlikely but what is in play is setting the scene for a further renewal of economic sanctions against Iran. Possibly, in this case by the EU. Hopefully, it will not fall into this trap.

Anyway, Tehran is already gearing up to increase business across Eurasia through China’s new Silk Roads, the Belt and Road Initiative, and the Eurasia Economic Union.

In the end, it is up to Team Rouhani to be creative in alleviating the burden on the economic front.

Today, Donald Trump’s Department of the Interior released its draft five-year offshore drilling plan. In the largest expansion of offshore drilling ever, the plan would expand drilling off America’s coasts, including in the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, and the Arctic.

The current plan was finalized by the Obama administration in November 2016, excluding the Atlantic coast and nearly the entire Arctic Ocean. Following the release of the plan and in response to the calls of coastal communities and millions of Americans across the country, President Obama acted under his authority designated by Section 12a of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently protect parts of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans from the threat of offshore drilling. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups filed a lawsuit in May over Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to roll back these protections.

Expansion of offshore drilling faces strong, bipartisan opposition from coastal communities as well as from the governors of states including New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Florida.

In response, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune released the following statement:

“Donald Trump and Ryan Zinke are now trying to sell out our coastal communities, our waters, and our climate in order to please corporate polluters. Millions of Americans have raised their voices to send a message, loud and clear, that they do not want offshore drilling off our coasts, but rather than listen to the people they are supposed to work for, Trump and Zinke are listening to the industry that’s bankrolled their campaigns and filled their administration.

“Trump and Zinke are acting against the wishes of the American people in their attempt to expand offshore drilling and roll back permanent protections for America’s public waters. The Sierra Club will continue to stand with coastal communities in fighting back against this reckless plan, and we are currently examining our legal options to do so.”

“2017 was a year of heroic struggle and great victory,” said North Korean leader Kim Jong-un as he began his 2018 New Year’s Day address, much anticipated by North Korea watchers around the world. His country, he said, has accomplished the cause of “perfecting the national nuclear forces” and “at last come to possess a powerful and reliable war deterrent, which no force and nothing can reverse.” He then quickly moved on to discuss two other topics in great detail: the country’s five-year plan for economic development and the need for reconciliation between North and South Korea toward national reunification.

Two things stand out in Kim’s speech. One, North Korea looks back at 2017 as a year of struggle between itself in its drive to complete the construction of an effective nuclear deterrent versus the United States, determined to stop this from happening. And Kim Jong-un has effectively just said, “I win.” North Korea successfully tested what it called a hydrogen bomb in September 2017, then the Hwaseong 15, an intercontinental ballistic missile, in November 2017. Despite the Trump administration’s retaliation, including unprecedented UN sanctions and military exercises, Kim declared in his recent speech,

“Our country’s nuclear forces are capable of thwarting and countering any nuclear threats from the United States, and they constitute a powerful deterrent that prevents it from starting an adventurous war.”

Two, having gained confidence in its ability to defend itself from U.S. aggression, North Korea appears ready to move onto other important matters, like building its economy and improving relations with the South—two things that will likely be North Korea’s priorities this year.

Economic Development

Kim’s New Year address goes into minute detail about the country’s goals in all aspects of its economy, such as the metal industry, the chemical industry, agriculture, and light industry. The western media overlooks this section of the speech, perhaps because it appears to be about domestic affairs that don’t concern the west. But for North Korea, building a self-reliant economy is critical in its fight against U.S. aggression.

How is North Korea able to withstand so many years of sanctions and resist collapse? The only answer that western mainstream pundits can muster is China:

“Surely, it’s because China is not doing enough to isolate North Korea.”

But the real answer is in Kim’s speech, which outlines in great detail how to make all aspects of the country’s economy self-reliant: how to, for example, train and support scientists so the country can use its indigenous resources and know-how to build an economy independent from foreign powers.

If 2017 for North Korea was a year of struggle to complete its nuclear force to deter U.S. military threats, 2018, it seems, will be a year of struggle to undermine the power of U.S.-led sanctions—not through compromise and negotiations but, as Kim says in his New Year address, by concentrating “all efforts on consolidating the independence and Juche character of the national economy.”

Among the economic development goals outlined in Kim’s address are:

• “Stepping up the establishment of the C1 chemical industry,” which involves gasifying coal—a resource that is abundantly available in North Korea—then converting gasified coal into other useful products, such as synthetic fuel and industrial chemicals;
• Modernizing the machinery-building industry, including the Kumsong Tractor Factory and the Sungni Motor Complex, as well as equipment and production lines in light industry factories;
• Procuring raw materials in a self-reliant manner;
• Increasing livestock and the production of fruit, mushrooms, and fish—an indication that North Korea’s concern in the area of agriculture has moved beyond just producing enough to feed its people to diversifying their diet.

Improving North-South Relations toward Independent Reunification

“The United States and its vassal forces and their desperate manoeuvres to ignite a war” are obstacles to national reunification, according to Kim Jong-un.

And although the previous conservative administration in South Korea was ousted and replaced by another, thanks to the massive resistance of the South Korean people, he noted,

“nothing has been changed in the relations between the north and the south.”

On the contrary, he said, South Korean authorities are siding with the United States in its hostile policy towards North Korea and he wishes to “put an end to this abnormal situation.”

Kim then made two important gestures to South Korea. He declared North Korea’s doors open “to anyone from south Korea, including the ruling party and opposition parties, organizations and individual personages of all backgrounds, for dialogue, contact and travel.” As for the Winter Olympic Games, he said,

“We earnestly wish the Olympic Games a success and we are willing to send a delegation and the authorities of the north and the south may meet together soon to discuss this.”

South Korean President Moon Jae-in has always wanted the Winter Olympics in South Korea in February to be an opportunity to showcase North-South unity and had repeatedly requested the North’s participation in the upcoming games.

Kim’s speech seems to indicate that with new found confidence in its ability to defend against U.S. aggression, North Korea is now ready to prioritize engagement with the new administration in the South. But its offer of detente is not without conditions. South Korea should, said Kim, 

“discontinue all the nuclear war drills they stage with outside forces” and “refrain from any acts of bringing in nuclear armaments and aggressive forces from the United States.”

This echoes the spirit of the June 15 North-South Joint Declaration, signed by former leaders Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il in 2000—which states the question of Korea’s reunification should be resolved “independently and through the joint efforts of the Korean people.” (Read: Without the United States.)

At Moon Jae-in’s request, the United States agreed today to delay the joint military exercise that normally takes place in the Spring to avoid a flare-up of military tension during the Olympics. On Wednesday, North and South Korea reopened a communication channel in the truce village of Panmunjeom after it had been shut down for two years since ousted South Korean President Park Geun-hye unilaterally closed down the inter-Korean industrial zone in Kaesong in February 2016.

Rather than celebrating recent developments as breakthroughs toward peace, U.S. pundits were quick to pooh-pooh them. If South Korea “runs off the leash,” said Daniel R. Russel, former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Obama administration, to the New York Times,

“it will exacerbate tensions within the alliance.”

He added, 

“It is fine for the South Koreans to take the lead, but if they don’t have the U.S. behind them, they won’t get far with North Korea.”

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted the United States should skip the Winter Olympics if North Korea attends:

“I’m confident South Korea will reject this absurd overture and fully believe that if North Korea goes to the Winter Olympics, we do not.”

Scott Snyder of the Council on Foreign Relations chimed in and called Kim Jong-un’s offer of detente a “trap” in The Atlantic:

“Now [Moon Jae-in] faces the added problem that his own near-term political goals could trap him into concessions that might weaken South Korea’s alliance with the United States.”

Why is the prospect of peace in Korea so threatening to those vested in maintaining the US-ROK alliance? U.S.’ alliance with South Korea—and Japan—is critical to its strategic interests in Asia, a region that the previous administration had identified as the center of this century’s global economy in its “pivot to Asia” doctrine. In Northeast Asia, the United States has invested billions of dollars to construct a trilateral missile defense system with South Korea and Japan to curtail China’s power in the region. To U.S. military strategists, South Korea, with a ‘real live enemy’ to its north, provides an ideal training ground for its forces, which routinely conduct massive exercises that simulate real war scenarios and involve tens of thousands of troops from the region as well as the continental United States.

South Korea is also among the top purchasers of U.S. weapons, a major source of earning for the United States. In the past decade, the United States sold more than $30 billion worth of weapons to South Korea. For the U.S. military industrial complex, a divided Korea perpetually threatened by war is a bonanza. And the continued division of the peninsula is critical to keep it that way. In short, what the United States seeks, in the name of the “US-ROK alliance,” is to turn the Military Demarcation Line that separates North and South Korea into a permanent border. Even as Moon and Kim take cautious steps to resume North-South contact, we can be sure that the wheels are already turning in Washington to undermine this effort.

Former human rights lawyer Moon Jae-in has said he wants South Korea to be “able to take the lead on matters on the Korean Peninsula.” 2018 will be a test of his determination to see his vision through. The South Korean people, who, just one year ago, took to the streets in the bitterest winter months to say, “Basta ya!” accomplished something no one had previously imagined possible: the ouster of the dictator’s daughter, Park Geun-hye. They can, once again, achieve what had once seemed out of reach by pressing the Moon Jae-in government to fulfill his vision—use the Winter Olympics as an opportunity for a breakthrough toward lasting peace and national reconciliation in defiance of the U.S. military industrial complex. To that end, peace and anti-war forces in the United States, too, need to press their own government to give South Korea the room to chart its own course.

*

This article was originally published by Zoom in Korea.

Featured image is from KCNA.

A new round of political warfare has been ignited in Washington by the impending publication of a behind-the-scenes tell-all volume written by journalist Michael Wolff, based largely on interviews with former Trump counselor Stephen Bannon.

Several anti-Trump media outlets carried excerpts of the book, Fire and Fury:Inside the Trump White House, in advance of its planned publication next week. The Guardian highlighted Bannon’s comment that the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between top campaign aides and a Russian delegation was “treasonous” and “unpatriotic,” as well as monumentally stupid.

New York magazine published a full chapter of the book, detailing the shock felt by Trump, his wife and closest aides on election night when the Republican ticket unexpectedly prevailed over the heavily favored Democrat Hillary Clinton. Fully expecting to lose, Trump hoped to profit from his increased celebrity to launch a new television network. Top aides had their own next ventures in the planning stages, not anticipating the debacle of the Democratic campaign.

The response of the White House to the publication of Fire and Fury was full-on hysteria. Trump personally denounced Bannon as having “lost his mind,” while declaring that his former campaign chairman and White House counselor had rarely even been in one-on-one meetings with him.

Attorneys for Trump sent “cease-and-desist” letters to Bannon and to the book’s publisher, Henry Holt & Co. The letter to Bannon demanded that he stop violating the confidentiality agreement he signed when he became an employee of the Trump campaign in August 2016. The clear implication of such a demand, however, is that Bannon is telling the truth in the comments quoted by Wolff.

The letter to Holt demanded that the book—already printed and sent to bookstores—should not be made available for sale. In response, the publisher moved up the date for general sale from January 9 to this morning, Friday, January 5. The book is already number one in presale orders in the US market, according to Amazon, and Trump’s public attacks assure it wide circulation.

Bannon responded in a conciliatory fashion to Trump’s diatribe, praising Trump’s political record during an appearance on his Breitbart News radio program, and telling a caller that he continued to support the president. Despite such reassurances, there is no question that the new book has dealt a significant political blow to the White House, which Trump may not survive.

Opponents of Trump among congressional Democrats and Republicans and in the bulk of the corporate-controlled media seized on the book to give a new blast of publicity to the Russia investigation, which is largely driven by foreign policy differences within the US ruling elite.

Congressional opponents also cited the portrait of the president given by Wolff throughout the volume to support claims that Trump is mentally unfit and could be subject to removal from office, either through impeachment or use of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.

Such suggestions have nothing in common with the deep-seated opposition to the policies of the Trump administration in the working class, and among youth and immigrants. They reflect concerns in sections of the ruling elite, including both Democrats and a growing number of leading Republicans, that Trump’s erratic and provocative conduct will trigger a mass popular movement that would threaten the bourgeois order as a whole.

Bannon’s opposition to Trump has a somewhat different character from other factions of the ruling elite. He has long been identified with the project of building a mass fascist movement in the United States, and for a number of years has focused his efforts on transforming the Republican Party into an ultra-right nationalistic organization on the model of the French National Front or the Alternative for Germany.

Bannon was ousted from the White House as part of its reorganization under retired General John Kelly, brought in as chief of staff in July to impose greater control by the military over the crisis-ridden administration. Since then, Bannon has openly denounced the Republican congressional leadership and backed a series of ultra-right challengers to sitting Republican senators, most notably Roy Moore in Alabama, who was defeated December 12 in a special election by Democrat Doug Jones.

In service of the creation of an ultra-right “populist” movement, Bannon has advocated a combination of racist and anti-immigrant provocations, like the Charlottesville riot and widespread deportations, with demagogic sallies against the “Eastern establishment” and even Wall Street (although Bannon is himself a veteran of Goldman Sachs and the principal backer of his Breitbart News is hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer).

Trump has rebuffed Bannon’s approach in favor of a full-scale embrace of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, and even cuts in the estate tax, while offering nothing to working people and targeting popular social programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for budget cuts.

It is noteworthy that the Wolff book, for which Bannon was the principal source, has gone to press only days after Trump signed the tax cut legislation into law.

Their current conflict by no means rules out a rapprochement between Trump and Bannon at some further stage, particularly in the event of the outbreak of social struggles in the United States where the White House may feel the need for a new round of populist demagogy.

That said, the Wolff book underscores not merely the “unfitness” of Donald Trump, but the unfitness of the entire class in whose interests he rules America.

What can be gleaned from the excerpts published so far is a portrait of a man who is profoundly, willfully ignorant about anything that does not touch directly on his own ability to make money and his own personal comfort: in other words, a figure quite representative of the worst traits of the American corporate elite.

Trump spends his entire day in phone calls with a narrow circle of cronies and watching cable television, interrupted by occasional meetings with his staff and cabinet, during most of which Trump talks and does not listen. In a particularly lacerating passage, Wolff writes:

“Here, arguably, was the central issue of the Trump presidency, informing every aspect of Trumpian policy and leadership: He didn’t process information in any conventional sense. He didn’t read. He didn’t really even skim. Some believed that for all practical purposes he was no more than semi-literate. He trusted his own expertise—no matter how paltry or irrelevant—more than anyone else’s. He was often confident, but he was just as often paralyzed, less a savant than a figure of sputtering and dangerous insecurities, whose instinctive response was to lash out and behave as if his gut, however confused, was in fact in some clear and forceful way telling him what to do.”

Trump’s supporters, particularly in Fox News, pointed to Wolff’s admission that many of the episodes he describes were based on conflicting accounts by rival White House aides, not on his direct observation. They have not explained what possessed Trump to approve the Wolff book, which he apparently expected to be a glowing portrait of the first 100 days of the new administration.

Wolff is the author of a previous gossipy volume (2008) about Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News. Murdoch, like Trump, had agreed to be the subject in the expectation of a puff piece, then fired a top aide when the book turned out to be less than flattering.

On 21 September 2017, the Supreme Leader of the Iranian Islamic Revolution, spoke to the head and the members of the Assembly of Experts with kind of a State of the Nation Speech.

He addressed many issues from internal affairs, competing factions within the Islamic Revolution, to external relations – and the economy. He also referred to The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly called the Iran Nuclear Deal, the international agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, reached in Vienna, Austria, on 14 July 2015. The accord is barely two and half years old and already breached by one of the five main-sponsors, the United States of America. The agreement also refers to the P5+1, meaning the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) – China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States – plus Germany and, of course Iran. The European Union was also part of the agreement in an observer function.

With regard to the JCPOA, the Ayatollah said

“The problem that I had and continue to have with the nuclear negotiations – I have discussed this matter in private and in public with officials – is this: what I am saying is that it was alright to negotiate, there was nothing wrong with negotiating, but those negotiations should have been conducted with care and precision so much so that every short move by us will not be considered as the violation of the Bar-Jaam [the JCPOA], while this is not the case for every wrong move that the other side makes! This is wrong! This should not happen. This happens due to lack of trust in and attention to domestic power. This state of affairs happens due to reliance on the other side and on foreign elements.

I will tell you that we should not pin our hopes on foreigners. We should work with the world and I am not opposed to this. Working with the world naturally has certain requirements. We accept these requirements and we shoulder them, however we are not relying on foreigners. This is because our enemies are too many outside the environment of society and the country. There is a front of enemies against us. Well thankfully, we have delivered blows to this front until today. We have defeated it and pushed it back and this will be the case from now on too, but we should know that we are not faced with a single enemy, rather we are faced with a front of enemies.”

The Supreme Leader clearly refers to the non-trustworthiness of the US of A and her vassal allies, i.e. the European Union and her member countries, foremost, Germany, France and the UK. And he is of course right. Western ‘partners’ are almost unilaterally not reliable. Washington, especially Trump and his generals, directed by their Deep State handlers, the most prominent of whom is Netanyahu, the Zionist-in-chief and close buddy of the Donald, actually so close that he and his cronies decide on US foreign policy, i.e. that Iran is a terror state and has to be ‘neutralized’. This means the nuclear deal negotiated under Obama should be declared nil. Trump has been doing this ever since he ascended to the throne, and even before, during his campaign.

Without the Zionists money (i.e. Wall Street), it may have been difficult for Trump’s dark handlers to catapult him into the Oval Office. In his Tweet-manners, Trump issues threats after absurd threats to Iran, all baseless and outright lies. Wake up, world, for those who still read and believe in Trumps unfounded accusations, be it on Iran, North Korea, Syria or Venezuela – and in fact many more – tweet back, asking warrior Donald to stop his aggressions and seek peace instead. If We, the People, the 99.9%, send him this massive message, he may reconsider sending his “fury and fire” message around the globe, boasting of having his finger on the red nuclear trigger bottom. In reality, he doesn’t want to see himself and his multi-billion fortunes going up in flames. Yet, calling these threats ‘kindergarten speek’ would be dangerous, because this madman, much-much madder than the “Rocketman”, is totally unpredictable. Just listen to his speech at the UN’s General Assembly of last September and to the senseless utterings of his incompetent UN-delegate, Nikki Haley. Iran knows it. Hence, the Ayatollah’s call for caution, not just for Iran, but for the rest of the world, should be taken seriously.

Another important point the Ayatollah makes in his address to the Assembly of Experts is on Iran’s economy.

“The issue of paying attention to reliance on domestic hands for the sake of solving the problems of the country should turn into a well-established idea in the people’s minds. This should be repeated, explained and clarified so many times until it turns into a definite discourse.

We have motivated youth and skilled individuals. We have good producers, good entrepreneurs, good laborers, good farmers, good teachers and good professors. Tasks should be improved by such individuals. It is these individuals who should eliminate the problems of the country. It is also they who should solve economic problems and various other problems related to business.

I am not saying that you should break off your relations with the world. This is not my opinion in any way. From the beginning of the Revolution, I have been among those individuals who insist on establishing relations – relations with the world. In the present time too, I have the same belief, but the point that I want to raise is this: we should not exchange our own powerful natural legs for a foreigners’ cane. If we rest on a foreigner’s cane instead of standing on our own feet and relying on ourselves, this is wrong.”

This is a clear reference to an “Economy of Resistance” which Iran has embarked on during the past couple of years, including the principles of import substitution, local investments with local money, local research and development, trading with friends and neighbors, and – especially decoupling from the western dollar-economy which will also be a protection from US imposed sanctions.

These unfounded and totally illegal economic punishments by any standards of international law, should have been lifted after the nuclear accord. This was part of the deal. But they were not lifted. To the contrary, Washington under Trump and under Netanyahu’s direction, enforced them for no other reason than an absolutely groundless allegation, “Iran is funding terrorism throughout the world.”

For once, the EU and especially the EU leaders, Germany, France and the UK, did not heed Trump’s call for continued sanctions on Iran. Instead, especially France and Germany signed bilateral trade and technology exchange agreements with Iran in the billions of euros. But make no mistake, they wouldn’t have signed them, if they weren’t on the winning side of the deals. That’s predatory capitalism at its worst. That’s what the west knows best. The only good thing for Iran about these agreements is that they cement the nuclear deal. Money – billions of dollars – is stronger for the neoliberal capitalists than Trump’s toothless threats.

However, these deals with the west bear the danger and risks associated with further exposure to the western monetary system, further vulnerability to western threats and sanctions, as all international transactions in western currencies have to transit the US banking system – and can be stopped by a US judge, practically at will. Argentina is a case in point, when in 2014 US District judge, Thomas Griesa in Manhattan, stopped an Argentinian payment to creditors of US$ 500 million, blackmailing Buenos Aires into paying an illegal debt of US$ 1.6 billion to Paul Singer’s predatory Elliott hedge fund. – Iran beware of such risks!

Sanctions of the past, nonetheless have left a dent in Iran’s economy. They contributed to inflation and to shortages of mostly foreign goods – which in turn, combined with unemployment, may have been the main reason for last week’s non-violent protests that started on 28 December in Iran’s second largest city Mashhad. They then spread across the country and, inspired by outside forces, became violent, claiming the lives of at least 21 people. They are the most violent protests since those following the 2009 elections, disputing the victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They were then said to be officially inspired by opposition candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, but, in fact, they were largely influenced and promoted by Washington’s secret services.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on 1 January, according to Reuters, blamed Iran’s foes for fomenting the unrest. Though he didn’t specify who they were, the secretary of Iran’s National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, said the United States, Britain and Saudi Arabia were behind the riots. He could have added Israel. There is no doubt, he is right on the dot. The insurrections appear like well-orchestrated western Color Revolutions, or Arab Spring type upheavals, aiming at Regime Change – what else? Similar cases abound throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world.

It is true that neoliberal factions in Iran – the fifth column – is an instrument of the west, a driving force to keep Iran within the orbit of western influence and especially the western monetary system. Iran’s leadership better be aware – this can be fatal. It will likely bring more economic strangulations as similar dependencies have brought to other nations that wanted to preserve their sovereignty instead of bending to the empire. People living under economic hardship can easily be manipulated and mobilized to raise against their government.

Iran has to walk a fine line. The Resistance Economy may require some initial sacrifices and may take time to take hold. But eventually it will. Russia has applied it fully, after the ‘western sanctions’. President Putin has repeatedly said that these sanctions where the best thing that could have happened to Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union, because they have prompted Russia to revive its agricultural sector, as well as industry and scientific research. He even said so to the Ayatollah during his last November visit to Iran, suggesting that de-dollarization of Iran’s economy might be a good thing.

Indeed, after Russia went through a couple of economically hard years, she is now on an ascending curve. This is witnessed by two years in a row as the world’s largest grain exporter – a renewed, modernized industrial park, largely replacing what Ukraine produced for Russia in the past, increased trade with the Central Asian former Soviet Republics – and especially, an economy almost completely decoupled from the dollar, working with China and the rest of the SCO on an own currency and trade exchange system, i.e. the petro-yuan, convertible in gold.

Iran could do the same, without bending over to France and Germany (and others in the corrupt EU) for billion dollar / euro trade and technology deals. France is not trustworthy, neither is Germany, they are just out there to take advantage – see Germany’s strangulation of Greece. They are vassals in Washington’s pockets. Their ‘leaders’ were put in place by Washington’s propaganda, Wall Street money and election manipulations.

My humble advice, if I may, to the Government of Iran for 2018 and beyond:

Continue pursuing the path of “Resistance Economy”, concentrating on “local production for local markets, with local currency and through local state-owned or public banking for the benefit of the national economy”. This is one of the principles of “Economy of Resistance”. – It includes ‘import substitution’ at a large scale, including using Iran’s own science, i.e. ‘research and development’ (R&D) capacity.

Refrain to the extent possible from seeking trading / business / banking relations with the west – and stay away from the IMF and the World Bank.

Instead focus on the east, on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and on some of the BRICS countries for external business and trade, and on the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) for development assistance. The future is definitely in the East, and as a member of the SCO, Iran is already part of the East – China’s One Belt Initiative (OBI) includes Iran – it is a multi-trillion-dollar (equivalent) program that will dominate economics in the coming centuries.

Use your own money, not western currencies, especially not the US dollar or its off-spring, the euro. Follow the de-dollarization example of Russia and China, if need be, develop a national cryptocurrency, controlled by the government for external trade, to circumvent western sanctions – see Venezuela.

Finally, be always aware that Washington, masterminded by “the Deep Zion-State” – will never let go. This doctrine is engraved in the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century), largely conceived by Washington’s Zionist think-tanks. Once they decided on a target, like the Ayatollah so eloquently says, i.e. Iran, Syria, Lebanon — and in Asia, North Korea and China, they will not let go. No matter whether there is a peace agreement, or whether they have made a promise, – nothing, but nothing that Washington says, signs and promises can be trusted. – The war in Syrian, for example is not ”over’’ as Mr. Putin has made believe, when he said Russia will pull out their troops. Just look at the US military base at Al-Tanf in Syria – a US base established fully illegally in Syria. The US was never invited to set foot in Syria. Yet, they not only are enhancing their base, they are also training new Daesh / ISIS terror groups to fight Damascus.

Iran will prevail. Iran is not alone. Iran has a mighty eastern alliance, including Russia and China. Trump and his handlers know it.

*

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 21^st 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.

On Tuesday, Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, delivered a rather ambiguous threat in response to a question on the maintenance of the US level of funding to the UN Palestinian refugee programme.

She replied: “The president has said that he doesn’t want to give any additional funding or stop funding until the Palestinians are agreeing (sic) to come back to the negotiating table.”

President Trump himself tweeted the following threat to UNRWA:

“But with the Palestinians no longer willing to talk peace, why should we make any of these massive future payments to them?”

Funding withdrawal

Ambiguous threats and foreign policy statements are not a new phenomenon for the Trump administration, and whilst UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness maintains they have not been informed of any change in US policy, the consequences of potential funding withdrawal from the agency must also be considered in all seriousness.

UNRWA was established in 1950 in order to provide relief services for the 700,000 Palestinian refugees who had been expelled from Palestine following the establishment of Israel. It operates in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria and provides Palestinians with primary and secondary education, health services as well as various camp infrastructure projects.

Although millions of Palestinians rely on its services, UNRWA is also sometimes criticised for perpetuating the conflict and footing the bill that Israel should be paying.

The US is UNRWA’s biggest donor with last year’s donation totaling $368m, nearly 30 percent of its total funding. In the past, when UNRWA has had a funding shortfall they have suspended programmes or certain aspects of them.

In 2015 it came close to delaying the start of the school year for nearly half a million Palestinian children. Luckily, it managed to overcome the $100m deficit after an urgent appeal by former UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon.

However, a total US funding cut would mean a serious reduction in services and the complete halt of many of the education and health programmes.

In other words, schools and health clinics would close leaving hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees across the region without schooling, health care, jobs, making their situation even more dire.

Indeed, if it is left to function at two thirds of its capacity, the viability of the agency as a whole would be called into question.

On the other hand, if the Palestinian Authority is forced to return to US mediated negotiations in exchange for the continuation of funding, UNRWA’s basic services would be left tainted with the political demands of an administration that is determined to defy international consensus.

This is particularly problematic in light of Trump’s recent recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, defying international law.

Aid and politics

This too, however, is not new, with aid and development in Palestine long being held captive to politics. In a recent piece for MEE, Alaa Tartir explained:

“Aid flows over the decades resulted in entrenchment of aid dependency…which stripped the Palestinian people of power to resist colonialism, apartheid and oppression”.

The political strings attached to aid, and Palestinian dependency on it, are among the main reasons that have kept Palestinians from developing a sustainable resistance to the Israeli settler colonial regime. Indeed, UNRWA, and other international agencies, are paying the bill for Israel’s military occupation and thus are huge factors in maintaining the status quo.

Should UNRWA cease its operations, the gap will have to be filled by someone else. This is an important detail which seems to have escaped President Trump.

It’s not yet clear whether the Trump administration’s threats are directed towards UNRWA or the PA and it is very likely that the administration itself is also unsure of the recipient of these threats.

What is clear, however, is that if the threats were directed at the former, the Palestinian refugees will once again be the ones who suffer for the political decisions of a leadership that refuses to fight for their fundamental right to return home.

If it was directed at the latter, the PA is left with very few cards to play especially with its legitimacy among the Palestinian people dwindling.

*

Yara Hawari is the Palestine Policy Fellow for Al Shabaka – The Palestinian Policy Network. She completed her PhD at the University of Exeter in Middle East politics and frequently writes for various media outlets. 

This article first appeared on GR in June 2017.

Since 2010, Father Daniel Maes (78), from the monastery of Postel in Belgium, has been a resident of Syria’s sixth-century Mar Yakub monastery in the city of Qara, 90 kilometers north of the capital Damascus. He has returned to his home country several times in the intervening years to give seminars, but remains living in Syria.

I interviewed Father Daniel recently. The following is his story. He told me why he went to Syria in 2010, and how he experienced a culture shock when he first arrived there. He also explained that there never was a civil uprising in Syria, touched on the propaganda surrounding chemical attacks, relayed heartbreaking stories from Syrians themselves and praised the great support they receive from Hezbollah, the Syrian Army, and Russia.

A harmonious society

During one of the international ecumenical gatherings, I met Mother Agnes-Mariam, the founder of the Mar Yakub monastery – which once was one of the most famous monasteries of the Middle East. I was very impressed by her modesty and work, and I invited her to come to speak in Belgium several times after that. Her talks were very successful. At one point, she asked me:

“I have visited you so many times. When will you visit us?“

And that’s when I decided to go to Syria.

I had never had any contact with an Arabic country, so I had many prejudices. I thought that one had to be very careful in a Muslim country. To describe my experience in just a few words: It was nothing less than a culture shock to me. The hospitality that I experienced there was amazing, and the majority of youth, and the different kinds of people, from all walks of life and religions – Shiite, Sunni, Orthodox, Catholic, any possible religion – were all united. Regarding the country as a whole, life was harmonious; I have never seen such a harmonious society.

Hospitality was not only shown to Christians; there was no distinction made between Muslims and Christians. In all of Damascus, I think, there was not even one door that was locked. On a certain evening, I met a Christian woman who has a tourist office in Damascus. She told me:

“I’ve been in many countries, and places. I’ve been in Brussels, I’ve been in Paris, and there is no other city like Damascus, where you can go out at night in safety.”

She was a beautiful lady, and she could safely walk the streets. In addition, treatment at hospitals was free, except medicines (all made in Syria!), and following a program of study at the university cost around 20 euros. On the whole, I witnessed a prosperous, safe, hospitable, and harmonious society. And refugees, about one million from Iraq and some from Bosnia, were treated as their own citizens.

Monastery Deir Mar Yaqoub in Qara, Syria

No civil uprising took place in Syria

As soon as the lies started pouring in, I started my fight against those lies with the truth. One journalist claimed that when he was in Syria, he “asked for bread, but received bullets instead” – as if to prove that there was a civil uprising. Let me tell you, when I was in Syria before the war, 10 loaves cost 10 cents – a tenth of a euro. What nonsense this journalist was spouting. That has been my battle; against those lies. The West was trying to ‘find’ any reason to murder that country.

On a Friday evening we went to the priest in Qara. We would occasionally go out here and there to Christian families to pray for those who were ill. At some point we went to the presbytery to get food, we were walking, and on the street there was the main mosque, where we saw a group of young people.

They were screaming, yelling and held anti-Assad and anti-Syria banners. The priest told us later on that they were not Syrians. They came from abroad. They were filming their ‘demonstration’ and were paid generously by Al Jazeera for that. That was the so-called civil uprising. Thankfully, that was still at the very beginning, otherwise we would not be alive today. It was a very unpleasant feeling as we walked by those people to go to the presbytery.

At the time we didn’t know it was so organized. We heard from friends that the same occurred in other places. Since troublemakers are not wanted in any of our villages, this group of young people were not supported by anyone in the village. Still, they managed to grow. It grew to arson attacks and armed violence. The priest was also attacked, robbed, and was able to barely escape from strangulation by masked men with strange accents.

The organized and armed ‘opposition’ were now calling the shots. In Homs and Quosseir, children from Christian families and moderate Muslim families were threatened or even killed if they refused to participate in anti-government demonstrations. As the local archbishop, Jean-Clément Jeanbart, said:

“If the people of Aleppo had not resisted these armed gangs energetically, and helped the army, the city would’ve been taken by rebels in a single day.“

There was NO uprising, or so-called ‘civil war’; from within, there was no reason for it.

The great majority of Syrians continue to support their democratically elected President, as well as the Syrian Army.

Chemical attack propaganda

The story surrounding the chemical gas attack in August 2013 was a disgrace. Not a single journalist reported on the irregularities, and didn’t ask any critical questions. In early August 2013, 11 villages were attacked in Lattakia. People were killed and homes destroyed, and many children were kidnapped. We tried to help find them. A list was compiled with their name, gender, and a note on whether they were missing, had been kidnapped or were murdered. There was not a word on this from the media.

Obama had announced in 2012, under intense media interest, that the use of chemical weapons was a ‘red line’. In other words, a reason to invade or attack Syria militarily, which the ‘international community’ was impatiently waiting for. Syria gave the UN and its agencies dozens of letters with evidence of chemical attacks by rebels, which was confirmed by nuns at a hospital in Aleppo. Not one letter has been answered and not a single attack has been investigated.

An official commission of inquiry was sent to Damascus and, while they arrived safe and sound, a massive chemical poison attack took place in nearby Ghouta under their noses. Western heads of state immediately expressed their horror at the atrocity, which they assumed had been ordered by Assad, and before the commission even began investigating it. In addition, the heads of state gave very different figures, ranging from 200 to 1,000 deaths. Apparently, they were better at agreeing amongst themselves who the culprit was (Assad) than they were regarding the number of victims.

The 35 professional videos, published right after the attack, showing a great number of dying children, went around the world. Left out was key context; that region had long been abandoned by families because of the fighting. And nowhere was a mother or an elder to be seen! Parents from Lattakia recognized their kidnapped children. Some were lying in different positions in the pictures.

How is it possible that no parents were present in those photos and footage? How could they even publish all that documentary evidence so soon after the attack? Why were the bodies of those innocent children neatly put together in one room? And that in a Middle Eastern village which was already emptied – how could there have been children there to begin with? Instead of asking these questions, accusations were thrown around before any investigation took place, making it clear to me that it was a set-up.

In my efforts against the lies, I try to make it clear that what people say or think is not neutral. It is important to ask: Are you standing side-by-side with the murderer or do you stand on the side of truth and the innocent victims?
Also, everybody should know by now that the WMDs story of Iraq was nothing but a lie: there were no WMDs. Now they’re telling us that Assad is killing his people? Everyone who has even a bit of a brain will understand immediately that all this is a set-up, that these allegations do not hold water.

The Syrian people know who their killers are; the terrorists – and they know who their protectors are, the Syrian army and their allies. So I can’t help but ask journalists: are you so stupid to think that the people here are too stupid to know who the murderers and saviors are?

To this day, there are posters and pictures up all over Syria praising Assad and Putin – that is the reality.

While Western nations continue to lie, Russia tells the truth

Heartbreaking stories

I have many stories from Syria. I will tell you a couple. In early May 2016, dozens of Syrians and Lebanese came together at a festive meeting for martyrs. There were such touching stories. A woman with a baby in her arms was there, with a tear in her eye and a smile. Her loved one was killed by the terrorists. These people greeted me kindly as a European foreigner, but you can’t help but feel ashamed.

There was also the Muslim family of Fawad. The Christian neighborhoods of Homs were the first ones the media reported as ‘freed’ by the so-called rebels, who had murdered, plundered, and destroyed. 130,000 Christians were expelled, and Muslims also suffered a lot due to the horrors of the ‘liberation’. Fawad’s father told how his only son was a student at the University of Homs. On a certain day, he didn’t come home; he had been kidnapped. All searches were in vain.

After some time, the parents received a phone call: “Would you like to see your son again?” The father promised to give everything or do anything in order to get his son back. A couple of days later, someone rang their doorbell. They opened the door and they saw a picture of their son on a plastic bag, after which a car drove away quickly. In the bag was the body of their son, in pieces. At first the father was furious. Later he was present at the Musalah meeting. The father continues to speak with great conviction:

“We forgive those who killed our son. Let us forgive on behalf of Fawad and on behalf of God. That is the price we have to pay for peace.“

They felt so lost, and so tired of suffering.

Before and after pictures of Syria. Do people truly think ‘rebels’ have Syria’s best interests at heart?

Our experience in Qara, liberated by Syrian Army and Hezbollah

Since 2012, our town of 25,000 residents quickly grew to 80,000 with strange bearded and heavily-armed men. Tens of thousands of armed terrorists attacked Qara and used it as a base from which to carry out attacks. However they were only able to carry out two or three small attacks from there.

Together with Muslim families, including children, we hid in the basement of the church, not giving away any signs of life. Muslims took care of us and we took care of them, while we entertained their children as best we could. We all had our hands full to keep them busy. Also, to keep them from being afraid, while for us there was no time to be afraid.

We moved some furniture inside, and behind the furniture the Muslim women slept. We slept on the other side. For a whole week, we had no water, but luckily there was snow. We had a garden which provided us with some almonds, cherries, figs and grapes. We also had bags of corn in the basement, which we ate from. It was an eye-opening experience, living together.

On a Sunday morning, the door was opened, a man came in and said, “It’s over“. His name was Ruah Allah, i.e. ‘Spirit of God’!

Hezbollah helped a lot in fighting off those terrorists in Qara. They were the first to provide help; along with the Syrian army, they protected and saved the people of Syria. The fact that we’re still alive is otherwise inexplicable. Qara was very dangerous in November 2013.

Hezbollah was originally set up because Zionists murdered their wives and children and destroyed their homes. They’re young idealists who joined Hezbollah as resistors, who want to serve and protect their people, but also, as it were, have sworn to help those who are similarly being threatened by the same kind of brutal aggression. And, if Syria would fall, then Lebanon wouldn’t survive more than a few days after that, either. The idealism of those young people was inspiring. As Shiites they work together with Syrian soldiers, most of whom are Sunni. They also work well together with Christians. It was a pleasant experience. They continue to protect the population and therefore us.
Near the end of 2013, the army and Hezbollah cleared the town of terrorists. One after another terrorist group fled. We don’t know how exactly it happened, but the Syrian army and their allies had the upper hand. There were still some small groups of rebels left at the time. But, soon after, some residents returned, shops and business re-opened and the spirits of the people were lifted. Some residents came back to help to rebuild. Our garden has been more or less damaged, but we are working on restoring it.

Brave Hezbollah soldiers, putting their lives in danger to protect the Syrian people.

Enter Russia

We are also very thankful to Russia. If Russia didn’t come in 2015, then we would not be here today and Syria would not exist anymore. Russia says what it does and does what it says. We haven’t had direct interaction with Russians. Northern Aleppo had more contact with them. But we have seen trucks full of humanitarian supplies from Russia. A lot was organized.

Certainly, the Russians have their own reasons for being there. Just as the US is there to serve its own agenda, which wants to achieve it by destroying Syria and putting puppets in charge there, as they have done to other countries in the past 25 years, with 20 million deaths as a result. Russia on the other hand wants to do anything it can to create stability for the country, and also for its own safety.

They support the idea that the country itself should choose its own government and president. They want to protect the stability, integrity and sovereignty of the country. And if Russia has some kind of an agenda in all of this as well, well, then my choice regarding whether I’d want the US or Russia here has been made quickly. We have nothing more than appreciation for the Russians. As I said, we didn’t have personal contact with them. But based on what I’ve seen and heard from Syrian citizens, I know enough.

And you have to admit, Putin sure is an artist. Russia put up no-fly zones, against the US! It is exactly the opposite of what the US wanted to do: to provide no-fly zones in favor of the terrorists, not in favor of the Syrian army. And, while the so-called international coalition has more military power, Russia manages to do so much more. Russia is four times better than all those who protect and transport ISIS puppets to serve their political interests.

Syrians feel immense gratitude towards Russia and President Putin.

Situation now in Qara: Help from the community and the church

Since the beginning, Mother Agnes-Mariam established three centers: in Jerama (Damascus), Qara (the Monastery) and Tartous. We’re receiving many containers, but you can’t do anything with those supplies if they aren’t organized. There are a lot of medical supplies for many hospitals, everywhere people need medical help. We work day and night on organizing these supplies, and other kinds of supplies. We receive medical supplies, clothes, and food at our storage room, then we select and organize them. We quickly first take food out from the containers (due to their expiration date). We put everything neatly in boxes, and write down what and how much is in each box. These boxes are then sent out.

It’s tragic. The terrorists are very well cared for and armed by their sponsors, while Syrians are in need of medical help. Terrorists destroyed many hospitals, a whole series of hospitals in fact. Thankfully, in cooperation with the Red Crescent, Sweden has offered us a big hospital including all equipment. It’s a perfect and modern clinic, which we are very thankful for. And since the beginning, we received very great help from the Dutch organization Dorcas.

In addition, Mother Agnes-Mariam, with the help of hundreds of volunteers and some paid workers, have been providing warm meals in Aleppo since September last year. 25,000 warm meals, five days a week, for two months, using products from the region – which also supports the work of the region. The miracle is that it was foreseen happening for two months but continues to this today!

There’s been much emphasis on rebuilding. This month I went back to help do that. Families with children have moved elsewhere, they said they want a future, certainty and safety. However, others have stayed, especially a group of enthusiastic young people, who have many ideas and provide much work and effort in rebuilding Qara. And every day, one of our sisters sets up creative knitwork for 35 women in the village, which the women receive an income from. The knitwork is sold, given or sent to friends abroad. Many have thanked us for our work.

We also grow mushrooms, and there are many other small activities that help people earn an income. There were people with a handicap in the town because they had isolated themselves, but we invited them to the monastery for Easter; it was a unique experience for all of us. They then felt part of the community and have started working also; they have now been integrated into society. We’re also working on a carpet factory, where people can work on making carpets. The population is probably not waiting for carpets! But we will try to sell them outside to help citizens gain an income. We have to truly be thankful for what we have.

We’ve also worked on restoring our gardens and orchards. This area has the best cherries in the whole world. They used to sell containers full of cherries to Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, much have been destroyed. But we have planted thousands of tiny plants and small trees.

‘If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.’ (Lev 26:3-4) – Cherry trees in Qara.

Hope for Syria

The country has become much more united. During the festive meeting of martyrs, one could clearly see the unity of the people, between Alawites, Catholics, Shiites, Sunnis, Christians… We have become one family, that continues to become bigger and stronger. Certain people can murder, kill, destroy infrastructure, but bringing a country to its knees will not happen.

Figure this: Alawites are probably ‘worse’ for Muslims than Christians, as the Alawites haven’t taken anything from Islam. And it is this man, President Assad, who is being supported by all, including the 70% Sunni Syrian population. We live together as one family. We work together towards the same society – and that is very strong.

There is hope. Solidarity will grow, and the harmonious connection is still there. Every country has its shortcomings, but in all of the misery, there are heroes. There are heroes and there are holy men. Amongst Muslims and others.

We can also see that there is a move from a unipolar world to a multipolar world, and I hope that for Syria this year we’ll continue to make progress. We’ve been through many years of war, but our unity has only become stronger.

Father Daniel lastly thanked me for the opportunity to speak about what he has experienced in Syria. He recalls two journalists who visited him in Qara. One of them started with the question: “Are you a fan of Assad?” To which he answered:

“If I publicly say that I am against terrorists killing our Belgian Prime Minister Michel, then does that make me a fan of Michel or a paid fan of the Belgian regime?“

Journalists also tend to ask about the ‘civil war’, to which he replies that there never was one.

“They want to paint a certain picture. They want to hear stories of the brutal dictator. I’m pretty certain those interviews were never broadcasted,” he told me with a laugh. He didn’t give the answers they wanted to hear. He told the truth.

Originally from Afghanistan, Bahar Azizi lives in Europe, holds an MA in psychology, is an instructor in Éiriú Eolas meditation, and is a keen animal lover. Bahar has been a contributing writer and editor at SOTT.net since 2012 and occasionally co-hosts the ‘Behind the Headlines’ show on ‌the Sott Radio Network.

All images in this article are from the authors.

The Trump administration has begun the year with an open and reckless threat of nuclear war against North Korea—a conflict that would inevitably drag in other nuclear-armed powers, with catastrophic consequences for the world.

In a New Year’s speech, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un offered talks with South Korea to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula but warned the US he was ready to defend North Korea. The entire US mainland, he declared, was “within the range of our nuclear weapons and the nuclear button is always on the desk of my office.”

US President Donald Trump fired off a derogatory and provocative tweet:

“Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!”

The remarks further inflame an extremely tense situation and undermine the meeting between North and South Korea scheduled for next Tuesday. In an earlier tweet, Trump was decidedly cool toward the prospect of such talks, saying:

“Perhaps that is good news, perhaps not—we will see!”

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders faced hostile questioning over Trump’s tweet, with one journalist asking: “

Should Americans be concerned about the President’s mental fitness that he appears to be speaking so lightly about threats regarding a nuclear button?”

Sanders responded by questioning North Korean leader Kim’s mental fitness, then aggressively defending Trump’s threat.

“This is a president,” she declared, “who’s not going to cower down and he’s not going to be weak, and is going to… stand up and protect the American people.”

Sanders attacked the previous Obama administration for failing to tackle North Korea and declared that the Trump administration was going to continue its strategy of “maximum pressure” on the Pyongyang regime. Trump has insisted he will not allow North Korea to build a nuclear missile capable of reaching continental America and will, if necessary, use military force to prevent it.

Trump came under fire from several congressional Democrats, with Ro Khanna calling for new legislation restricting the president’s ability to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike without authorisation. Jim Himes expressed the fear that Trump’s tweet could result in a fatal miscalculation with North Korea, warning:

“That would get real very quickly.”

These reactions reflect sharp divisions in ruling circles in Washington over Trump’s confrontational policies toward North Korea and China, which have produced mounting calls for the president’s removal.

“This Tweet alone is grounds for removal from office under the 25th Amendment. This man should not have nukes,” Richard Painter, a lawyer who worked for President George W. Bush commented.

Under the 25th amendment, the vice-president and a majority of cabinet can dismiss a president deemed to be unfit to hold office.

The bitter factional disputes in Washington are tactical in character. The political establishment as a whole has backed a succession of criminal wars of aggression over the past 25 years and would not hesitate to back the use of nuclear weapons to defend US economic and strategic interests. Those opposed to Trump, however, view Russia rather than China as the most immediate threat to be dealt with.

Trump’s bellicose threats to use the huge US nuclear arsenal are not just aimed at North Korea. They are designed to send a warning to any country that poses a challenge to American global hegemony. Trump has continued President Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia” against China that includes a huge military build-up in the Asia Pacific region in preparation for war.

The Trump administration has exploited the supposed North Korean threat to justify huge joint military exercises with South Korea and pressure China to impose crippling sanctions on the Pyongyang regime. The Chinese leadership is clearly concerned at the danger of war, including nuclear war, in its backyard, but also reluctant to provoke a crisis in North Korea that could be used to install a pro-US regime in Pyongyang.

An editorial in the state-owned Global Times yesterday expressed alarm at Trump’s tweet, declaring that “vying for who has a bigger, more powerful nuclear button is definitely not a solution” to the confrontation.

The editorial warned that the standoff on the Korean Peninsula could not continue.

“It will get better, or get worse. If there is no major turnaround, a horrible situation might not be so far away,” it stated.

The Trump administration has repeatedly rejected Chinese proposals for negotiations with North Korea.

The terrible scale of destruction that even a limited war on the Korean Peninsula, or restricted nuclear exchange, was outlined in a lengthy essay entitled “The Korean Missile Crisis: Why Deterrence Is Still the Best Option” in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs.

The author Scott Sagan, who is highly critical of Trump, warned that the current confrontation with North Korea was more dangerous than the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, during which the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war. He argued for a policy of containment and deterrence of a nuclear-armed North Korea, akin to US strategy during the Cold War.

The alternative, Sagan explained, would be horrendous.

“According to NUKEMAP, a single 100-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated above the port city of Busan, in South Korea… would kill 440,000 people in seconds. A weapon of that size detonated over Seoul would kill 362,000; over San Francisco, the number would be 323,000.”

These estimates did not include deaths from fires and nuclear fallout.

A nuclear war would kill millions, even if it did not involve other nuclear-armed powers such as Russia and China. Yet that is exactly what Trump is threatening. Using the United Nations as a world stage last year, he belligerently declared he would “totally destroy” North Korea if it posed a threat to the US.

Sagan’s assessment was echoed this week by former US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen who warned that the world was “closer, in my view, to a nuclear war with North Korea and in that region than we have ever been.” Mullen was pessimistic about any peaceful solution, saying:

“I don’t see the opportunities to solve this diplomatically at this particular point.”

Featured image: Warships of the U.S. Navy. (Photo credit: U.S. Navy)

I met John Lennon and Yoko Ono on Christmas Eve in 1969.  I joined them and a small group of local peace activists in a Christmas fast for world peace in front of Rochester Cathedral in England, a short walk from where I lived with my family in Chatham Dockyard.  I was 15 years old, and my father was the dockyard medical officer, responsible for the health and safety of the dockyard workers who maintained the U.K.’s new fleet of nuclear submarines.

John and Yoko arrived before midnight mass.  We were all introduced and went in for the service.  By the time we came out, thousands of people had heard John was there.  He was still a Beatle and he was mobbed by a huge crowd, so he and Yoko decided they couldn’t stay with us as planned.  While most of our little group helped John back to their iconic white Rolls Royce, I and another boy not much older than me were left to shepherd a panicking Yoko back through the crowd to the car.  They both made it, and we never saw them again.  The next morning a florist came by with a huge box of white carnations, and we spent the rest of our Christmas and Boxing Day handing flowers to passers-by and getting to know each other – the birth of what became the Medway and Maidstone Peace Action Group.

While the U.K. was not openly involved in the Vietnam War, it was deeply involved in the Cold War and the nuclear arms race, and watching the U.K.’s closest ally destroy Vietnam led many of my generation to question the Cold War assumptions about “good guys” and “bad guys” that we’d been raised on.  John and Yoko became the de facto leaders of the peace movement, and their song “Give Peace a Chance” was a simple unifying anthem.

After two world wars, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War, we all wanted peace, but it seemed to be the one thing our leaders were not willing to try, claiming that the Cold War justified an endless arms race, and wars and coups wherever U.S. and British leaders thought they’d spotted a Red under somebody’s bed.  That included many countries whose experiments with socialism were less advanced than in the U.K., where I grew up with a cradle to grave healthcare system, free education through university, a comprehensive welfare state and state-owned utilities, railways and major industries.

The peace dividend vs the power dividend

Once the Cold War ended, the justification for 50 years of massive military spending, global warfare and coups was finally over.  Like U.S. allies, enemies and neighbors around the world, Americans breathed a sigh of relief and welcomed the “peace dividend.”  Robert McNamara and Lawrence Korb, former cold warriors of both parties, testified to the Senate Budget Committee that the U.S. military budget could be cut in half from its FY1990 level over the next 10 years.  Committee chairman Senator Jim Sasser hailed “this unique moment in history” as “the dawn of the primacy of domestic economics.”

But the peace dividend was short-lived, trumped by what Carl Conetta of the Project for Defense Alternatives has dubbed the “power dividend,” the drive to exploit the end of the Cold War to consolidate and expand U.S. military power.  Influential voices linked to military industrial interests had a new refrain, essentially “Give War a Chance.”  But of course, they didn’t put it so plainly:

• After the First Gulf War in 1991, President Bush I celebrated “kick(ing) the Vietnam syndrome,” and deployed U.S. pilots directly from Kuwait to the Paris Air Show to cash in on the marketing value of a war that had just killed tens of thousands of people in Iraq.  The next 3 years set a new record for U.S. arms sales. The Pentagon later admitted that only 7% of the bombs and missiles dropped on Iraq were the “precision-guided” ones they showcased to TV viewers, and only 41% to 60% of those “precision” weapons hit their targets anyway.  Iraq was ruthlessly carpet bombed, but we were sold a high-tech dog and pony show.
• Despite surely being well aware of the reality behind the propaganda, Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz crowed to General Wesley Clark, “With the end of the Cold War, we can now use our military with impunity.”
• As the Clinton administration took over the reins of the U.S. war machine in 1992, Madeleine Albright challenged General Colin Powellon his “Powell Doctrine” of limited war, asking him, “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”
• Albright was appointed Secretary of State in 1997, mainstreaming new political pretexts for otherwise illegal wars such as “humanitarian intervention” and the “responsibility to protect.”  But despite the steady diet of war propaganda, Albright was drowned out by protests from the audience when she threatened war on Iraq at a town hall meeting in Columbus in 1998.
• Clinton’s 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review declared, “When the interests at stake are vital… we should do whatever it takes to defend them, including, when necessary, the unilateral use of military power.  U.S. vital national interests include, but are not limited to… preventing the emergence of a hostile regional coalition… (and) ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources.”  But as the U.K. Foreign Office’s senior legal adviser told his government during the Suez crisis in 1956, “The plea of vital interest, which has been one of the main justifications for wars in the past, is indeed the very one which the UN Charter was intended to exclude as a basis for armed intervention in another country.”
• After a failed CIA coup in 1996 betrayed every CIA agent in Iraq to the Iraqi government, precluding a second coup attempt, the newly formed neoconservative Project for the New American Century began pushing for war on Iraq.  The 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, threatening “regime change” through the use of military force, passed Congress with only 38 Nays in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate.
• When U.K. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told Albright his government was having trouble “with our lawyers” over NATO’s illegal plan to attack Yugoslavia and annex Kosovo, she told him it should just “get new lawyers.”
• Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations a few weeks before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2000, Hillary Clinton derided recent U.S. wars in Panama, Kuwait and Yugoslavia as “splendid little wars” and called for what a banking executive in the audience described as a “new imperialism.”
• Samantha Power popularized the idea that the use of U.S. military force could have prevented the genocide in Rwanda, an assumption challenged by experts on genocide (see “A Solution From Hell”) but which has served ever since as a powerful political argument for the U.S. uses of military force.

Afghanistan

After pleading with the American people to “Give War a Chance” for a decade, U.S. political leaders seized on the crimes of September 11th, 2001 to justify an open-ended “global war on terror.”

U.S. Marines leaving a compound at night in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. (Source: Defense Department)

Many Americans approved of attacking Afghanistan as an act of self defense, but of course it was not Afghanistan or the Taliban that committed the crimes of September 11th.  As former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz told NPR at the time, “It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not responsible for the wrong done. If you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan, let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many people who don’t approve of what has happened.”

Sixteen years later, 16,500 U.S. troops soldier on through the graveyard of empires, while U.S. warplanes have dropped 3,852 bombs and missiles on Afghanistan since Mr. Trump took office.  No serious study has been conducted to estimate how many hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been killed since 2001.

As Matthew Hoh wrote in his resignation letter as he quit his post as the U.S. Political Officer in Zabul Province in Afghanistan in 2009,

“The Pashtun insurgency, which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite local groups, is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies.   …I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.”

Or as an Afghan taxi driver in Vancouver told me, “We defeated the Persians in the 18th century, the British in the 19th century and the Russians in the 20th.  Now, with NATO, we’re fighting 29 countries at once, but we’ll defeat them too.”  Who would doubt it?

Today, after 16 years of occupation by up to 100,000 U.S. troops, thousands of deadly “kill or capture” night raids by U.S. special operations forces and over 60,000 bombs and missiles dropped on Afghanistan on the orders of 3 U.S. presidents, the corrupt U.S.-backed government in Kabul governs less territory today than at any time since before the U.S. invasion.

The U.S. war on Afghanistan is the longest war in U.S. history.  There must be U.S. troops in Afghanistan today whose fathers were fighting there 16 years ago. This isn’t giving war a chance.  It’s giving it a blank check, in blood and money.

Iraq

When President Bush II unveiled a “national security strategy” based on a flagrantly illegal doctrine of preemptive war in 2002, Senator Edward Kennedy called it a “call for 21st century imperialism that no other country can or should accept.”  The rest of the world rejected the U.S. case for war on Iraq in the UN Security Council and 30 million people took to the streets in the largest global demonstrations in history.  But the U.S. and U.K. invaded Iraq anyway.

U.S. Army forces operating in southern Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Apr. 2, 2003 (Source: U.S. Navy)

The U.K.’s role in the invasion was thrown into limbo when Admiral Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defense Staff, told his government he could not give orders to invade Iraq without written confirmation that it would be legal.  It took Tony Blair and his cronies five full days of grappling with their legal advisers before one of them, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, who was not even an international lawyer, was willing to contradict what he and all the U.K.’s legal advisers had consistently and repeatedly told their government, that the invasion of Iraq would be a criminal act of aggression.

Four days later, the U.S. and U.K. committed the war crime of the new century, unleashing a war that has killed a million innocent people and left Iraq mired in bloody violence and chaos for 14 years and counting.

When the people of Iraq rose in resistance to the illegal invasion and occupation of their country, the U.S. launched a bloody “counterinsurgency” campaign.  As U.S. forces destroyed Fallujah and Ramadi, U.S. officials in Baghdad recruited, trained and ran Interior Ministry death squads who tortured and assassinated tens of thousands of men and boys to ethnically cleanse Baghdad and other areas on a sectarian basis.

The most recent U.S. atrocity in Iraq was the massacre of an estimated 40,000 civilians in Mosul by U.S., Iraqi, French and other “coalition” forces.  The U.S.-led bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria has dropped 104,000 bombs and missiles since 2014, making it the heaviest U.S. bombing campaign since the American War in Vietnam.  Iraqi government death squads once again prowl through the ruins of Mosul, torturing and summarily executing anyone they identify as a suspected Islamic State fighter or sympathizer.

In Iraq, “Give war a chance” does not mean, “It didn’t work here. Let’s try it somewhere else.”  It means, “Keep bombarding Fallujah, Ramadi and Mosul and massacring their people over and over again until there is nothing left but rubble and graveyards.”  That is why 9,123 U.S. troops remain deployed in a land of rubble and graveyards in the 15th year of an illegal war.

Somalia

Independent Somalia was formed from the former colonies of British and Italian Somaliland in 1970.  After initially investing in literacy and infrastructure, Said Barre and his government built the largest army in Africa, supported first by the U.S.S.R. and then by the U.S., as it waged a long war with Ethiopia over the Ogaden, an ethnically Somali region of Ethiopia.  In 1991, Barre was ousted in a civil war and the central government collapsed.  UN and U.S. military interventions failed to restore any kind of order and foreign troops were withdrawn in 1995.

For the next 11 years, a dozen warlords ruled small fiefdoms while the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), the internationally recognized government, hunkered down in Baidoa, the sixth largest city.  But the country was not as violent as some other parts of Africa.  Somalia is an ancient society and some order was preserved by traditional systems of law and government, including a unique system of customary law called Xeer, which has existed and evolved in Somalia since the 7th century.

In 2006, these various local authorities came together and formed the Islamic Courts Union (ICU).  With the support of one of the strongest warlords, they defeated other warlords, including ones backed by the CIA, in fierce fighting in the capital, Mogadishu, and soon controlled the southern half of the country.  People who knew Somalia well hailed the ICU as a hopeful development and tried to reassure the Bush administration that it was not a danger.

But the threat of peace breaking out in Somalia was too much for the “give war a chance” crowd to stomach.  The U.S. backed an Ethiopian invasion, supported by U.S. air strikes and special operations forces, plunging Somalia back into violence and chaos that continues to this day.  The Ethiopian invaders drove the ICU out of Mogadishu, and it split into factions, with some of its leaders going into exile and others forming new armed groups, not least Al-Shabaab [an offshoot of Al Qaeda], to resist the Ethiopian invasion.

After Ethiopia agreed to withdraw its forces in 2008, a coalition government was formed by TFG and ICU leaders but did not include Al-Shabaab, which by then controlled large areas of the country.  The government has been fighting Al-Shabaab ever since, supported by an African Union force and currently at least 289 U.S. special operations forces and other U.S. troops.  The government has made gains, but Al-Shabaab still controls some areas.  As it has been pushed back militarily, Al-Shabaab has launched devastating terrorist attacks in Somalia and Kenya, where the U.S. now also has 212 troops deployed.  Neighboring Djibouti hosts 4,715 U.S. troops at the largest U.S. base in Africa.

The U.S. is doggedly expanding its militarized counterterrorism strategy in Africa, with at least 7,271 U.S. troops in 47 countries as of September 30th.  But a new body of research has confirmed what independent analysts have long believed, that it is precisely these kind of operations that drive civilians into armed resistance in the first place.  A recent survey of 500 African militants by the UN Development Program found that the “tipping-point” that decided 71% of them to join a group like Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram or Al Qaeda was the killing or detention of a family member or friend in U.S.-led or U.S.-model “counterterrorism” operations.

So the circular logic of U.S. counterterrorism policy uses the emergence and growth of groups like Al-Shabaab as a pretext to expand the operations that are fueling their growth in the first place, turning more and more civilians into combatants and their homes and communities into new U.S. battlefields, to “give war a chance” in country after country.

Honduras

On June 28th 2009, President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was woken in the early hours of the morning by soldiers in combat gear bursting into his official residence.  They hauled him away at gunpoint in his pajamas, bundled him into a car and onto a plane to Costa Rica.  President Obama immediately called the coup a coup and reaffirmed that Zelaya was still the democratically-elected president of Honduras, appearing to adopt the same position as every government in Latin America, the European Union and the UN General Assembly.

But, in the coming days, as Hillary Clinton has since admitted, she went to work to push for a new election in Honduras that would, as she put it, “render the question of Zelaya moot,” by making the coup against him a fait accompli and allowing the coup regime of Roberto Micheletti to organize the new election.

Despite Obama’s statement and Wikileaks’ release of cables in which the U.S. Ambassador also called this an illegal coup, the U.S. never officially recognized that a coup had taken place, avoiding the cut-off of military aid to the post-coup government that was required under U.S. federal law and any further action to restore the democratically-elected president.  In the coming years, Honduras, which was already the murder capital of the world, became even more dangerous as labor organizers and activists of all stripes were killed with impunity by the post-coup government’s death squads.  Environmental activist Berta Cáceres’ murder caused worldwide outrage, but she is one of hundreds of activists and organizers killed.

The role of Secretary Clinton and the U.S. government in consolidating the results of the coup in Honduras should be seen in the context of the U.S.’s dominant historic role in Honduras, the original “banana republic,” 70% of whose exports are still sold to the United States.  Honduras currently hosts 529 U.S. military personnel, far more than any other country in the Western hemisphere, and they are deeply embedded with the Honduran military which committed the coup.

In the 1980s, under Ambassador John Negroponte, who eventually became Director of National Intelligence, the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa reportedly hosted the largest CIA station in the world, from where the CIA ran its covert war against Nicaragua, death squads that killed even American nuns with impunity in El Salvador and an outright genocide in Guatemala.  With this history of U.S. military and CIA involvement in Honduras, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the CIA was secretly involved in planning the coup against Zelaya.

The 2009 coup in Honduras has now come home to roost, as even the historically U.S.-controlled Organization of American States has demanded a rerun of the latest rigged election and Honduras’s feared Cobra paramilitary police have refused to repress pro-democracy protesters.  The opposition party, the Opposition Alliance Against the Dictatorship, which appears to have won the most votes in the election, is a coalition of left and right against the post-coup government.  How far will Trump and the U.S. go to rescue Clinton’s 2009 campaign in Honduras?  Will it ask us to “give war another chance?”

Yemen

From 897 (not a typo) until 1962, most of Yemen was ruled by the Zaidi Imams.  The Zaidis follow a branch of Shiite Islam, but in Yemen they coexist and worship in the same mosques as Sunnis.  The Houthis, who rule most of Yemen today, are also Zaidis.  The last Zaidi Imam was overthrown by a republican coup in 1962, but, with Saudi support, he fought a civil war until 1970.  Yes, you read that right.  In the 1960s, the Saudis backed the Zaidi royalists in the Yemeni civil war.  Now they call the Zaidis apostates and Iranian stooges and are waging a genocidal war to bomb and starve them to death.

A neighborhood in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa after an airstrike, October 9, 2015. (Source: Wikipedia)

At the peak of the previous civil war, 70,000 Egyptian troops fought on the republican side in Yemen, but the 1967 Arab-Israeli War changed the priorities of Arab countries on both sides.  In February 1968, royalist forces lifted their siege of Sana’a and the two sides began peace talks, which led to a peace agreement and international recognition of the Yemen Arab Republic in 1970.

Meanwhile, also in 1967, a popular armed rebellion forced the U.K. to withdraw from its colony in Aden, which formed the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, a Marxist state and Soviet ally.  When the Cold War ended, the two Yemens merged to form a united Republic of Yemen in 1990.  Ali Abdallah Saleh, the president of North Yemen since 1978, became president of the united Yemen and ruled until 2011.

Saleh’s repressive government alienated many sectors of Yemeni society, and the Zaidi Houthis launched an armed rebellion in their northern homeland in 2004.  The Zaidis and other Shia Muslims make up about 45% of the population and Zaidis ruled the country for centuries, so they have always been a force to be reckoned with.

At the same time, the new Obama administration launched a campaign of cruise missile and drone strikes and special forces operations against the fledgling Al Qaeda faction in the country and increased military aid to Saleh’s government.  A U.S. drone strike assassinated Yemeni-American preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, and another strike two weeks later murdered his American son, 16-year-old Abdulrahman.  Like militarized U.S. counterterrorism campaigns in other countries, U.S. attacks have predictably killed hundreds of civilians, fueling the growth of Al Qaeda in Yemen.

Arab Spring protests and political turmoil forced Saleh to resign in November 2011.  His deputy, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, was elected in February 2012 to head a unity government that would draw up a new constitution and organize a new election in two years.  After Hadi failed to hold an election or step down as president, the Houthis invaded the capital in September 2014, placed him under house arrest and demanded that he complete the political transition.

Hadi and his government rejected the Houthis’ demands and simply resigned in January 2015, so the Houthis formed a Revolutionary Council as an “interim authority.”  Hadi fled to Aden, his hometown, and then to Saudi Arabia, which launched a savage bombing campaign and naval blockade against Yemen on Hadi’s behalf.  The U.S. provides most of the weapons, munitions, satellite intelligence and in-air refueling and is a vital member of the Saudi-led coalition, but of course U.S. media and politicians downplay the U.S. role.

The Saudi-U.S. coalition’s bombing campaign has killed at least ten thousand civilians, probably many more, while a naval blockade and the bombing of ports have reduced the population to a state of near-starvation.  Hadi’s forces have recaptured Aden and an area around it, but they have failed to defeat the Houthis in the rest of the country.

U.S.-made bombs keep hitting markets, hospitals and other civilian targets in Yemen.  Western military trainers regard the Saudi armed forces as more or less untrainable, due mainly to Saudi Arabia’s rigid class and tribal hierarchy.  The officer corps, some of whom are members of the royal family, are beyond criticism, so there is no way to correct mistakes or enforce discipline.  So Saudi pilots bomb indiscriminately from high altitude, and will keep doing so unless and until the U.S. stops selling them munitions and withdraws its military and diplomatic complicity in this genocidal war.

Aid agencies keep warning that millions of Yemenis are close to starvation, but neither Saudi nor U.S. officials seem to care.  The normalization of war and the culture of apathy nurtured by 16 years of American wars that have killed millions of people in a dozen countries have left U.S. officials supremely cynical, but their cynicism will be tested in 2018 as the predictable results of this “made in the U.S.A.” humanitarian catastrophe unfold.  The U.S. propaganda machine will also be tested as it keeps trying to pin all the blame on the Saudis.

Libya

Muammar Gaddafi was a favorite villain of the West and an ally of the U.S.S.R., Cuba, Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress, the PLO, the IRA and the Polisario Front in Western Sahara.  Gaddafi created a unique form of direct democracy, and he used Libya’s oil wealth to provide free healthcare and education and to give Libya the 5th highest GDP per capita in Africa and the highest development rating in Africa on the UN’s HDI index, which measures health and education as well as income.

Gaddafi also used Libya’s wealth to fund projects to give African countries more control of their own natural resources, like a Libyan-funded factory in Liberia to manufacture and export tire grade rubber instead of raw rubber.  He also co-founded the African Union in 2002, which he envisioned growing into a military alliance and a common market with a single currency.

Militant Islamists within the military tried but failed to assassinate Gaddafi in 1993.  The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), formed by Libyans who had fought with CIA- and Saudi-backed forces in Afghanistan, was paid by the U.K.’s MI6 intelligence agency and Osama Bin-Laden to also try to kill him in 1996.  The U.K. gave asylum to some of LIFG’s members, most of whom settled among the large Libyan community in Manchester.

The U.K. banned LIFG in 2005 and confiscated its members’ passports due to its links with Al Qaeda.  But that all changed again in 2011, their passports were returned, and MI6 helped many of them travel back to Libya to join the “NATO rebels.”  One LIFG member, Ramadan Abedi, took his 16-year old son Salman with him to Libya.  Six years later, Salman struck his own blow for his family’s Islamist ideology, carrying out a suicide bombing that killed 23 young music fans at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in May 2017.

Western leaders’ eagerness to overthrow Gaddafi led France, the U.K., the U.S. and their NATO and Arab royalist allies to exploit a UN Security Council Resolution that authorized the use of force to protect civilians in Libya to overthrow the government, rejecting an African Union initiative to resolve the crisis peacefully.

The UN resolution called for an “immediate ceasefire” in Libya, but also authorized a “no-fly zone,” which became a pretext for bombing Libya’s military and civilian infrastructure with 7,700 bombs and missiles, and secretly deploying CIA officers and British, French and Qatari special operations forces to organize and lead Libyan rebel forces on the ground.

Qatar’s Chief of Staff, Major General Hamad bin Ali al-Atiya, told AFP,

“We were among them and the numbers of Qataris on the ground were in the hundreds in every region.  Training and communications had been in Qatari hands.  Qatar… supervised the rebels’ plans because they are civilians and did not have enough military experience. We acted as the link between the rebels and NATO forces.”

Qatari forces were even spotted leading the final assault on Libya’s Bab al-Aziziya military headquarters in Tripoli.

After taking Tripoli, NATO and its Libyan and Qatari allies cut off food, water and electricity to the people of Sirte and Bani Walid as they bombarded them for weeks.  The combination of aerial, naval and artillery bombardment, starvation and thirst on these civilian populations made a final, savage mockery of UNSCR 1973’s mandate to protect civilians.

Once the U.S. and its allies had destroyed Libya’s government, they abandoned it to chaos and civil war that still rage on six years later.  Two competing governments control different parts of the country, while local militias control many smaller areas.  Since 2011, human rights groups have reported that thousands of black Libyans and sub-Saharan Africans have suffered arbitrary detention and appalling abuse at the hands of the Libyan militias that the U.S. and its allies helped to take over the country.  News reports of Africans being sold in slave markets in Libya are only the latest outrage.

As Libya struggles to dig its way out of the endless chaos the U.S. and its allies plunged it into, the U.S. has more or less washed its hands of the crisis in Libya.  In 2016, U.S. foreign aid to Libya was only $27 million.

Syria

The U.S. role in the civil war in Syria is a case study in how a CIA covert operation can fuel a conflict and destabilize a country to create pretexts for U.S. military intervention.  The CIA began organizing the transport of fighters and weapons from Libya to Turkey in late 2011, as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar were militarizing an uprising in Syria that grew out of Arab Spring protests earlier in the year.  British and French special operations forces provided military training in Turkey, and the CIA managed the infiltration of fighters and the distribution of weapons across the Syrian border.

The Syrian government’s repression contributed to the transition from peaceful protests to an armed uprising.  But the primarily leftist groups that organized the political protests in 2011 were committed to opposing violence, sectarianism and foreign intervention.  They have always blamed Syria’s descent into war mainly on the foreign powers who supported the small Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and funneled more extreme foreign-based Islamist forces and thousands of tons of weapons into the country to ignite a full-scale civil war.

In 2012, as Kofi Annan tried to negotiate a ceasefire and a political transition in Syria, the U.S. and its allies poured in foreign fighters and heavier weapons and pledged even greater support to rebel forces at three Orwellian “Friends of Syria” conferences.  One of these was timed to coincide with the date when Annan’s ceasefire was to take effect, and their new pledges of weapons, money and support for the rebels were a flagrant move to undermine the ceasefire.

After Annan eventually got all sides to agree on a peace plan in Geneva on June 30th 2012, on the understanding that it would then be codified in a UN Security Council Resolution, the U.S. and its allies went back to New York and inserted new conditions and triggers for sanctions and military action in the resolution, leading to a Russian veto.  Annan’s Geneva Communique has been eclipsed by 5 more years of war and equally fruitless Geneva II, Geneva III and Geneva IV peace conferences.

Annan quit a month later and was characteristically guarded in his public statements.  But UN officials told the Atlantic in 2013 that Annan blamed the U.S. government for the failure of his mission.

“The U.S. couldn’t even stand by an agreement that the Secretary of State had signed in Geneva,” said one of Annan’s closest aides. “He quit in frustration.”

After shipping at least 2,750 tons of weapons from Libya to Turkey in 2011 and 2012, including howitzers, RPGs and sniper rifles, the CIA began scouring the Balkans for weapons left over from the wars in the 1990s that the Saudis and Qataris could buy to flood into Syria through Turkey and Jordan.  They shipped in up to 8,000 tons of weapons on flights from Croatia by March 2013.

Since then, the Saudis have bought more weapons from 8 different Balkan countries, as well as 15,000 TOW anti-tank missiles directly from the U.S. for $1.1 billion in December 2013.  That was despite U.S. officials admitting as early as October 2012 that most of the weapons shipped into Syria had gone to “hardline Islamic jihadists.”  Investigators in the Balkans report that the Saudis made their largest purchases ever in 2015, including brand new weapons straight off the production line.  Only 60% of these weapons had been delivered by early 2017, meaning that the flood of weapons will continue as long as the CIA keeps facilitating it and U.S. allies like Turkey and Jordan keep acting as conduits.

The main innovation in U.S. war-making under the Obama administration was a doctrine of covert and proxy war that avoided heavy U.S. casualties at the expense of a reliance on aerial bombardment, drone killings, a huge expansion of deadly special forces operations and the use of foreign proxy forces.  In every case, this fueled the global explosion of violence and chaos unleashed by Bush, and the main victims were millions of innocent civilians in country after country.

U.S. support for Al Qaeda splinter groups like Jabhat al-Nusra (now rebranded Jabhat Fateh al-Sham) and Islamic State turned the U.S. “war on terror” on its head.  Only ten years after September 11th, the U.S. was ready to support these groups to destabilize Libya and Syria, where the CIA was looking for pretexts for war and regime change.  The U.S. only reverted to its “war on terror” narrative after U.S. and allied support had built up these groups to the point that they could invade Iraq and take over its second largest city and a large swath of the country.

The U.S. covert proxy war in Syria led to the heaviest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam, which has reduced several cities in Iraq and Syria to rubble and killed tens of thousands of civilians; a civil war in Syria that has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians; and a refugee crisis that has overwhelmed U.S. allies in the Middle East and Europe.  After 6 years of war, Syria remains fragmented and mired in chaos.  The Syrian government has regained control of many areas, but the future remains very dangerous and uncertain for the people of Syria.  The U.S. currently has at least 1,723 troops on the ground in Syria, without any legal basis to be there, as well as 2,730 in Jordan and 2,273 in Turkey.

Ukraine

President Yanukovych of Ukraine was overthrown in a violent coup in February 2014.  Originally peaceful protests in the Maidan, or central square, in Kiev had gradually become dominated by the extreme right-wing Svoboda Party and, since November 2013, by a shadowy new group called Right Sector.  These groups displayed Nazi symbols, fought with police and eventually invaded the Ukrainian parliament building, prompting Yanukovych to flee the country.

On February 4th, 2014, leaked audio of a conversation between U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland revealed U.S. plans for a coup to remove Yanukovych and install U.S. favorite Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister.  Nuland and Pyatt used language like, “glue this thing,” “midwife this thing” and “we could land jelly side up on this thing if we move fast,” as well as the more widely reported “Fuck the EU,” who they didn’t expect to support their plan.

On February 18th, Right Sector led 20,000 protesters on a march to the parliament building.  They attacked police with Molotov cocktails, stormed and occupied government buildings and the police attacked the protest camp in the Maidan.  As running battles with the police continued over the next few days, an estimated 75 people were killed, including 10 police and soldiers.  Mysterious snipers were reported firing from Philharmonic Hall and a hotel overlooking the Maidan, shooting at police and protesters.

Yanukovych and his government held meetings with opposition leaders, and the EU sent the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland to mediate the crisis.  On February 21st, Yanukovych agreed to hold new presidential and parliamentary elections before the end of the year.

But the protesters, now led by Svoboda and Right Sector, were not satisfied and took over the parliament building.  Right Sector had broken into an armory in Lviv and seized assault rifles and pistols, and the police no longer resisted.  On February 22nd, the parliament failed to make a quorum (338 of 447 members), but the 328 members present voted to remove Yanukovych from office and hold a new election in May.  Yanukovych issued defiant statements and refused to resign, then fled to Russia.

Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine refused to accept the results of the coup.  The Crimean parliament organized a referendum, in which 97% voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which Crimea had been part of since 1783.  As an administrative matter, Kruschev had placed Crimea within the Ukrainian SSR in the 1950s, but when the USSR broke up, 94% of Crimeans voted to become an autonomous republic and 83% voted to keep dual Russian and Ukrainian citizenship.

Russia accepted the result of the referendum and now governs Crimea.  The greatest dangers to Russia from the coup in Kiev were that Ukraine would join NATO and Russia would lose its most strategic naval base at Sevastopol on the Black Sea.  NATO issued a declaration in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO.”  Also in 2008, Ukraine threatened not to renew the lease on the base at Sevastopol, which was due to expire in 2017, but it was eventually extended to 2042.

The UN has not recognized Russia’s reintegration of Crimea, and the U.S. has called it a violation of international law.  But given the history and autonomous status of Crimea, and the importance of Sevastopol to Russia, it was an understandable and predictable response to the illegal U.S.-planned coup in Ukraine.  It is the height of hypocrisy for U.S. officials to suddenly pose as champions of international law, which U.S. policy has systematically ignored, violated and undermined since the 1980s.

Russian-speaking majorities in Eastern Ukraine also declared independence from Ukraine as the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk and appealed for Russian support, which Russia has covertly provided, although the extent of it is hotly debated.  There were also large protests against the coup in Odessa on the Black Sea, and 42 protesters were killed when a Right Sector mob attacked them and set fire to the Trades Union building where they took refuge.

With the Ukrainian military unable or unwilling to launch a civil war against its Russian-speaking compatriots in the East, the post-coup government recruited and trained a new “National Guard” to do so.  It was soon reported that the Azov Battalionand other National Guard units were linked to Svoboda and Right Sector, and that they were still displaying Nazi symbols as they assaulted Russian-speaking areas in Eastern Ukraine.  In 2015, the Azov Battalion was expanded to a 1,000-strong Special Operations Regiment.

The civil war in Ukraine has killed more than 10,000 people.  The Minsk agreements between Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany in September 2014 and February 2015 established a tenuous ceasefire and withdrawal of heavy weapons by both sides, but the political problems persist, fueling outbreaks of fighting.  The U.S. has now agreed to send Ukraine Javelin anti-tank missiles and other heavier weapons, which are likely to reignite heavier fighting and complicate political negotiations.

Giving Peace a Chance?

Giving war a chance has not worked out well, to put it mildly, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Honduras, Yemen, Libya, Syria or Ukraine.  All remain mired in violence and chaos caused by U.S. invasions, bombing campaigns, coups and covert operations. In every case, U.S. policy decisions have either made these countries’ problems worse or are entirely responsible for the incredible problems afflicting them.  Many of those decisions were illegal or criminal under U.S. and/or international law.  The human cost to millions of innocent people is a historic tragedy that shames us all.  In every case, the U.S. could have made different decisions, and in every case, the U.S. can still make different decisions.

As an American general once observed, “When the only tool you’ve got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”  The allocation of most of our federal budget to military spending both deprives the U.S. of other “tools” and creates political pressures to use the one we have already paid so much for, as implied in Albright’s question to Powell in 1992.

In Mr. Trump’s new national security strategy, he promised Americans that he will “preserve peace through strength.”  But the U.S. is not at peace today.  It is a nation at war across the world.  The U.S. has 291,000 troops stationed in 183 foreign countries, amounting to a global military occupation.  It has deployed special operations troops on secret combat and training missions to 149 countries in 2017 alone.  It has dropped 39,000 bombs and missiles on Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan since Trump took office, and the U.S.- and Iraqi-led assault on Mosul alone killed an estimated 40,000 civilians.  Pretending we are at peace and vowing to preserve it by diverting more of our resources to the military industrial complex is not a national security strategy.  It is an Orwellian deception taken straight from the pages of 1984.

At the dawn of 2018, nobody could accuse the American public of not giving war a chance.  We have let successive presidents talk us into war over each and every international crisis, most of which were caused or fueled by U.S. aggression and militarism in the first place, in the belief that they may have finally found an enemy they can defeat and a war that will somehow make life better for somebody somewhere.  But they haven’t.

As we look forward to a new year, surely it is time to try something different and finally “Give Peace a Chance.”  My 15-year old self was willing to spend Christmas fasting on the cold steps of a church to do that in 1969.  What can you do to give peace a chance in 2018?

*

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

On the market day of April 26, 1937, at the bequest of General Francisco Franco, a bombing of the Basque town of Guernica took place. It was carried out by Spain’s nationalistic government allies, the Nazi German Luftwaffe’s Condor Legion and the Fascist Italian Aviazione Legionaria. The attack, under the code name Operation Rügen, in which hundreds of people died, became a rallying cry against the brutal killing of innocent civilians.

80 years later, however, an even more criminal action is carried out against Yemeni civilians by Saudi Arabia, with the complicity of the United States. 2018 has begun with the usual deadly Saudi strikes. Recent ones in the city of Hodeida have killed 23 people and Yemenis live in fear of new strikes that do not show respect for civilians, including children.

The Yemeni civil war began in 2015 between two factions that claim to represent the Yemeni government. Houthi soldiers clashed with forces loyal to the government of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. A coalition led by Saudi Arabia launched military operations against the Houthis, and the U.S. provided logistical and military support for the campaign.

The Houthi rebels make up almost a third of Yemen, and have ruled the country for hundreds of years. Since the beginning of the hostilities, the Houthis advance to the south of Yemen has met with the constant bombardment by Saudi Arabia and its allies, resulting in a dramatic humanitarian crisis. Thousands of people have been killed, many of them civilians, and thousands more have been forced to leave their homes and are desperately trying to find food and potable water.

Contaminated water as a result of an almost total sanitation breakdown has provoked a cholera outbreak considered the worst in history. The World Health Organization (WHO) has reported more than 815,000 suspected cases and 2,156 deaths. At the current rate of infection, experts estimate that the number of cases will reach seven figures by the end of the year. Presently, almost 20 million Yemenis –more than two-thirds of the population- do not have access to clean water and sanitation.

Since the beginning of the conflict, the emergency health-care needs of the population have been so great that health care workers are unable to provide even basic medical care. When fighting intensified in some areas, there were no formal rescue services so residents and relatives had to dig out their loved ones from the rubble of damaged buildings.

An Amnesty International report, “Yemen: The Forgotten War” describes the consequences of the attacks carried out by Saudi Arabia’s coalition: more than 4,600 civilians killed and over 8,000 injured; three million people forced out of their homes, 18.8 million people in need of humanitarian assistance including food, water, shelter, fuel and sanitation and two million children out of school.

The flow of arms however, continues, unabated

. “The irresponsible and unlawful flow of arms to the warring parties in Yemen has directly contributed to civilian suffering on a massive scale,” declared James Lynch, from Amnesty International.

As Iran continues its support of the Houthis’ ragtag army, reports indicate that Saudi Arabia will purchase $7 billion worth of arms from the U.S.

Human Rights Watch has documented that the Saudi-led coalition was using internationally banned cluster munitions in at least 16 attacks that targeted populated areas, killing scores of civilians including women and children.

Last February, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, “to launch an initiative aimed at imposing an EU arms embargo against Saudi Arabia” because of its conduct against civilians in Yemen.

In the meantime, health facilities continue to be hit by bombs and health and humanitarian workers are increasingly targeted. In a scene out of Guernica, Amal Sabri, a resident of Mokha, a port city on the Red Sea coast of Yemen, described a Saudi Arabia airstrike which killed at least 63 civilians,

“It was like something out of Judgment Day. Corpses and heads scattered, engulfed by fire and ashes.”

In Yemen today, world powers have not yet learned the lesson from Guernica.

*

Dr. César Chelala is an international public health consultant and a winner of several journalism awards.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Featured image is from UNICEF Yemen.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Former allies are now enemies – Trump sharply at odds with his former White House chief strategist Bannon.

Comments he made, quoted by Michael Wolff in his upcoming book, titled “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” didn’t go down well with Trump, his sharply worded statement reported by his press secretary Sarah Sanders, saying in part:

“Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.”

“Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating seventeen candidates, often described as the most talented field ever assembled in the Republican party.”

It was a rogue gallery of aspirants, nearly all neocon extremists, resembling an FBI’s most wanted list.

Bannon joined Trump’s campaign as chief executive officer in August 2016, leaving his White House position a year later, saying he “declared war” on the establishment GOP at the time.

He’s a right-wing extremist like most others in Washington, many undemocratic Dems as hardline as Republicans on major issues – notably supporting imperial wars of aggression and corporate empowerment at the expense of peace and the general welfare – anathema notions in the nation’s capital.

An excerpt from Wolff’s book published by New York magazine called Trump’s campaign headquarters “a listless place…until the last weeks of the race” – expecting to lose, not win.

Wolff: The campaign’s “unexpected adventure would soon be over. Not only would Trump not be president, almost everyone in the campaign agreed, he should probably not be,” adding:

“As the campaign came to an end, Trump himself was sanguine. His ultimate goal, after all, had never been to win. ‘I can be the most famous man in the world,’ he had told” an aide by running and being in the spotlight for months.

Wolff described Trump’s first few months in office as a “slapdash (campaign) transition to the disarray in the West Wing…chaos and dysfunction” to follow throughout “his first year in office.”

The rest of the excerpt continues lots of juicy inside baseball stuff if it’s accurate. Perhaps we’ll never know for sure unless individuals quoted corroborate what Wolff wrote.

The book became Amazon’s top non-fiction bestseller before publication. It’s due out next week.

Bannon was over-the-top reportedly calling Donald Trump Jr’s June 2016 meeting with private citizen Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, unconnected to the Kremlin, “treasonous,” adding:

“Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic…and I happen to think it’s all of that,” the FBI should have been informed “immediately.”

On leaving the White House last August, Trump praised him for his work, adding he “may be even better than ever before” in his private sector endeavors.

According to the Hill, Trump’s lawyers sent “a cease-and-desist letter to…Bannon Wednesday ordering him to refrain from making ‘disparaging statement(s)” about Trump and his family.”

Trump attorney Charles Harder reportedly accused him of breaching a non-disclosure agreement, saying:

“You have breached the Agreement by, among other things, communicating with author Michael Wolff about Mr. Trump, his family members, and (the Trump campaign), disclosing Confidential Information to Mr. Wolff, and making disparaging statements and in some cases outright defamatory statements to Mr. Wolff about Mr. Trump, his family members,” adding

“(R)emedies for your breach of the agreement include but are not limited to monetary damages.”

“On behalf of our clients, legal notice was issued today to Stephen K. Bannon, that his actions of communicating with author Michael Wolff regarding an upcoming book give rise to numerous legal claims including defamation by libel and slander, and breach of his written confidentiality and non-disparagement agreement with our clients. Legal action is imminent.”

After leaving the White House, Bannon returned to Breitbart News as chairman. He also hosts a daily Breitbart News radio program.

*

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

Because he was not a partisan in the Cold War between the U.S./NATO and the U.S.S.R, Albert Camus was an oddball.  As a result, he was criticized by the right, left, and center.  His allegiance was to truth, not ideologies.  He opposed state murder, terrorism, and warfare from all quarters.  An artistic anarchist with a passionate spiritual hunger, an austere and moral Don Juan, this sensual man of conscience and honor earned his reputation by a lifelong literary meditation on death in all its guises: disease(he was constantly threatened by tuberculosis), murder, suicide, capital punishment, war, etc.; deaths both “happy” and absurd, sudden and slow.  His enemy was always injustice and those powerful ones who thought they had the right to make others suffer and die for their perverted purposes.  An artist compelled by history to enter the political arena, he spoke out in defense of the poor, oppressed, and powerless.  Among his enemies were liberal imperialism and Soviet Marxism, abstract ideologies used to enslave and murder people around the world. 

Popularly known for his writing about absurdity (which for him was but a necessary step toward revolt), when he died on January 4, 1960 in a car crash on a straight country road in France with an unused train ticket in his pocket, the press played up the absurd nature of his death.  They still do.  But was it such?

In 2011, the media were abuzz with a report out of Italy that, rather than an accident, Camus may have been assassinated by the Soviet KGB for his powerful criticism of the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, their massacre of Hungarian freedom fighters, and for his defense and advocacy of Boris Pasternak and his novel, Doctor Zhivago, among other things.  These reports were based on an article in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, and were based on the remarks of Giovanni Catelli, an Italian academic, Slavic scholar, and poet.  Catelli said that he had read in a diary, published as a book, Celyzͮivot, written by Jan Zábrana, a well-known poet and translator of Doctor Zhivago, the following:

I heard something very strange from the mouth of a man who knew lots of things and had very informed sources.  According to him, the accident that had cost Albert Camus his life in 1960 was organized by Soviet spies.  They damaged the tyre on the car using a sophisticated piece of equipment that cut or made a hole at speed.

This claim was quickly and broadly rejected by Camus’ scholars and it just as quickly disappeared from view.

But in 2013 Catelli published a book on the case, Camus deve morire (Camus Must Die), that, oddly enough considering its explosive claims, has not been published in English (or French, as far as I know).I have recently read an English translation kindly provided to me by Catelli, and while I am still studying and researching his thesis, I will say that there may be more to it than those early dismissals of the Corriere della Sera report indicate. One has only to harken back to the 2013 mysterious death of journalist Michael Hastings in the United States when his car accelerated to over 100 miles per hour and exploded against a tree on a straight road in Los Angeles to make one think twice, maybe more.  Tree lined straight roads, no traffic, outspoken writers, anomalous crashes, and different countries and eras – tales to make on wonder.  And probe and research if one is so inclined.

Whatever the cause of Albert Camus’ death, however, it is clear that we could use his voice today.  I believe we should honor and remember him on this day that he died, for as an artist of his time, an artist for our time and all time, he tried to serve both beauty and suffering, to defend the innocent in this murderous world.  Quintessentially a man of his age, he was haunted by images that haunt us still, in particular those of being locked in an absurd prison threatened by madmen brandishing weapons small and large, ready to blow this beautiful world to smithereens with weapons conjured out of their hubristic,́ Promethean dreams of conquest.

This world as a prison is a metaphor that has a long and popular tradition.  In the past hundred or more years, however, with the secularization of Western culture and the perceived withdrawal of God, the doors of this prison have shut upon the popular imagination, with growing numbers of people feeling trapped in an alien universe, no longer able to bridge the gulf between themselves and an absent God.  Death, once the open avenue to the free life of eternity, has for many become the symbol of the absurdity of existence and the futility of escape.  Camus was haunted by these images, intensified as they were by a life of personal isolation beginning with the death of his father in World War I when he was a year old and continuing throughout his upbringing by a half-deaf, emotionally sterile mother.  His entire life, including his tragic art, was an attempt to find a way out of this closed world.

That is why he continues to speak today to those who grapple with the same enigmas, those who strive to find hope and faith to defend the defenseless and revel in the glory of living simultaneously.  Not absurdly, he left clues to that quest in his briefcase on the road where he died – the unfinished manuscript to his beautiful, posthumously published novel, Le Premier Homme (The First Man).  It was as if, whether he died in an accident or was murdered, the first man was going to have the last word.

One can imagine Camus saying with Hamlet:

Oh, I could tell you –

But let it be, Horatio, I am dead;

Thou livest; report to me and my cause aright

To the unsatisfied.

Let us do just that.

*

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/

If Trump is willing to accept the enormous loss of American life — which are the only people that he cares about as the US President — then turning the Korean Peninsula into Asia’s nuclear panhandle would indeed “Make America Great Again” by permanently handicapping its Russian & Chinese geostrategic competitors as well as its Japanese & South Korean economic ones.

The war of words between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and US President Donald J. Trump has suddenly taken a very foreboding turn, with both men now talking about “nuclear buttons” and openly hinting at the prospects of carrying out a preemptive first strike against the other.

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2018

The first thing to remember is that Trump is dead serious (pun intended) about his desire to “Make America Great Again”, and that he will stop at nothing to see his vision fulfilled in the future, including if he has to use nuclear weapons to make it happen.

Normative objections like arguing about how “terrible” and “evil” this is have absolutely no effect on Trump, who has come to be the literal embodiment of the “Mad Man Theory” and cares nothing about such concerns, ruthlessly viewing the world through a Neo-Realist prism where everything revolves around power.

If there’s any “emotional” point that would give Trump pause to think, then it’s about the lives of the nearly quarter-million Americans (including servicemen and their families) living in South Korea who could easily be killed in the opening days of a Korean Continuation War, and this is the only reason why Trump has yet to use nuclear weapons against North Korea.

Right now the President whose opponents label as a “heartless psychopath” is actually very concerned about the moral responsibility that he would have to forever shoulder in potentially sacrificing so many Americans, but if he ever surmounts his conscientious objections to this or is misled by the “deep state” into believing that North Korea is in the imminent process of launching its own preemptive strike (or is provoked by the military to already do so), the he might “make peace with himself” in the “comfort” that “only” 250,000 Americans had to die (notwithstanding the millions of Asians that he doesn’t care about) in order to “Make America Great Again”.

Brutally speaking, the only real consequence that the US would suffer from nuking North Korea is the death of its South Korean-based compatriots as “collateral damage”, and the possibility of a Chinese military response to America’s brazen bombing(s?) could be avoided if Washington provokes Pyongyang into striking first because of Beijing’s previous pledge not to intervene if its wayward “ally” is the one most directly “responsible” for reigniting hostilities.

Source: Oriental Review

Accepting that the US would quickly emerge as militarily victorious in this conflict, it’s now time to examine how the destructive consequences of nuking North Korea would actually “Make America Great Again” from Trump’s “Kraken”-like Neo-Realist perspective.

To begin with, almost all of North Korea’s territory could be rendered inhospitable depending on the scale and scope of the US’ nuclear arms use, thus turning it into the ultimate “buffer zone” and therefore making the decades-long question of whether the (now-former) country would be occupied by Chinese or American-South Korean troops after a speculative continuation war moot.

Secondly, the atmospheric aftereffects of America’s nuclear weapons use are difficult to precisely predict and should be left to more competent experts to comment upon in detail, but it can confidently be presumed that this would affect South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia, up to and including making some of their territory also inhospitable.

Not only that, but Seoul and even Tokyo could be wiped out if Pyongyang is successful in nuking them in its final moments, and even if they’re not destroyed, then the resultant nuclear atmospheric damage to South Korea and Japan would devastate these once-strong Asian economies and reduce them to uncompetitive “Third World” states.

The same can also happen to a large chunk of China in its rustbelt “Manchurian” region of the Northeast, as well as the base of Russia’s Pacific Fleet and its “Window to Asia” in Vladivostok, though the exact consequences are again subject to the atmospheric ramifications resulting from the scope and scale of any speculative American nuclear bombing of North Korea.

One of the relevant tangential developments that could unfold is that China’s domestic agricultural industry could collapse, and this could combine with the widespread fear resulting from the nearby radioactive panhandle to produce unpredictable socio-political consequences in the People’s Republic.

Furthermore, the nuclear destruction of North Korea and the attendant apocalyptic aftereffects that this would have for Northeast Asia would for all intents and purposes remove each of these victimized nation-states from the geopolitical game except for perhaps Russia, seeing as how they’d all be wreaked with internal turmoil in dealing with the long-term radioactive fallout of what happened, thus restoring the US to its immediate post-World War II “glorious” position in recapturing the majority of the global economy and literally “Making America Great Again”.

It’s precisely this “reward” that is so tempting to Trump and why his finger is itching to press the nuclear button, but then again he’s still held back by the thought of the quarter-million American lives that might have to be sacrificed as a result, though he might “console” himself with the “excuse” that this was “necessary” in order for the remaining 320+ million to “rule the world”.

As for the millions upon millions of Asians who would surely die in this scenario, Trump would “rationalize” it by convincing himself that he was taking North Korean “slaves” “out of their misery” and that all the others who allowed Kim Jong Un to “get out of control” and launch what the Pentagon might provoke to be Pyongyang’s first strike “deserved it”, shedding all personal responsibility for this by claiming that he “inherited an impossible mess” from his hated predecessors who already made its dynamics “irreversible” and therefore its conclusion “inevitable”.

The only realistic chance that Trump can be stopped from nuking North Korea in the event that he “gets over” the potential deaths of a quarter-million Americans (considering that the deaths of Asians aren’t anything that he cares about) and/or is misled into thinking that North Korea is on the cusp of launching its own imminent first strike (or was provoked into doing so) is if Russia and China convey the message to the US — whether openly or discretely — that they will respond with nuclear weapons if Washington dares to use them.

This brinksmanship would be very dangerous because there’s no telling whether Kim Jong Un would introduce nukes into any forthcoming conflict first, though from Pyongyang’s perspective it would have to in order to ensure its survival or “go out with a bang” like it’s been threatening, resultantly giving the US a semi-“plausible” right to respond in kind, albeit much more disproportionately.

However much some people may wish, it is unlikely that Russia and/or China would go to nuclear war against the US over North Korea, especially in the event that Pyongyang used nukes first (whether justifiably or not), and in spite of the long-term radioactive fallout that could devastate their two countries (China much more so than Russia in this case).

In addition, it can be assured that any US nuclear (counter-)attack against North Korea would be preceded by the scrupulous monitoring of all Chinese nuclear assets “just in case”, meaning that Washington would be on “red alert” to nuke China if Washington thought that Beijing was about to bomb its overseas bases or homeland in preemptive response for the deadly radioactive future that the US would be giving it, thus representing an unimaginably dangerous situation fraught with the risk of even the smallest misstep leading to a nuclear war between the US and China and further diminishing the chance that Beijing would strike back.

All in all, Trump is proving himself to be the consummate risk-taker who’s not afraid to up the stakes in any situation, and a thorough read of his personality proves that he wouldn’t shy away from using nuclear weapons against North Korea, deeply believing that it’s the key to “Make America Great Again” even if this would run the chance of a nuclear war with China too.

Trump is a modern-day Machiavelli who doesn’t care about morals, ethics, and principles when it comes to advancing his country’s grand strategic interests on the world stage, but it’s because of the little bit of “humanity” that’s still left within him in caring about the fate of a quarter-million Americans that he has yet to push the nuclear red button that’s sitting so tantalizingly close on his desk.

*

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.

This article was originally published by Oriental Review.

Featured image is from Unz Review.

Protests have been reported across several cities in Iran over the last  several days of December 2017. Protesters allegedly decry Iran’s economy as well as the nation’s involvement in nearby Syria.

The Western media has attempted to cultivate two narratives – one focused on portraying the protests as widespread, spontaneous, and having focused first on “economic grievances” before becoming political – another narrative openly admitting to US involvement and praising US President Donald Trump for “standing up” to the “Iranian regime.”

Of course, neither narrative is even remotely grounded in reality.

US Meddling in Iran Stretches Back Decades 

US regime-change operations targeting Iran stretch back decades and have continued within a singular geopolitical strategy, regardless of who has occupied the White House, including under the more recent US administrations of George Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump.

While pro-war circles in the US claim the 1979 Iranian Revolution was an instance of Iran drawing first blood, the revolution was in fact a direct response to then already decades of US meddling in Iran stretching back as early as 1953 with the US Central Intelligence Agency’s Operation AJAX.

Regarding Operation AJAX, in an entry on the CIA’s own website titled, “All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror,” it admits (emphasis added):

The target was not an oppressive Soviet puppet but a democratically elected government whose populist ideology and nationalist fervor threatened Western economic and geopolitical interests. The CIA’s covert intervention—codenamed TPAJAX—preserved the Shah’s power and protected Western control of a hugely lucrative oil infrastructure. It also transformed a turbulent constitutional monarchy into an absolutist kingship and induced a succession of unintended consequences at least as far ahead as the Islamic revolution of 1979—and, Kinzer argues in his breezily written, well-researched popular history, perhaps to today.

The article – a review by the CIA’s own history staff of a book regarding Operation AJAX – admits that US policy regarding Iran merely picked up where the British Empire left off in an effort to reassert rapidly-slipping Western control over the globe. In no way was US efforts to undermine and control the government of Iran described in terms of protecting US national security or promoting democracy – and in fact was characterized instead as undermining Iranian self-determination.

It is this admission that reveals the core truth of today’s tensions between Iran and the United States. The West still seeks to reassert itself and its economic interests in the Middle East. Notions of “freedom,” “democracy,” as well as threats of “terrorism,” “nuclear holocaust,” and even the ongoing conflict with nearby Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf States are but facades behind which this self-serving neo-imperial agenda is pursued.

Today’s Protests Openly Plotted by US Policymakers for Years   

The Brookings Institution in its 2009 “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” report dedicated an entire chapter to plotting the overthrow of the Iranian government.

Titled, “THE VELVET REVOLUTION: Supporting a Popular Uprising,” the policy paper lays out (emphasis added):

Because the Iranian regime is widely disliked by many Iranians, the most obvious and palatable method of bringing about its demise would be to help foster a popular revolution along the lines of the “velvet revolutions” that toppled many communist governments in Eastern Europe beginning in 1989. For many proponents of regime change, it seems self-evident that the United States should encourage the Iranian people to take power in their own name, and that this would be the most legitimate method of regime change. After all, what Iranian or foreigner could object to helping the Iranian people fulfill their own desires?

The paper then admits:

The true objective of this policy option is to overthrow the clerical regime in Tehran and see it replaced, hopefully, by one whose views would be more compatible with U.S. interests in the region. 

In essence, Brookings quickly admits that its “velvet revolution” would be the fulfillment of Washington’s desires, not the Iranian people’s – pursued merely under the guise of helping Iranians fulfill their own desires. As the CIA itself admits in its own historical records that US “interests in the region” are based on economic exploitation and the enrichment of Wall Street and Washington, not lifting up, empowering, or enriching the Iranian people.

It is an open admission regarding US designs for Iran demonstrated on multiple occasions elsewhere from Iraq to Libya to Syria to Ukraine and Yemen – what is promoted as progressive political revolution supported by the “democratic” West is in fact the destruction and subjugation of a nation, its people, and its resources at the cost of global peace and prosperity.

Creating an Opposition from Whole Cloth 

The Brookings paper openly states (emphasis added):

The United States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative leadership to seize power. As Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee argues, students and other groups “need covert backing for their demonstrations. They need fax machines. They need Internet access, funds to duplicate materials, and funds to keep vigilantes from beating them up.” Beyond this, U.S.-backed media outlets could highlight regime shortcomings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent. The United States already supports Persian language satellite television (Voice of America Persian) and radio (Radio Farda) that bring unfiltered news to Iranians (in recent years, these have taken the lion’s share of overt U.S. funding for promoting democracy in Iran). U.S. economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership.

It should be noted that economic and military pressure were both cited by the BBC and other Western news sources as “grievances” by the so-called “opposition” amid Iran’s most recent protests.

Brookings lists “intellectuals,” “students, labor, and civil society organizations” under a subsection of the chapter titled, “Finding the Right Proxies.”

Under a subsection titled, “Military Intervention,” Brookings admits:

…if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it. 

The report continues by stating:

…if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it. 

Armed with this knowledge, Iranian protests quickly turning violent due to mysterious gunmen and nebulous armed groups that suddenly appear can be viewed instead through the more realistic prism of pre-positioned US-armed gangs rolled out to expand unrest and hinder security operations aimed at pacifying US-organized mobs.

Step 2: Armed Insurrection

Considering Brookings’ realization that any mob the US stirs up in Iran is likely to be simply swept off the streets – it followed its “Velvet Revolution” chapter with one titled, “INSPIRING AN INSURGENCY: Supporting Iranian Minority and Opposition Groups.”

Here, an important admission is openly made and extensively built upon – the arming and backing of terrorist organizations with American blood on their hands – a causal “option” shamelessly considered by American policymakers in 2009 that would become a matter of fact during the 2011 “Arab Spring” and the subsequent US-fueled wars from Libya and Syria fought via Al Qaeda and the myriad of franchises it inspired.

Brookings unabashedly admits:

As much as many Americans might like to help the Iranian people rise up and take their destiny in their own hands, the evidence suggests that its likelihood is low—and that American assistance could well make it less likely rather than more. Consequently, some who favor fomenting regime change in Iran argue that it is utopian to hold out hope for a velvet revolution; instead, they contend that the United States should turn to Iranian opposition groups that already exist, that already have demonstrated a desire to fight the regime, and who appear willing to accept U.S. assistance.

Among the groups considered, Brookings admits:

Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). 

Of the MEK, Brookings admits (emphasis added):

…the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take American hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread. Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations. 

It was no coincidence that while Brookings penned its 2009 report, efforts were already well underway to remove MEK from the US State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations – and was fully removed from the list by 2012, according to the US State Department itself.

Many of President Donald Trump’s political supporters played a direct role in lobbying to get terrorist organization MEK off the US State Department’s FTO list. Their work began under Bush and continued under Obama. It was in fact under Obama’s administration when MEK was finally delisted. 

It is telling that MEK only found itself removed from a list of terrorist organizations because the US required it for a terror campaign of its own design against Tehran – the organization itself having reformed itself in no shape, form, or way and intent – by Brookings and other US policymakers’ own admissions – to carry on further atrocities – simply in the name of US regime change in Iran.

MEK is joined by other terrorist organizations the US has cultivated along Iran’s peripheries since 2011 and America’s multiple proxy wars in the region. These include Al Qaeda, Kurdish militias, and the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS).

Brookings lays out under a subsection titled, “Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven,” that:

Of equal importance (and potential difficulty) will be finding a neighboring country willing to serve as the conduit for U.S. aid to the insurgent group, as well as to provide a safe haven where the group can train, plan, organize, heal, and resupply…

…without such a partner, it would be far more difficult for the United States to support an insurgency. One thing that the United States would have in its favor when searching for a state to play this role is that many of Iran’s neighbors dislike and fear the Islamic Republic.

Since 2009, the US has secured for itself multiple conduits and safe havens – which has been the primary reason Iran has been involved so deeply in Syria since the 2011 war erupted. Western Syria now hosts multiple US military bases as well as a large proxy contingent made up of Kurdish militias and extremists from Al Qaeda/ISIS being retrained by the US for redeployment in continued proxy wars across the region.

Had Iran failed to prevent the entire overthrow of the Syrian state, the nation would have been transformed into a single springboard for Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Kurdish militants to invade and decimate Iran before moving on to southern Russia.

It should be noted that Brookings – among its conclusions regarding the creation of an “insurgency” against Iran – states:

Properly executed, covert support to an insurgency would provide the United States with “plausible deniability.” As a result, the diplomatic and political backlash would likely be much less than if the United States were to mount a direct military action. 

Of course, Brookings’ own publicly-published conspiracy coupled together with the US’ demonstrated use of proxies in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and now Iran, lays bare this strategy and mitigates whatever “plausible deniability” Washington hoped to maintain.

Regardless, the West, through its formidable influence in the media, will attempt to maintain plausible deniability regarding US involvement in Iranian unrest until the last possible moment – not unlike how it hid its role in executing the so-called “Arab Spring” during its opening phases despite plotting and organizing the mayhem years in advance.

US Hopes to Break Iran, Would Settle for Setting it Back

Just as the US hoped for speedy regime change in Syria in 2011, but settled for the destruction of the nation, the division of its territory, and the weakening of the Syrian military, the US likewise has primary and secondary goals already laid out for regime change plans versus Iran.

The Brookings report admits:

…even if U.S. support for an insurgency failed to produce the overthrow of the regime, it could still place Tehran under considerable pressure, which might either prevent the regime from making mischief abroad or persuade it to make concessions on issues of importance to the United States (such as its nuclear program and support to Hamas, Hizballah, and the Taliban). Indeed, Washington might decide that this second objective is a more compelling rationale for supporting an insurgency than the (much less likely) goal of actually overthrowing the regime.

In other words, US regime change again is openly admitted as an act of geopolitical coercion, not self-defense. The strategy laid out by Brookings is more than mere “suggestions.” It is an enumerated list of prescribed actions that have demonstrably been executed since in Syria, Libya, and Yemen and are now manifesting themselves in nearby Iran.

In the world of geopolitical analysis, it is not often that a signed and dated confession can be cited when describing conspiracies against another nation-state. In the case of US meddling in Iran, Brookings provides just such evidence – nearly 200 pages long – detailing everything from fabricated opposition, US sponsorship of terrorism, and even engineered provocations by the US and Israel to trigger a full-scale war.

As the West probes Iran and stories of “unrest” make headlines, looking past the Western media’s diversions, excuses, and outright lies, toward the engineered nature of this conflict helps quickly decipher the truth, assign blame, and reveal deceivers and collaborators in yet another campaign of Western aggression thousands of miles from American shores to be fought with US taxpayers’ money and perhaps even the blood of US soldiers.

*

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published.

All images in this article are from the author.

Featured image: Jan Egeland, Special Advisor to the UN Special Envoy for Syria. (Source: Violaine Martin/ UN Geneva)

The Syrian Red Crescent, a branch of the International Committee of the Red Cross, has confirmed that 29 critically ill persons were evacuated from East Ghouta, near Damascus, Syria on Friday. The 29 evacuated included 17 children, 6 women and 6 men. A crucial part of this deal included the release of 29 civilians who had been kidnapped from Adra by The Army of Islam in December 2013.

The deal was between the Syrian government and the terrorists, with oversight by the Syrian Red Crescent.

The Army of Islam, also known as Jaish Islam, is a Radical terrorist group which professes the Salafist ideology. It is supported by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and was headed by the Syrian terrorist Zahran Alloush, who was killed in December 2015.  The Army of Islam is the main fighting group in East Ghouta. The Army of Islam shares the same ideology as ISIS, however, the western media often labels them as rebels.

The 29 civilians hostages released were part of a much larger group of hostages captured by The Army of Islam in a massacre at the industrial city of Adra, north of Damascus, in December 2013. The exact number of hostages being held for four years is unknown, but they include children, women, men, and some are family groups. These hostages were living in a workers compound, with families together in living facilities, while the adults worked in various industries, such as a cement factory. Some of the civilians were living and employed in the area in service jobs; such as shop keepers and bakers. Adra was a thriving community of workers and their families, not far from the Syrian capital.

The Army of Islam, along with other armed terrorists of similar ideology, swept into Adra and went house to house slaughtering people, in some cases entire families. The massacre continued for two days, while the terrorists were singing battle songs about cleansing Syria from all Christians and non-Sunni Muslims. The attack and massacre was carried out for sectarian reasons against minorities. A Christian physician named George was beheaded. The bakery workers resisted having their equipment vandalized and were baked alive in their own ovens. The terrorists had captured so many hostages that they could not handle the numbers, and they released 5,000 persons initially, who were later rescued by the Syrian military. However, the terrorists took hostages which they have held now for 4 years.

Zahran Alloush became famous for taking some of those hostages and parading them around in cages, reminiscent of circus cages, in December 2015, shortly before his death. He also ordered women hostages to be driven around the area on a cage on the back of a truck. He and his group have used civilians as human shields for years, which is a war crime.  According to Human Rights Watch, the practice constitutes hostage-taking and an outrage against their personal dignity, which are both war crimes.

Zahran Alloush’s brother Mohamed is the leader of the political arm of The Army of Islam and has participated in many of the UN sponsored Geneva meetings, as a formal representative of the Syrian opposition, in their negotiations for the purpose of bringing an end to the suffering in Syria.

The UN’s humanitarian co-coordinator, Jan Egeland has criticized the deal made for the swap of 29 civilian hostages from Adra, in exchange for 29 ill civilians from inside East Ghouta, which is under the control of the terrorists who originally massacred and kidnapped the civilians in Adra.   Mr. Egeland called the deal ‘bad’ when interviewed by the BBC. He said the ill patients deserved medical treatment without being part of a swap. The families of the 29 hostages released after 4 years of torture, deprivation and suffering might not agree with Mr. Egeland’s assessment. They might well ask, how could an international humanitarian official deem one child suffering an illness, but who belongs to the terrorist’s community, as more deserving than a child who has suffered capture for 4 years? Suffering on both sides of the Syrian conflict has been felt for 7 years.

Western leaders, western officials and the western media have come under criticism for consistently highlighting the plight of the terrorists and their supporters, who are under threat from attacks by the Syrian government forces. However, the plight of the millions of Syrian civilians living in Damascus, and facing at times a daily barrage of rockets and missiles into residential neighborhoods, which originate from East Ghouta, is rarely focused on. Syrian military airstrikes against terrorist positions and enclaves are reported by the western media in detail, including amateur videos uploaded by the terrorists themselves and considered as ‘news’. There has been an unbalanced story-line fed to the international audience: even though the terrorist groups in Syria would be hunted down and killed if they were in USA, UK, Europe, Canada or Australia, the media spins the story as if they are ‘rebels’ fighting for political change in Syria, with full support from the Syrian people. The UN’s humanitarian co-coordinator, Jan Egeland would seem to be reinforcing this unbalanced view in his comparison of the two sides in the swap.

The Russian government has tried to convince the UN Security Council to designate The Army of Islam as a terrorist group; however, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Ukraine have refused this designation. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said,

“We have called for this and submitted a relevant proposal to the sanctions committee, so that they [the groups] would be added to the list of terrorist organizations, but so far, our Western partners are not ready for this.”

The conflict in Syria has entered into its last stage. Western leaders demanded a political settlement to the war, all the while supporting the militants on the ground. It would appear that a military solution will be the end of the war in Syria. The armed men supported by the US-NATO and Arab countries of Persian Gulf alliance have lost the war, and are in their final days. All eyes are now on the next monumental meeting at Sochi, and the opposition will try to negotiate their defeat.

*

Steven Sahiounie began writing political analysis and commentary during the Syrian war, which began in March 2011. He has published several articles, and has been affiliated with numerous media. He has been interviewed by US, Canadian and German media.

Featured image: Graphic: March 1981 City Council Campaign flyer

Burlington’s Neighborhood Planning Assemblies are back in the local spotlight, and likely to be a contentious issue in the 2018 race for mayor of Vermont’s largest city this March.

Last Fall, an “assembly of the assemblies” demanded a formal role in deciding the future of Memorial Auditorium, a major local venue for 90 years. Since then, Infinite Culcleasure, one of two Independents challenging Mayor Miro Weinberger, has announced that “more public investment should be made to strengthen existing neighborhood assemblies.” And Progressive-backed Independent Carina Driscoll says,

“We need to empower our Neighborhood Planning Assemblies so that they may again be actively involved with public engagement, city planning and prioritizing city resources.”

NPAs, as they have become known over the years, officially became part of Burlington city government in the summer of 1983. The idea had been percolating for a while and didn’t become reality without some struggle, then and afterward. But during an “assembly of the assemblies” at City Hall in late June that year, about 100 people successfully discussed and largely agreed on basics like how often to meet, the rules for making decisions, and whether NPAs should operate exclusively on a ward level.

These volunteer founders had gathered, in ward groups, then as a committee of the whole, to hammer out long-delayed bylaws. It was a rare moment. People from competing political factions were sitting face-to-face, conversing civilly with neighbors. Surprisingly, there were few serious disputes, and more areas of agreement than expected.

Pressure to create neighborhood assemblies had been building for years. In 1976, while I was the city’s Youth Coordinator, they were proposed as a way to coordinate social services. In 1981, neighborhood power was part of the Citizens Party platform and became an issue in the elections that gave Bernie Sanders his first victory. The top issue in my own City Council campaign was neighborhood participation in city planning, specifically “formal review of grants and the municipal development plan by neighborhood groups.”

Shortly after Bernie’s election as mayor, a conference of independent local groups proposed that neighborhood assemblies be formally established within local government.

Decades after they became part of local government, NPAs continued to host forums for mayoral candidates, including the author, in 2015.

Bylaws were supposed to be drafted during planning sessions that began in early 1982. But debates over priorities for community development funds, not to mention political infighting and campaign fever, pushed the process back. Lack of coordinators or established procedures also didn’t help, making it difficult for neighborhoods to call their own meetings. Meanwhile, both the Planning Commission and Mayor’s Office convened selected NPAs to act as sounding boards for issues on their agendas.

Haggling between the Old Guard-dominated Planning Commission and newly created Community and Economic Development Office (CEDO) further complicated the process. In Spring 1983 the Planning Commission, still dominated by allies of the previous administration, put forward a structure proposal that would restrict NPAs to quarterly meetings and keep them under firm control. But CEDO, initially developed as a means to divert funds and power from the Commission, also succeeded in assuming responsibility for coordination of NPA activities. By then several had already begun to set their own agendas, pass motions, and provide advice on city projects. Now they would have $15,000 each to use or invest in neighborhood improvement projects.

Just two years earlier, Vermont’s largest city basically had a one-party political system controlled by a Democratic clan with a small group of developers and merchants. Now it was in the midst of a social and political realignment. An independent socialist mayor was in his second term and the City Council operated with a fragile three-party balance of power.

The new political environment had sparked a renaissance in public participation, which in turn was producing programs for youth, women and the elderly. About 50 percent more people had voted in the recent local elections than had turned out just two years earlier, and Mayor Sanders received 52 percent in a three-way race. Meanwhile, dozens of Town Meetings across Vermont adopted resolutions to freeze nuclear weapons, legislate peace conversion, cut off aid to El Savador, and regulate nuclear waste shipments. To date, 184 of the state’s 245 towns had gone on record to freeze nuclear proliferation.

In Burlington, independent neighborhood groups that focused on issues from road-building to crime and housing conditions had already changed the relationship between local citizens and their representatives. Now the question was whether these self-organized vehicles of popular power would or should become a formal part of the city planning process.

Some who attended the founding congress were suspicious about an apparent lack of publicity prior to the event. But two pro-Assembly City Councilors in the room — Maurice Mahoney, a Ward 1 Democrat, and Terry Bouricius, a Ward 2 Sanders ally and Citizens Party member of the City Council — offered assurances that the Council was eager to see these “mainly advisory” bodies operate “efficiently.” Anarchist thinker Murray Bookchin also attended. He was skeptical, but wrote a draft preamble for the bylaws that was adopted with few changes.

Working in Ward subgroups, participants in the assembly congress made preliminary decisions that day about who could participate (any voter registered in the ward), how often they would meet, and what constituted a quorum. Agreement also emerged that NPAs should set their own agendas, but remain responsive to mayoral or council requests, and that their purview could stretch from down-to-earth projects like tree planting to review of Master Plan revisions.

Many things remained undefined and unclear at this point. But the experience of working together for a day, determining how they would function, tended to convince most people who attended that NPAs would at least not be easy for any one faction to manipulate. In fact, when newly elected Assembly coordinators sat around the Council’s horseshoe table to deliver status reports at the end of the evening, some in the audience publicly speculated , hoped or feared that it might evolve into a second City Council.

The list of coordinators read like a roster of upcoming local leaders. Judy Stephany had been the Democrat’s candidate for mayor the previous March. Two other coordinators were recent City Council candidates. And Tim McKenzie, who had run for the state legislature, currently headed Sanders’ Progressive Coalition.

The plan was to have these coordinators meet to follow up on their wards’ proposals, then convene the assemblies again to ratify the final document. Once that was done, NPAs would operate with relative independence, guiding community developments and responding to official requests.

Despite the cooperative atmosphere in which NPAs were born, there were obvious lingering questions and reasonable concerns. In the long term, for instance, would they be representative, or become tools for outside interests to engineer consent? What would happen to attendance as time passed? And if they proved effective, would their powers expand?

Mayor Sanders certainly had doubts. Specifically, he was hesitant to empower groups that might not have a progressive character or could be overtaken by opponents. Others on the left, notably Bookchin, wondered instead whether they would evolve as proactive, popular organs or become institutionalized and reactive.

The Sanders administration ultimately decided to embrace the NPAs, offering money and a limited decision-making role. Basically, it gave them some room to grow. But their status, advisory bodies operating under the auspices of a city office, meant that much of their time and energy would be spent evaluating proposals from the administration and large local institutions.

*

This essay appeared in the December 2017 issue of 05401 PLUS, a Lake Champlain region magazine.

Greg Guma participated in the development of NPAs and attended the founding congress. He is a long-term Burlington resident and author of Dons of Time, Spirits of Desire, Uneasy Empire, and The People’s Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution.

This article was originally published by The Vermont Way.

All images are from the author.

Jewish identity politics complicate the Palestinian response to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Sometimes it seems impossible to address the crux of the matter, the Jewish state Nakba in Palestine, without being subjected to attacks one way or another.

On the last day of 2017, I posted a meme on my Facebook wall that provoked a long and heated argument.

The meme went like this:

LAST YEAR WE RESOLVED TO STOP SUBSTITUTING ‘OCCUPATION’ FOR ‘ZIONISM’.
In 2018, we’ll stop substituting ‘settlers’ for ‘Jews’.

The year 2017 saw activist groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and the US Campaign against the Occupation (now named the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights) make a shift in the tactics they used. They explicitly adopted all the goals of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.

BDS goals are:

Ending Israel’s occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

In practical terms, and regardless of the political arrangement required to implement these goals (one state or two), complying with international law regarding BDS goals means dismantling Zionism — i.e. dismantling Israel as a Jewish state.

However, the nature of Israel as a Jewish state is still being “contested” (for lack of a better word), as if concepts such as ethnicity and religious difference are still determining factors in people’s lives today and not a matter of choices, but of essences. Standing in the way of the achievement of BDS goals, among a host of other challenges, is Jewish identity politics.

In references to Jewish identity in connection with Israel, we are pushed by anti-Zionist proponents to understand that settlements in Palestine are inhabited by settlers or, at best, Jewish settlers (colonial settlers who just happen to be Jewish in religion), but not by Jews as a people in the tribal (national) sense. The Jewish Virtual Library defines Judaism as being “simultaneously a religion, a nationality and a culture.”

Jewish identity politics (especially in the US) includes the secular strand that marginalizes Zionist Jewish thought as “not really Jewish” — as though Zionism is not rooted in the Jewish religious idea of exile and return — and the religious strand (the Judaic rather than Jewish strand) that outlaws the Zionist notion of “return” for not being coupled with the coming of the messiah.

However, both these strands of Jewish identity representation account for a tiny minority of Jews worldwide. Most Jews support the racist, Apartheid Jewish state and its so-called “right” to exist as such.

Millions of religious and secular Jews continue to define themselves the way Israel identifies them. And, more importantly, most states in the world also continue to identify Jews as Israel identifies them.

As Harry Clark explains in the Facebook discussion I mention above:

Zionism isn’t simply “settler colonialism” or even Jewish S-C, it is “the Jewish people”, eternally separate, distinct, unassimilable. It shares this view of “Jews” with racialist anti-semitism, which explains their partnership, down to and including Nazism. Zionism was begun, not simply to colonize Palestine, but to preserve “the Jewish people” against liberalism and assimilation. There is no such thing as a “Jewish people”; it is historical fiction, Jewish race doctrine.[See The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand]

It is only relatively recently, because of anxiety that the illegal residency of Jews in East Jerusalem and the West Bank (i.e. the march toward one democratic state) would topple the shaky foundation on which the Jewish state rests, that “settlers” in the West Bank among immigrant Jews to Israel have been singled out for criticism, albeit mild, in the mainstream media.

One interlocution in the Facebook thread goes like this:

Lisa Kosowski: … the world, and the int’l Jewish community in particular, see settlers as somehow being separate & apart from the Jewish community & therefore have an excuse to avoid responsibility. Even worse, many mainstream Jewish organizations support the settlements financially and in other ways — like by their silence to acts of terrorism perpetrated by settlers. And the Israeli gov’t protects the settlers through the use of their military which is subsidized with American tax dollars. So time to end the subterfuge: if ISIS & the like are “Islamic terrorists,” then white supremacists & abortion clinic bombers are “Christian terrorists,” and settlers, IDF soldiers & border guards who commit violence are “Jewish terrorists.”

I believe strongly that it is important to address the nature of Israel as a Jewish state without obfuscation, because the beginning of Palestinian self-determination is the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Without that end, there is not ever going to be a beginning for us.

Zionism is not run-of-the-mill settler-colonialism. Had this been the case, Palestine would by now have liberated itself, as so many colonial states already have (Interestingly, as of 2012, 16 territories are deemed still to be under colonial rule and are labeled by the United Nations as “non-self-governing territories  — NSGTs) — the Palestinian territory is not on the list). It is certainly not for lack of courage, steadfastness or resolve that Palestinians continue to have a boot over their necks almost 70 years after the Nakba.

In having to battle a Jewish state, Palestinians are up against a formidable foe — not only because of the considerable achievements of Jews on the world stage in almost every field of endeavor, but also because of the persecution Jews have historically experienced and Western guilt associated with that tragic history.

Another huge obstacle for us has been Zionist propaganda which has penetrated thousands of synagogues worldwide, complicating the distinctions between Judaic and Jewish.

Zionism in Palestine has been slowly but surely turning into a religious conflict. There is no doubt that among Palestinians themselves today, the strongest force driving Palestinian self-determination is Islam. We cannot and must not pretend the religious side of the struggle for liberation is nonexistent — Jew against Muslim and vice versa; Christian against Jew and Evangelical Christian for Jew.

So, what do we do? I think the first order of business is finding clarity in what has become a morass of myths, half-truths and deflections — we must open the door for discussing and understanding the complicated issue of Jewish identity as it has emerged in the 20th and 21st centuries.

*

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.

During the U.S. government’s decade-long support of the Contra rebels who waged an armed campaign against Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista regime in the 1980s, the CIA funneled all manner of assistance to the anti-socialist “freedom fighters,” from training and financial assistance to covert operations. The original “advise and assist” mission was a disaster in retrospect, spurring all manner of human rights violations as well as the modern crack cocaine scourge. But the CIA aid program’s most fascinating product might be the batshit crazy psychological warfare manual cooked up for the Nicaraguan counter-revolutionaries. 

First described to the Associated Press by the House Intelligence Committee in October 1984, the guide to “psychological operations in guerrilla warfare” was whittled down to 38 pages and released on Dec. 16 in responseto a Freedom of Information Act request from Muckrock national security reporter Emma Best. The guide covers all sorts of weird topics, from the development of “armed propaganda teams” to engaging would-be socialists in an impromptu game of Model UN. The manual says it was designed specifically with “the Christian and democratic crusade being conducted in Nicaragua by the Freedom Commandos” in mind — and it is fucking bonkers. Here are some highlights:

Book-of-the-month clubs 

The CIA manual emphasizes from the beginning that every successful warfighter “must be highly motivated to engage in propaganda face to face”: no Facebook ads or “Cuban Twitter” here. And that means it’s book-group time, y’all!

An excerpt from the psychological warfare manual produced by the CIA for Nicaraguan rebels in the late 1970s or early 1980s (Photo via MuckRock/FOIA)

Isn’t this wasting time that could be spent fighting down-and-dirty against the tenets of socialism? Probably, but who cares?

Make people comfortable with your brandished weapons

In any guerrilla conflict, especially in urban centers, the imminent nature of armed violence is always a pressing concern for civilian populations. For the CIA, this poses an interesting challenge: How do we make locals OK with our heavily-armed bandits, but wary of other heavily-armed bandits? Behold “armed propaganda,” which, according to the manual, “improves the behavior of the popular towards its author, and it is not achieved by force.”

An excerpt from the psychological warfare manual produced by the CIA for Nicaraguan rebels in the late 1970s or early 1980s (Photo via MuckRock/FOIA)

The end goal is “to create an identification of the people with the weapons and with the guerrillas who carry them, so that the population feels that those weapons are, indirectly, the weapons that will protect them and help them in their struggle against an oppressive regime,” per the CIA manual. Translation: The only way to stop bad guys with guns is lots and lots of good guys with guns — even if that isn’t a totally true statement.

Teamwork makes the dream work

Especially if actual training and experience isn’t a concern beyond “persuasive powers.”

An excerpt from the psychological warfare manual produced by the CIA for Nicaraguan rebels in the late 1970s or early 1980s  (Photo via MuckRock/FOIA)

Beware of social justice warriors

I’m not even kidding: The CIA has seen “social crusaders” as useful idiots to be exploited for decades.

An excerpt from the psychological warfare manual produced by the CIA for Nicaraguan rebels in the late 1970s or early 1980s (Photo via MuckRock/FOIA)

Free assembly is for sheep

But it’s a great chance to spark chaos!

An excerpt from the psychological warfare manual produced by the CIA for Nicaraguan rebels in the late 1970s or early 1980s (Photo via MuckRock/FOIA)

“Support for local contacts who are rooted in reality”

This one is my favorite, hands down. Despite the emphasis on promoting a positive perception of the Contras in Nicaragua’s shaky political environment, the goal of the CIA psyops was a long-term undermining of the very perception of reality. A successful psyops mission ends with the creation of “propagandist-combatant guerillas” who champion a chosen ideology as warriors against a repressive regime:

An excerpt from the psychological warfare manual produced by the CIA for Nicaraguan rebels in the late 1970s or early 1980s (Photo via MuckRock/FOIA)

Chilling stuff. Sounds familiar, right? It should.

Read the whole CIA training manual below:

Psychological Operations in Guerilla Warfare by Jared Keller on Scribd

Featured image: Ilya Kabakov The Man Who Flew Into Space From His Apartment 1985 Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris. Musée national d’art moderne/Centre de Création industrielle. Purchase, 1990 (Source: Ilya & Emilia Kabakov)

Installation art deserves its reputation in many quarters as trumped up and pretentious, an exaggeration dressed up as a profound truth.  History is ignored, and all is deemed modern and defiant.  It also seems, often, to be a terrible misuse of gallery space. 

Such accusations are impossible to level at Ilya and Emilia Kabakov, whose exhibition at the Tate Modern Not Everyone Will Be Taken Into The Future crushes its visitors with its vision of bleakness and cruelty that marked the Soviet experiment.  In various measures, it also furnishes the viewer with abundant playfulness as it draws out the condition of the unbearably absurd.

Ilya Kabakov, as with others of his ilk, pokes fun at the ideologically approved art programs of the Soviet state, complexes that crush cosmopolitanism and variety.  He weaves in a narrative of mocking and teasing into his work. Not being with the socialist realist in-crowd, he is rooting for the common man who has, supposedly, been raised to the level of titans, warriors in a social experiment costing millions of lives and untold suffering.  In truth, such a being is merely a guinea pig, an experimental being.

Progress brings with it mounting casualties, plentiful gore. These are written, painted or drawn away, in portrayals of glorious revolutionary fervour, in dispatches of distorting denials and affirmations.  The language of Socialist Realism supplies such an alibi, its sheer banality irrepressible in what it doesn’t say.

“We wanted to,” Ilya explains, “analyse the language of Soviet civilisation”.

And what a language, having within it the most glorious sense of constant delusion. Tested! (1981), featuring a condemned woman of the revolution forgiven by the good grace of party officialdom (her party card is officiously returned to her), remains unbearable for its joyful faces, the portraits of falsely benevolent Politburo leaders, the atmospherics of mendacity.

Such complexes inspire the Kabakovs to work on relative perspectives, drawing out unseen, parallel worlds. There is that of the invisible, the small, the midgets, tiny figures who feature in Trousers in the Corner (1989) and I Catch the Little White Men (1990).  There are the giants and the subterranean subjects in the modelsWhere is Our Place? (2002/2017) and The Vertical Opera (Guggenheim) (1998/2008).

The installation Not Everyone Will Be Taken Into The Future is deliciously ironic and grim.  On the train of history and memory, who will be left behind?  Inspired by his essay on Kazimir Malevich by the same name, memories of bright art students being selected to go to the Young Pioneer camp come to mind.

Envisaged by both Ilya and Emilia in 2001, a train at one end of the room is departing with inexorable gloominess.  Behind it lie forlorn canvasses, the unchosen, the detritus of forgotten artistry.  To be forgotten is not always a case of being less of a talent: it bespeaks to being one not approved of, the outsider always peering into the establishment of power.

For Ilya, the sense of being ignored, forgotten or buried by the approved and the anointed is palpable.  It supplies the asphyxiating material of conformity, thereby placing the artist in an untenable situation: to obey, and ingratiate, or to toil in obscurity.

March Chagall, during a visit to Moscow in 1973, had advised a young artist who had posed the question on whether the non-conformist artist should remain in the Soviet Union, clinging to circles that would be ignored, if not condemned, or emigrate. The answer was unequivocal: emigrate.  Not so, Ilya, who admitted that he would have remained in the USSR “forever if Perestroika hadn’t come”.

Not all the works at this exhibition are despairing. There is an escape, though such systems can only conjure up exits of the mind.  In a piece that heralded Ilya’s pioneering concept of total installation art, The Man Who Flew into Space from His Apartment (1985) envisages an evacuation into the cosmos from drudgery typified by the poor furnishings of a communal Soviet apartment.  Soviet life is collaged within the setting, replete with glorious images of the worker’s idyll.  There are beaming faces, optimistic glances into the future.  The viewer is then greeted by an aperture in the ceiling, an ominous gash suggesting that the occupant, desperate to flee, burst through it.

One such person who could not flee was Ilya’s mother, who features in Labyrinth (My Mother’s Album) (1990). The installation is itself an experiment in promoting the inescapable life: the communal flat with poor lighting, shabby living, heart wrenching bleakness.  Pictures taken by Ilya’s uncle, accompanied by text from the memoir of his mother, Bertha Urievna Solodukhina, speak of misery, transient lodgings, indifferent landladies, and a loveless marriage:

“When I think about that world in which my mother’s life passed, what arises in my imagination is a long and semi-dark corridor which is twisted like a labyrinth, where behind each new turn, behind each bend, there is not a bright exit glimmering in the distance, but just the same grubby floor, the same grey, dusty poorly painted walls illuminated by weak, 40-watt light bulbs.”

The effect is so striking it torments viewers, who can only tolerate one stretch of the corridor before hurrying along, cursorily gazing at the photographs and barely mindful of the text.  Eyes begin to hurt in the poor light; claustrophobia begins its march.  The misery is brilliantly overwhelming.

As irony is a mechanism that, in time, can consume its user, Ilya Kabakov and his official collaborator and wife Emilia now find themselves on the train of history rather than off it.  There are not the ones to be abandoned, let alone forgotten.  In 2004, he exhibited in the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg.  In 2008, he exhibited his installation Gate in a room at the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts.  From powerlessness, the Kabakovs have come into power, embracing their own form of authorial dictation and authority.

*

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

The USA’s use of soft power has been effective with many worldwide, presenting an illusion of a free society (‘liberating minds’) and reinforcing a consumerist culture and the political regimes which collude with it.

On this site in 2015 there was an account of soft power – money and commodities poured from the United States into the Middle East. In the name of normality and freedom, all but the strongest young people are being remade in the image of the Western consumer whereas hard power is exerted by financial inducements, invasion and remote killing by drone.

One actor in the North Korean soft power drive is the Human Rights Foundation, whose approving Wikipedia entry emphasises its insistence on ‘economic freedom’. In Central and South America and the Middle East it has paved the way for the overthrow of regimes which would not play that game.

In North Korea jeans and pop music, though still part of the scene, have been supplemented by hydrogen balloons packed with DVDs, dollar bills and propaganda leaflets. Drones now drop USB flash drives full of news bulletins and documentaries aim to counter NK’s state propaganda with that of the United States; American movies and television shows to spread pro-Western sentiment were called “flash drives for freedom”. See Business Insider’s  informative account of this, published last year.

With the help of defectors USB-sticks are smuggled through towns on China’s border with North Korea and sold in the flourishing black market for goods and information. The Human Rights Foundation “has financed balloon drops of pamphlets, TV shows, books and movies over a course of several years”.

Its founder Thor Halvorssen, according to Joakim Mollersen a Norwegian economist and journalist, also set up the Oslo Freedom Forum whose  story, he says in some detail, is one  of US right-wing sponsorship, lack of transparency and “heroes of human rights” involved in supporting serious human rights violations.

State propaganda is ardently supplemented by this foundation which paid for a balloon drop of 10,000 copies of an edited version of the movie The Interview, and North Korea’s move towards becoming a denuclearized ‘democracy’, following its leader’s assassination.

In 2014, HRF hosted the world’s first hackathon for North Korea at Code for America’s offices in San Francisco. According to the Wall Street Journal,

“about 100 hackers, coders and engineers gathered in San Francisco to brainstorm ways to pierce the information divide that separates North Korea from the rest of the world.”

Alex Gladstein, HRF’s chief strategy officer calls this an ‘information war’ – the only way to inspire change:

“a third way . . .to liberate minds  . . . Given the history of Eastern Europe, I hope that people can think about the potential of information rather than reckless conflict and provocation and totally failed diplomacy”.

These soft power illusions of American normality, freedom and prosperity are confidence tricks. The unmentioned features of the USA, a country which young people have been led, by soft power, to admire as ‘an ideal state of freedom’, are extremes of economic inequality, youth unemployment, high cost housing, military aggression, pollution, gun slaughter, child abuse, violent pornography, and inequality.

*

Featured image is from Civilisation 3000.

The external expressions of Western-orchestrated Regime Change War are now surfacing in Iran. None of this is surprising since the war plans have been publicly available for years.[1]

Peaceful protests are being co-opted, and now displaced by violent actors. No doubt Western intelligence agencies and their operatives are “destabilizing” the protests. We’ve seen this before, most recently in Syria and the Ukraine.  Snipers will shoot both security personnel and protestors to create chaos and mayhem.  Reportedly, “protestors” have already killed a police officer  – and a number of protestors have also been killed.[2]

Already propaganda outlets are at work. Ken Roth of the discredited Human Rights Watch is playing the very fraudulent “democracy and freedom” card.

Source: Tim Anderson

We can expect more violence and Iranian government atrocity stories soon. Fake news outlets (ie CNN and all Western media) will soon be screaming that the “brutal Iranian dictator is killing his own people”. It’s a time-honored formula, no sense reinventing the wheel. Fake pretexts of “going after terrorists” will soon be evoked, and the propagandists will start selling the notion that Western bombing campaigns are necessary for humanitarian reasons. The will of the Iranian people will be displaced by Western terrorism, just like Syria.

Weapons shipments are likely already on site, and sectarian mercenary terrorists are likely on the sidelines, well-paid and ready to go.

Once the destabilization escalates, the Western-created and sustained holocaust will deepen.

Western populations have yet to realize that they too are being victimized by the warmongers and their agencies.

We can hope that Western populations will awaken from their state of mass indoctrination and mass political infantilization. But this is not likely.

Notes

[1] Prof Michel Chossudovsky, “Global Warfare. Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran.” Global Research. 1 August, 2010. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/preparing-for-world-war-iii-targeting-iran/20403). Accessed 1 January, 2018.

[2] Paul Antonopoulos,”Breaking!!! “Protesters” shoot dead Iranian police officer, injure another 3.” Fort Russ News

1 January, 2018. (http://www.fort-russ.com/2018/01/breaking-protesters-shoot-dead-iranian.html?m=1) Accessed 1 January,  2018.

The new tax law is NOT principally a handout, motivated by corporate greed—although greedy hands are seeking to maximize and game its benefits, which are utterly skewed to the wealthy. This tax bill is a conscious and strategic move to deal with economic contradictions and imperialist great-power needs. 

Yes, the tax bill will accelerate the upward redistribution and concentration of income and wealth. The Tax Policy Center has calculated that by 2025, the top one percent of households would receive nearly 85 percent of the total tax reduction.

This upward redistribution and concentration of wealth is a phenomenon, a pattern, of the last few decades. Countless studies on inequality (most famously Thomas Piketty’s work) have demonstrated this trend in the imperialist countries, with the U.S. the leader in inequality.

But the tax bill is not in essence a con game to rob the poor and large sections of the middle class, although people will suffer greatly. There are larger economic pressures and compulsions at work. And there are imperialist great-power needs, specifically the Trump/Pence regime’s global agenda.

The companion piece to this article deals with some of the fascist political and ideological implications of the Trump/Pence tax law, and the truly vicious economic attacks on the masses. These are indeed critical. But there is a deeper logic setting the context for all that.

The article “The New Tax Law: Cementing Policies and Politics of Cruelty” addresses some of the fascist political and ideological implications of the Trump-Pence tax law, and the truly vicious economic attacks on the masses. These are indeed critical. But there is a deeper logic setting the context for all that. 

1. There is a “logic,” a capitalist-imperialist geostrategic logic, to the Trump agenda. 

The Trump economic strategy has four main elements:

a) rewriting regulations and the tax code;

b) further slashing social spending;

c) expanding energy (fossil fuel) production, both to spur profits and to enhance U.S. global economic strength, competitiveness, and leverage (over world oil prices and over oil-producing regimes the U.S. deems as enemies, like Iran); and

d) remaking global trade rules and agreements to give greater immediate advantage to certain sections of U.S. capital, to further subordinate “partners” like Mexico.

The world capitalist economy has been undergoing major changes in the balance of strength of rival imperialists. In particular, capitalist China has emerged as a global rival to U.S. imperialism, and China has over the last 20 years been growing rapidly and extending its global reach and influence.

There is a view on the part of advisers in the Trump regime that the U.S. has more economic leverage… to leverage. As they seem to see it, other countries are more dependent on the U.S. for export markets (to sell their goods) than the U.S. is on their markets. And so, in this view, the U.S. can create obstacles to these countries’ ability to sell their goods in the U.S. (like imposing tariffs, a kind of tax, on products coming into the U.S.) and the U.S. can absorb retaliatory economic measures that these countries might take against the U.S.—and can also bully other countries into submitting to U.S. economic dictate.

This is a dangerous game to play, especially with China, where U.S. capital has huge investments. And China is actually financing much of the U.S. government deficit through its purchase of debt (bonds) issued by the U.S. Treasury.

But more than economics is involved. China in particular is expanding its military capabilities and Trump is pushing for a massive military buildup and military modernization, including and especially nuclear weapons.

The new U.S. national security document issued by the Trump/Pence regime on December 18 should be taken very seriously. It was apparently drawn up by the so-called “adults in the room,” notably National Security Advisor Gen. H.R. McMaster (at least in reports circulating).

The document is highly militaristic and full of threatening rhetoric—describing China and Russia as “revisionist powers” and “hostile competitors” seeking to “shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests.” It calls for the U.S. to prepare to militarily “overmatch” its rivals. The U.S. already has enormous military advantage, but this document is arguing for even greater advantage, buildup, and readiness. The Trump regime has been calling for the U.S. to be oriented to wage far larger wars than those of the last few decades. 

The Trump economic program is aimed at shoring up and bolstering the domestic economic base of the U.S. empire—energy, sectors of manufacturing, the industrial base for the military. This economic program is in the service of an aggressive, hyper-nationalist economic and strategic agenda that is “chauvinist globalist” (America First). 

2. A structural problem of the U.S. economy has been low rates of capital investment. The new tax law aims in part to deal with that—but whether it can is far from certain.

The competitive drive to invest, to expand, to exploit labor on an ever more technologically advanced foundation for profit and more profit is taking place in a more intensely competitive global environment. But capital investment in the U.S. in recent years has been low by historical standards. This is so despite the fact that the U.S. economy has been growing and business spending has picked up some in the last year. “Capital investment” (or capital formation) refers to business spending on new factories and structures, equipment, technology, etc., to boost productivity and expand and cheapen production.

One of the goals of the tax cut is to stimulate capital investment. Job creation is neither the goal nor the necessary result of capital investment: on the one hand, much capital investment has been and will continue to be labor-replacing technology; and, on the other, U.S. multinational corporations depend for the profitability on overseas cheap-labor investment, outsourcing, global supply chains, etc.

Could such a tax cut stimulate investment? Yes, but not necessarily. There is no established connection between low taxes and high investment, high growth, and job creation. But trapped by their ideological illusions and capable of all manner of lying, the proponents of the tax bill are half believing and half deceiving. 

The laws of capital operate behind the capitalists’ backs. It is not tax levels but the underlying profitability of capital that sets the terms of investment. And this the capitalists cannot control. Profitability is determined by the complex, competitive struggle and interactions of capitals, by technological change, by wage rates, by international factors, and other things as well.

The facts: corporate earnings have been very high in recent years. But this has not translated into major new rounds of capital investment. There are various reasons for this, but a critical factor is that the return on investment is not sufficiently high to draw forth new spending on a scale that would ramp up productiveness of labor and competitiveness.

And, so, many U.S. corporations are sitting on large hoards of cash. These can be seen as competitive war chests for future investment, to wage the battle to beat competitors and gain market share. Lower corporate taxes might simply add to capital that is not being actively, productively invested. In the recent past, corporations have used extra profits from paying less tax to buy back their own stock (to boost stock prices) or to purchase financial assets and property. In other words, lower corporate taxes can simply lead to more financial manipulation and gain, not real investment. This is all part of the anarchy and parasitism of capitalist-imperialism. 

3. Taxes on corporations are necessary to underwrite the capitalist-imperialist state; the capitalist state safeguards and advances the strategic interests of imperialist capital; but this is full of contradiction. The slash in corporate tax rates is an attempt to deal with those contradictions. Yet these contradictions are potentially explosive.

The cornerstone and centerpiece of the just-passed tax bill is the large reduction of corporate tax rates from 35 to 21 percent. The official tax rate (35 percent) with state taxes added in brings the top rate to 39 percent. This would make the U.S. corporate tax rate the third highest in the world. But this is highly misleading. When you factor in various exemptions and allowances, and other special provisions, the corporate tax rate washes out at about 27 percent. That level fits with the global average. And there have been blatant instances in the last six years when some large U.S. corporations have avoided paying any taxes. 

But this “average” tax rate is a constraint on some sections of U.S. capital in the particular conditions of the world-capitalist economy—with shifts in global economic power and heightened global competition.

In this light it is extremely useful to review Bob Avakian’s article “‘Preliminary Transformation into Capital’…And Putting an End to Capitalism.” In examining the dynamics of capitalism, government spending, and the taxes and borrowing required to finance state expenditure—Avakian points out that “taxes are in fact in conflict with profitability for discrete, individual aggregations of capital.” Taxes are a deduction from surplus value (profit)—which comes from the exploitation of wage-labor.

Now the capitalist state is indispensable to the functioning of the system. It acts to safeguard the larger strategic interests of the national capitalist-imperialist formation, like the U.S., China, Japan, Germany, Russia, etc. The imperialist state provides the repressive and military support for capital. This means, for instance, contending for domination of different parts of the globe through military and other means. The capitalist state also takes measures to facilitate the more profitable functioning and expansion of capital, like building roads and transport, investing in research, etc.

But this “greater capitalist interest” is itself fought out and fought over by different sections/wings of the ruling class. The benefits from expanding exploitation around the world, or building new infrastructure, will accrue to some sections of capital more than others, and they will fight with each other over this. And taxes still reduce the pool of surplus value available to individual capitals. This is true even as these individual capitals require the capitalist state to assure the political and economic conditions necessary for profitable capitalist production to take place. So, again—the whole thing is full of contradiction. The slash in corporate tax rates is a key way that the now politically dominant sections of the imperialists in the U.S. see dealing with those contradictions. But these cuts will also result in declining revenues for the government that could lead to ballooning budget deficits—between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion by most estimates—and create major financial strains on the economy (and be a “rationale” for social spending cuts). 

By way of conclusion…

In short: the main purpose of this tax law is to strengthen certain sectors of the U.S economy as part of the “America first” economic-military agenda. But there is no guarantee that lower corporate taxes will in fact stimulate major new investment. The “tax reform” will, however, lead to greater income and wealth inequality, and new hardships on the poor and many in the middle strata. The fascist regime’s gamble here is that they will be able to ram through to a more dominant role in the world economy; that they can kick-start higher levels of capital investment; and that they will succeed in jamming these vicious attacks on living standards down the throats of the masses. Whether this gamble succeeds, at a huge and perhaps truly catastrophic cost, or whether it fails… the main implication is clear: prepare for struggle.

*

Raymond Lotta is a political economist and writer for revcom.us / Revolution newspaper where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from The Libertarian Republic.

The two Koreas have agreed to hold talks next Tuesday after North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said in a New Year’s speech his country could send a team to the Winter Olympics, due to be held in South Korea next month. Kim also suggested he was open to dialogue to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who came to power last year advocating dialogue with North Korea, reportedly ordered his staff to act quickly on Kim’s offer. Unification Minister Cho Myoung-gyon proposed a high-level meeting at the border village of Panmunjom for January 9.

“We expect to sit down with North Korea face to face and frankly discuss mutual interests aimed at better inter-Korean relations,” Cho said. “We look forward to Pyongyang’s positive reaction to this.” The meeting would be the first between the two Koreas since 2015.

The proposal for talks came amid high tensions on the Korean Peninsula after bellicose threats by the Trump administration to “totally destroy” North Korea if it refuses to abandon its nuclear and missile programs. The US has also pressured the UN Security Council to impose harsh sanctions on North Korea that are crippling its economy and generating considerable hardship.

Kim’s New Year speech was pitched at South Korea, declaring:

“North and South must work together to alleviate the tensions and work together as a people of the same heritage to find peace and stability.”

He called for talks “as soon as possible” to discuss North Korea’s participation in the Winter Olympics.

While adopting a conciliatory tone toward South Korea, Kim warned the Trump administration that the entire US mainland was “within the range of our nuclear weapons and the nuclear button is always on the desk of my office.” This was “not a threat but a reality,” he added.

The North Korean leader called for a halt to joint US-South Korean military exercises. Over the past year, these joint drills, which are scarcely concealed rehearsals for war with North Korea, have markedly increased in scale. Last month, the war games included a major air force drill, as well as special forces exercise to practice for a military intervention into North Korea.

South Korea’s Unification Minister Cho said the offer of high-level talks with North Korea had been discussed with the US. He added that a decision was pending on whether to delay large-scale joint war games until after the Winter Olympics.

China and Russia have previously advocated a halt to the US-South Korean military exercises in return for a freeze on North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests as a means of starting negotiations. The US has repeatedly ruled out any such plan.

Moreover, US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, last month suggested on Fox News that the US was considering not sending a team to the Winter Olympics. It was an “open question,” she said, as to whether American athletes would compete, citing security issues.

Speaking yesterday, Haley emphatically rejected any compromise with Pyongyang, saying the US “will never accept a nuclear North Korea.” She warned:

“As we hear reports that North Korea might be preparing for another missile test—I hope that does not happen, but if it does—we must bring even more measures to bear on the North Korea regime,” she said.

While not rejecting talks between North and South Korea outright, President Donald Trump was rather dismissive, implying that North Korea was simply responding to US-led sanctions and pressure. Using his derogatory term for Kim Jong-un, Trump tweeted:

“Rocket man now wants to talk to South Korea for first time. Perhaps that is good news, perhaps not—we will see!”

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders declared that the US policy on North Korea “hasn’t changed at all. The United States is committed and will still continue to put maximum pressure on North Korea to change and make sure that it denuclearises the Peninsula. Our goals are the same, and we share that with South Korea.”

South Korean President Moon has made clear that his administration would work in close consultation with allies in any talks with North Korea. He stressed that improvements in inter-Korean relations were not separate from “the issue of resolving the North Korean nuclear issue.” In other words, Pyongyang must be compelled to give up its nuclear arsenal.

Since coming to office, Moon has followed the US in applying intense pressure on North Korea, including in allowing the full deployment of a US Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-missile system. On Sunday, South Korean authorities announced the seizure of a second ship allegedly involved in transferring oil products to North Korea in violation of UN sanctions.

Trump’s aggressive confrontation with North Korea has generated sharp divisions in US ruling circles amid fears of a catastrophic war. In a high-profile interview on ABC’s “This Week” program on Sunday, former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen gave a scathing assessment of Trump’s foreign policy over the past year. Mullen declared it had been “incredibly disruptive, certainly unpredictable in many, many ways” to established relationships and alliances in the post-World War II period.

Mullen warned:

“An incredibly dangerous climate exists out there… and one in particular that is [at the] top of the list is North Korea. We’re actually closer, in my view, to a nuclear war with North Korea and in that region than we have ever been. And I just don’t see how—I don’t see the opportunities to solve this diplomatically at this particular point.”

The standoff between the US and North Korea is rapidly coming to a head. Trump has insisted since coming to office that he will not tolerate North Korea having the ability to strike continental United States with a nuclear weapon. Trump officials have repeatedly warned that time is running out for any peaceful resolution. At the same time, North Korea has declared time and again that it will not give up its nuclear weapons without security guarantees from the United States.

It is in this context that the two Koreas plan to meet next week.

*

Featured image is from KCNA.

You can help Global Research by forwarding this selection of articles on US-Israel war plans directed against Iran.

Do you think someone in your entourage could benefit from our daily newsletter?

Why not suggest they sign up, it’s free!  Contact them by email. 

And don’t forget to connect with us through Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to keep spreading awareness to your friends and followers. 

We are currently envisaging the creation of The Online Global Research Library, which will provide easy access to more than 100,000 articles in our archive, with a set of user friendly internal search engines (by author, country, themes, topics, key words, language, etc.). To undertake this endeavor, we need the support of our readers. 

If you are in a position to make a donation in support of Global Research, kindly click the donation button. 

*     *     *

The US and Israel’s New “Secret” Anti-Iran Plans

By Abdel Bari Atwan, January 02, 2018

While Russia strives to move Syria on from a stage of war and bloody anarchy to one of peace, stability and reconstruction — by inviting all parties to next month’s Sochi conference to agree a roadmap including a new constitution and presidential and parliamentary elections – the US and Israel are drawing up plans to detonate the region and plunge it into new wars on the pretext of confronting the Iranian threat.

Foreign Intervention Behind Iran Protests. CIA Instigated Street Violence?

By Stephen Lendman, January 02, 2018

Lethally shooting around 20 or Iranians through New Year’s day, including at least one policeman, suggests foreign interference.

What’s going on resembles March 2011 protests in Daraa, Syria. US-supported armed protesters fired on police, instigating conflict.

Global Warfare. Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 31, 2017

The setting up of new US military bases, the stockpiling of advanced weapons systems including tactical nuclear weapons, etc. were implemented as part of the pre-emptive defensive military doctrine under the umbrella of the “Global War on Terrorism”.

What Is Happening in Iran? Is Another “Color Revolution” Underway?

By Brandon Turbeville, December 31, 2017

A familiar sight is taking place across Iran tonight and it has been for the last three days. Protests are taking place in numerous cities citing grievances and demanding that the Ayatollah and Iranian President step down. For a few days, the protests remained non-violent but now violence has indeed flared up as protesters have laid waste to a number of government properties and those belonging to “pro-government militias.”

U.S. and Israel Sign Secret Plan to Take on Iran. Report

By Ali Nejad, December 31, 2017

An Israeli TV report details that the U.S. and Israel have signed a far-reaching joint memorandum of understanding to counter Iranian activities across the Middle East. U.S. and Israeli officials said the joint understandings were reached in a secret meeting between senior Israeli and U.S. delegations at the White House on December 12th.

The US Persistently Seeks to Destabilize Iran. Why is Washington So Deeply Concerned about Tehran’s Regional Influence in the Middle East?

By Farhad Shahabi, November 16, 2017

Thirty eight years ago, in 1979, a revolution against a client regime installed and propped up by the United States succeeded in Iran. This was followed by the establishment of an independent state, the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Ever since, the US’s presence, plans and attempts to maintain, deepen and expand its dominance throughout the Middle East has been seriously challenged  and thwarted.

Featured image: Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi (Source: India Today)

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Post-9/11, Bush/Cheney deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage warned then-Pakistani president Musharraf his country would be “bombed back to the stone age” if he didn’t ally with Washington’s imperial agenda – its war OF terror, not on it.

It was an offer he couldn’t refuse, costing Pakistan threefold or more than it got in US aid, given solely to serve its imperial interests.

Assistance given should help both countries. One analyst called Washington’s strategic relationship with Pakistan “muddled, deceptive, complicated and dangerous” – pre-and-post-9/11, especially in its aftermath.

Aid has gone largely to its military and Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) to help America’s war OF terror – massacring civilians and causing vast destruction on the phony pretext of combating terrorism.

The bilateral relationship harms Pakistan more than helping it.  Straightaway in the new year, Trump tweeted:

“The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools.”

“They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”

In response to Trump’s insult, Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi convened an emergency cabinet meeting.

America’s ambassador David Hale was summoned to explain Trump’s hostile remarks. Last week, Pakistan’s Senate passed a resolution, calling for Islamabad to demand compensation from Washington for slaughter and destruction caused by US drone attacks on its territory – largely killing civilians.

PM Abbasi and other Pakistani officials are well aware of Trump’s loosened combat restrictions, delegating authority to hawkish generals and field commanders, letting them operate unrestrained.

According to Reprieve human rights lawyer Jen Gibson, Pakistan is heavily pressured to served US interests. Pakistani Defense Minister Khurram Dastagir slammed Washington, saying US administrations “have given us nothing but invective and mistrust. They overlook cross-border safe havens of terrorists who murder Pakistanis.”

In early December, Pakistan’s air force chief Marshal Sohail Aman addressed the issue of his country’s security, saying

“(w)e will protect the sovereignty of the country at any cost.”

He warned Washington its drones operating in Pakistani airspace without permission will be shot down.

Senate Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Nuzhat Sadiq said

“(i)t is the policy of the government not to allow any more US drone strikes on our soil, and the air chief has effectively conveyed it to the Americans.”

She indicated foreign policy changes in bilateral relations with Washington are coming.

Post-9/11, US drones killed thousands of Pakistani nationals, largely civilians, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Retired General Talat Masood warned that

“the superpower is not going to digest this change in policy easily.”

Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif slammed Trump, tweeting:

“We will reveal the truth to the entire world. We will separate fact from fiction.”

He accused Washington of aiding terrorists, not combatting them.

 

*

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

South Korea has responded to North Korean leader Kim Jong- un‘s diplomatic overture with an offer Tuesday to hold high-level talks between the countries on the border next week.

On New Year’s Day, North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un announced that the country will seek participation in the 2018 Winter Olympics to be held in South Korea between Feb. 9-25, foretelling 2018 as a “year of reconciliation” even as he noted that he now had a “nuclear button” on his desk, referring to the country’s now-powerful nuclear deterrence and weapons delivery system.

In a Twitter message posted Tuesday night, U.S. President Donald Trump, referring to Kim, said:

“Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!”

The former reality television personality regularly pokes fun at his North Korean counterpart on Twitter, issuing various missives that have worried U.S. commentators due to their inflammatory and non-diplomatic nature. Kim has refused to back down, calling Trump a “mentally deranged U.S. dotard.”

South Korean President Moon Jae-in, however, welcomed Kim’s New Year address and asked his government to move as quickly as possible to bring North Korea to the Olympics, but he stressed that an improvement in inter-Korean relations “cannot go separately with resolving North Korea’s nuclear program.”

South Korea’s Unification Minister Cho Myong-gyon said the offer for high-level talks next Tuesday had been discussed with the United States. U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said she was not aware if the matter had been discussed in advance of the South Korean response.

Cho suggested the talks be held at the truce village of Panmunjeom in the De-Militarized Zone on Jan. 9, and said they should be focused on North Korea’s participation at the Olympics, but other issues would likely arise, including the denuclearization of North Korea.

“I repeat: The government is open to talking with North Korea, regardless of time, location and form,” Cho said.

Should the talks be held, it would be the first such dialogue since a vice-ministerial meeting in December 2015.

Moon Jae-In has long been an advocate of the so-called “Sunshine Policy” introduced in 1998 by South Korea’s then-President Kim Dae-Jung called for a slow process of confederated reunification and resulted in a blossoming of North-South relations, including large shipments of food aid to the North and a lifting of restrictions on joint business ventures.

The South Korean leader, who eventually earned a Nobel Peace Prize, even urged the U.S. to lift its embargo on the North. Pyongyang had, for the first time, established official ties with various European states while holding talks with the U.S. and Japan.

The policy broke down amid threats by the United States, whose then-President George W. Bush said that Pyongyang was a part of the “Axis of Evil” including Iraq and Iran.

The White House is lukewarm to the idea of the two Koreas holding talks, responding with a mixture of doubt and the usual sarcasm that has marked Trump’s attitude toward to diplomacy.

“Our policy on North Korea hasn’t changed at all. The United States is committed and will still continue to put maximum pressure on North Korea to change and make sure that it denuclearizes the peninsula,” said White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. “Our goals are the same and we share that with South Korea, but our policy and our process has not changed.”

The State Department’s Nauert couldn’t help but express misgivings about potential talks, saying that North Korea might be “trying to drive a wedge of some sort” between the United States and South Korea and added that while it was up to Seoul to decide who it talked to:

“We are very skeptical of Kim Jong Un’s sincerity in sitting down and having talks.”

China, which has consistently expressed hopes that diplomacy be used to ease tensions, said the positive comments from the Koreans was a good thing.

“China welcomes and supports North Korea and South Korea taking earnest efforts to treat this as an opportunity to improve mutual relations, promote the alleviation of the situation on the Korean peninsula and realize denuclearization on the peninsula,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said.

Since the end of the Second World War and the creation of the Republic of Korea under the supervision of the U.S. postwar occupation, Seoul has been a crucial linchpin of the U.S. Asia-Pacific security infrastructure.

*

Featured image is from Global Balita.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

On Tuesday, US neocon UN envoy Nikki Haley said Trump “doesn’t want to give any additional funding until the Palestinians agree to come back to the negotiation table…”

She lied claiming

“(w)e’re trying to move for a peace process, but if that doesn’t happen, the president is not going to continue to fund” the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Washington provides over $300 million annually to the agency, pocket change for a nation wasting trillions of dollars on militarism and endless wars of aggression.

Last August, an unnamed UN mission to the UN official said

“America has long been committed to funding UNRWA’s important mission, and that will continue.”

Former State Department official Ilan Goldenberg earlier said

“(a)s with all issues involving the Palestinians, there is a combination of public railing against UNRWA with the public reality of continuing to fund it.”

Established in 1949, it provides vital aid for millions of Palestinian refugees expelled from their homes in 1948, others in 1967, including their descendants and adopted children, dispossessed from their land, property, livelihoods, and fundamental rights.

UNWRA provides education, healthcare, and other vital social services to Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) aids other refugees worldwide, including Palestinians displaced outside the above areas.

Funding shortfalls hamper UNWRA’s work, agency spokesman Chris Gunness earlier saying additional funds are “urgent(ly) required to avoid impacting our services.”

The agency faces annual funding shortfalls, at times aided by nations willing to contribute added amounts.

Since Trump took office, UNWRA’s financial situation is more precarious than ever, given his rage to cut foreign aid and domestic social justice programs for greater militarism, warmaking, corporate handouts and tax cuts for the rich.

His Jerusalem declaration, complicit with Netanyahu, showed they reject peace, want continued occupation harshness and Palestinian subjugation. Claims otherwise are pure subterfuge.

Commenting on his threat to cut UNWRA aid (through Haley), PLO executive committee member Hanan Ashwari blasted him, saying:

“By recognizing Occupied Jerusalem (al-Quds) as Israel’s capital, Donald Trump has not only violated international law, but he has also singlehandedly destroyed the very foundations of peace and condoned Israel’s illegal annexation of the city.”

“We will not be blackmailed,” she stressed, adding “Palestinian rights are not for sale.”

Trump “sabotaged our search for peace, freedom and justice. Now he dares to blame the Palestinians for the consequences of his own irresponsible actions!”

Hopefully enough other PLO executive committee members are with Ashwari in standing up against US bullying.

In a series of disgraceful Tuesday tweets, showing contempt for Palestinian rights and common decency, Trump said Washington gives “the Palestinians HUNDRED OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS a year” and yet gets “no appreciation or respect.”

“But with the Palestinians no longer willing to talk peace, why should we make any of these massive future payments to them?” he asked.

Trump disgraces the office he holds. He’s a warrior, not a peace president, deploring the notion – indifferent to human suffering, contemptuous of democratic values, rule of law principles, and governance of, by and everyone equitably.

He risks catastrophic nuclear war on one more countries. As long as neocons infest his administration, humanity is threatened by endless aggression.

*

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

Some ideas take on a character akin to sacred texts whose validity is rarely questioned. One such belief is that the Islamic Republic of Iran is the biggest threat to the Middle East and the United States. The threat narrative has become required foreign policy catechism in Washington, D.C.

Menacing stereotypes and bellicose rhetoric are the standards by which Iran has come to be judged. It has been in the crosshairs of American administrations since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The process by which a country is determined a terrorist state is highly subjective and politicized, with the United States assuming the singular role of terrorism arbiter. After only weeks in office, the Trump administration resurrected the “Iran the terrorist state” mantra.

The unpredictability of the Trump White House and volatility of the Middle East makes it vital to understand the nature of Washington’s anti-Iran bias, how and why Iran has come to be cast as an international sponsor of terrorism, and most importantly, examine why the characterization is false.

The 1979 revolution freed Iran from its obsequious relationship to Washington. Its regional influence spread not in terms of conquered territory; rather, its revolutionary ideology gave voice to Shi’ites living in oppressive Sunni majority-ruled countries.

The Islamic Republic presented a dilemma for Washington, accustomed to dealing with Middle East autocrats. To counter the revolution’s influence, Washington manufactured a narrative depicting Iran’s leaders as irrational religious fanatics in charge of a dangerous state that acted contrary to traditional state behavior. America’s attitude hardened with the takeover of the U.S. embassy in 1979, shaping the negative lens through which Iran would be viewed thereafter.

The trauma inflicted by the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) deepened Iran’s distrust of Washington. America’s support for Saddam’s aggression was seen as an attempt to restore the monarchy and to destabilize the nascent government. The post-revolution 1980s were filled with uncertainties and excesses as Tehran struggled to survive its war with Iraq – a war subsidized by Saudi Arabia and supported by the United States.

In the 1990s, Iran endeavored to shed its hard-line image, favoring integration into the international community. Tehran sought to build constructive ties to the West. Although Iran opposed the attack on Afghanistan in 2001, the goal of fighting terrorism and toppling the Taliban regime – driven from power in November 2001 – united the two countries in perhaps the most constructive period of U.S.-Iranian diplomacy.

At a December 2001 meeting in Bonn, Germany, Secretary of State Colin Powell credited Iran with being particularly helpful in establishing an interim Afghan government, following the American invasion. It was Javad Zarif, then Iran’s U.N. ambassador, who mediated a compromise over the composition of Afghanistan’s post-Taliban government, ultimately leading to an agreement. And it was Iran that insisted that the agreement include a commitment to hold democratic elections in Afghanistan.

A burst of diplomatic talks between Iranian and American officials took place from 2001 through May 2003. Topics included cooperative activities against their mutual enemies: Saddam, the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Meetings resumed even after President George W. Bush listed Iran among the “axis of evil” countries in his 2002 State of the Union address.

Tehran’s final attempt to normalize relations with the United States came in May of 2003 in what became known as the “grand bargain.” Calling for broad dialogue “in mutual respect,” Iran suggested that everything was on the table, including full cooperation on Iran’s nuclear program, and assistance in helping stabilize Iraq.

Convinced that the Iranian government was on the brink of collapse, and emboldened by its perceived victory in Iraq in March 2003, Bush administration officials belittled the initiative.

Washington’s imperious posture and failure to build on Iran’s cooperation in Afghanistan, led senior officials in Tehran to conclude that America’s goal was regime change.

Bush strategists had another objective in ousting Saddam – to isolate and increase the military and political pressure on Iran, and on the government of President Bashar al-Assad. A frequent refrain of administration officials was, “Today Baghdad, tomorrow Damascus, and then on to Tehran.”

To curb Tehran’s growing influence in Iraq after the 2003 US invasion, Bush launched an unprecedented financial war against Iran. A list of strategies developed in 2006 by Stuart Levy – the first undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the Treasury Department – were implemented to drive Iran out of the global economy.

Congress defines an international sponsor of terrorism as a country whose government supports acts of international terrorism. Tehran does not support “international” terrorism, but it does provide material support to regional movements that it calls the oppressed, whose battle is directed toward the state of Israel – Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. These groups have used violence against Israel to end the brutal occupation of their land, and Tehran insists it is not terrorism.

Iran’s leaders believe that Israel’s long-term goal is to weaken the Islamic world, eliminating all resistance, in order to carry out its expansionist designs. The Israeli government has relentlessly pushed the idea that Iran is the greatest threat to peace and stability in the region and world. It has successfully sold this provocative idea in the United States. Many senior Israeli security officials have refuted the assertion that an Iranian nuclear weapon would threaten Israel, fully aware that Israel enjoys a huge military and technical advantage in the region, and that it possesses an arsenal capable of deterring any nuclear aggression.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s motives for vilifying Iran are many, but it serves to distract international attention as his government continues settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank, Jerusalem and Syrian Golan Heights.

Saudi Arabia, like Israel, has been relentless in insuring that the United States remains engaged in the Middle East, and that the United States continues to do its heavy lifting. Saudi rulers believe that the Assad government is pivotal to Iranian influence in the region, and have been encouraging Washington to get rid of him for years.

The intense focus on Iran as a menace does not correspond to its capabilities, intent or danger. A 2017 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report stated that Iran’s national security policy involves protecting itself from American or others’ efforts to intimidate or change the regime. According to the 2014 U.S. Defense Department Annual Review of Iran, “Iran’s military doctrine is defensive.”

Forty-five US military bases encircle Iran, with over 125,000 troops in close proximity. The CRS asserted that Tehran allocates about 3 percent of GDP to military spending, far less than what its Persian Gulf neighbors spend.

Iran’s nuclear program has cultivated scientific innovation and national pride. It required pragmatic leadership to accept the constraints of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The agreement subjects Iran to greater restrictions and more intrusive monitoring than any state with nuclear programs – while its neighbors, Pakistan and Israel, possess unlimited nuclear programs and weapons. According to the IAEA and the US State Department, Iran has been fulfilling its obligations under the JCPOA.

Toughness on Iran has become a litmus test for American politicians to demonstrate their support for Israel. Congress overwhelmingly passed a ten-year extension of the Iran Sanctions Act, which expired on December 31, 2016. The renewal makes it easier for the Trump administration to reimpose sanctions that President Obama lifted under the JCPOA.

Unlike other countries in the Middle East that have integrated missiles into their conventional armed forces, Iran has been singled out for the same behavior. It has no long-range missiles, no nuclear warheads for its missiles, and has not threatened their use. Without nuclear weapons, missiles are of negligible importance. Unlike the Saudis and Israelis, Iran does not have a large or modern air force.

A February 26, 2015, report by the director of national intelligence, titled “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Communities,” stated that Iran is not the chief sponsor of terrorism, and removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats. The report asserted Tehran’s intentions are to “dampen sectarianism, build responsive partners and de-escalate tensions with Saudi Arabia…, and combat Sunni extremists, including the Islamic State.”

Yet there are countless examples of aggression against Iran. The Saudi government has sought for decades to motivate Sunnis to fear and resist Iran. To that end, it has spent billions on a campaign to expand Salafism (an ultra-conservative, austere form of Islam) as a major counterforce in the Muslim world.

In 2007, Congress approved Bush’s request for $400 million to escalate covert operations aimed at destabilizing the Islamic Republic, with regime change the ultimate goal. The funding request came at the same time that a National Intelligence Estimate – the collective work of America’s sixteen spy agencies – concluded that Iran had ceased its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations employed some of the most draconian financial methods ever used against a state, including crippling sanctions on Iran’s entire banking, transportation and energy sectors.

The first known use of cyber warfare against a sovereign state was launched against Iran by the United States and Israel in 2009. The Stuxnet virus crippled Iranian centrifuges used to produce nuclear fuel.

Beginning in 2008, four of Iran’s nuclear scientists were assassinated on the streets of Tehran; the evidence pointed to Israeli agents. In 2011, a military arms depot was blown up, killing 17 people. The incident was similar to a blast in October 2010 at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps missile base in Khorrambad. Both acts of sabotage were attributed to Israel.

Source: Right Web

American organizations such as the jingoistic United Against a Nuclear Iran, chaired by former Senator Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., have called for attacks on Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf and on Iranian military forces that have been fighting the Islamic State in Syria. They have pressured the Trump administration to increase sanctions and to cancel the JCPOA.

These acts of aggression are justified in Washington and elsewhere by the standard rhetoric of the Iranian terrorism myth, but there is scant intelligence to support the claim. In a 2011 poll conducted in twelve Arab countries by The Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, 73 percent of the 16,731 individuals surveyed saw Israel and the United States as the most threatening countries, with 5 percent seeing Iran as such.

Most U.S. officials quietly acknowledge that Saudi Arabia and the Sunni-ruled Gulf monarchies are the major supporters of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. A recently released classified State Department cable dated December 30, 2009, stated, “…donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

Iran has been fighting the Islamic State in Iraq at the request of the country’s sovereign government. Iran lives in the neighborhood and relies on regional allies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Assad in Syria, to bolster its security if attacked. Syria was the only country to support Iran during the Iraq war. Tehran is keenly aware that the outcome of the Syrian war will have major consequences for the region’s Shi’ites, and could reshape the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia and Israel have made Iran their major regional adversary, and to that end have built a formidable alliance. The Saudis and Israelis, for example, have aided al-Qaeda affiliated forces in the Syrian war.

Israel has pressured the United States and Russia to expel Iranian-backed militias from Syria, and to attack pro-Iranian forces. Tel Aviv would like to see Syria fractured into small, sectarian enclaves, so weakened as to be no threat. To that end, it has partnered with Jabhat al-Nusra (aka the al-Nusra Front) – al-Qaeda’s franchise in Syria. United Nations observers have documented the delivery of material aid and coordination between Israeli military personnel and al-Nusra armed groups, and have noted that Al-Nusra terrorists have been cared for in Israeli hospitals.

By supporting al-Nusra, Israel has effectively sided with America’s enemy and could, therefore, be labeled a state sponsor of terrorism.

In the wake of the 9-11 attacks, President Bush, in his September 20, 2001, speech to Congress declared,

“Every nation now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists….From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

Iran has been fighting terrorism since September 11, 2001. Its national security depends on stable borders and a stable region. Consequently, it has been fighting in Syria and aiding the Iraqi government to recapture territories held by the Islamic State.

Iranians know all too well the egregious effects of terrorism. For decades, US and Israeli intelligence agencies have covertly financed, equipped and trained opposition groups that have fomented and carried out terrorist attacks inside Iran. Thousands of civilians and political figures, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, have suffered injury at the hands of terrorists. US intelligence agencies have supported the acts of violence committed by the Mujahedin-e Khalq – listed by the State Department as a terrorist group (now delisted) that advocates the overthrow of the Islamic Republic – as well as the Baluchi ethnic minority group Jundullah, aligned with the thinking of al-Qaeda.

Terrorism is a cudgel used to engender fear. And fear, grounded in erroneous information, can result in destructive government policies, and in the worst case, war. This is especially true of the U.S.-Iran relationship. After almost four decades, Iran and the Middle East have substantially changed, while American policy has not. Iran’s evolving and nuanced political system does not fit into Washington’s outdated, hegemonic good guy-bad guy worldview.

American, Israeli and Saudi regional objectives depend on the existence of an enemy; and to that aim, Iran’s terrorism designation has proven a potent rhetorical weapon. Given the circumstances, Tehran will continue its defensive, cautious strategy while asserting what it sees as its historical role in the region.

*

M. Reza Behnam, Ph.D., is a political scientist specializing in the politics, history and governments of the Middle East. He is the author of the award-winning book,Cultural Foundations of Iranian Politics.

Hebrew “0404” website, on Tuesday, said that US President Donald Trump has confirmed, to Israel, his intention to transfer the embassy of his country from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as soon as possible, and will begin the transfer this year.

The website reported, according to the PNN, that Trump is pressuring his staff in Washington in coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to start working on the move.

“President Trump has sent a clear message that he wants to start moving the embassy soon,” a source at the White House said, adding that the work will begin in 2018.

The report said that the US embassy will be transferred from Tel Aviv to the Diplomacy Hotel, in occupied Jerusalem.

Israel occupied the eastern part of Jerusalem in 1967, and, in 1980, declared its annexation to the western part of Jerusalem since 1948.

Trump announced on December 6, 2017, his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and his intention to transfer the US embassy to the occupied city.

Last night, the Knesset passed the “Unified Jerusalem”, law in the second and third readings, by 61 votes to 51, an exceptional majority of the Israeli parliament.

Two’s a company; three’s a crowd.  More?  This issue is preoccupying political and policing figures in the city considered by the Economist Intelligence Unit the most liveable in the world, bettering a whole host of other seemingly more appropriate candidates.  So liveable, in fact, that it houses all sorts.

Having repeatedly boasted, self-congratulated and beamed at the idea that Australia is the most multicultural nation on earth, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been less cautious of late.  He has been getting stroppy with the Victorian Government for not doing enough about what he considers Melbourne’s “growing gang violence and lawlessness”.

The straw that broke a very fragile camel’s back involved acts of vandalism in Werribee.  Depending on which news source you referred to, there was a mass riot at an Airbnb property that would have made the Communards proud. Other sources saw more modest damage to cars and rental property.  Everyone took notice of the juvenile expressions of delight from the perpetrators, who scrawled the letters MTS (“Menace to Society”) on walls to leave their little residue of destructive pride.

At the federal level, politicians see the former: mayhem, riotous violence, a loss of control.  Federal minister Greg Hunt has come up with his own assessment:

“Gang crime in Victoria is clearly out of control.  We know that African gang crime in some areas in particular is clearly out of control.”

In the tables of political point scoring, Hunt had found a handy, simplifying culprit.

For Hunt, there were no relevant sophisticated sociological principles here, nor matters of economics.  Society was imploding; an African wave of violence had been unleashed.  Nor was it a police issue.  “The failure is not the police but the premier.”

Victorian police have been a touch more tentative, while various African community leaders have been less than confident in the tag of “gang”.  Label and be damned.

“These young thugs, these young criminals,” claimed Acting Commissioner Shane Patton, “they’re not an organised crime group like a Middle Eastern organised crime group or an outlaw motorcycle gang. But they’re behaving like street gangs, so let’s call them that – that’s what they are.”

South Sudanese community leader, Richard Deng, prefers the direct option: engage the estranged; bring in those lost souls from the cold. Fine for Mr Turnbull to speak from a distant pulpit, but come down to Melbourne and see for yourself and cosy up to conversation with local leaders. 

“What disappointed me as a community leader is to see a Prime Minister of our country trying to say these are ‘African gangs’ – these are the children of Australia”.

Deng’s message is that of understanding, conciliation, accommodation, the sugary terms that have long ceased to exist in the official speak of Australian law enforcement.  This remains a country keen on promoting its tolerant cosmopolitanism even as it finances gulag processing centres for asylum seekers on tropical islands in developing countries.  Compassion rarely sells. 

Foremost in the approach of such figures as Deng it is that of instruction, the pedagogue in action, the elder in sympathy.

“He’s the Prime Minister, he needs to join hands with the State government and police to support these kids.”

Figures such as Ahmed Hassan, director of the outreach group Youth Activating Youth, adds his vote of confidence to ongoing efforts of the Victorian Government, ones that follow the pathway of encouragement and engagement.  Strategies are being implemented through sporting clubs, through schools.

“We need to continue this and it has to come from a federal level where the Prime Minister has to support the State Government initiatives.”

Race, immigration and security are not provinces where Australian leaders have been particularly keen to separate.  Every attack is a political opportunity, enabling markers of identity to be used to bolster the next populist policy.  Reassurance is less enticing than the drum beat of conflict, the stimulant of fear.  Rather than considering matters of structure and influence in terms of why a section of the population might turn to crime, or even more broadly mischief, the superficial will sell.

Matthew Guy, Victoria’s Liberal Opposition Leader, is an adherent to the tedious view that the fist is better than the mind, the prison a better solution than the classroom.  The fact that prisons are ideal schools for crime eludes him.  The Guy formula here is mandatory sentencing for repeat offenders, those involved in home invasions, aggravated car-jackings and armed robberies.

Not that the community leaders are necessary the best panacea for the lost.  Having assumed the authority to speak for alienated youth figures, they can themselves come across as compromised, seeking authority before others in the immigrant hierarchy. Resources, and prestige, are there to be fought over, even as the problem perpetuates.

Nor do they all agree, either.  Nelly Yoa has provided manna from heaven to more reactionary commentators keen to put the kibosh on “African” perpetrators.  As one who mentors the troubled, he feels that the Victorian government has been sluggish and slow on the uptake. 

“The State Government has watched this unfold over the past two years.  Nothing has been done.”

Between Deng and Yoa is a yawning chasm.  One claims that community leaders are engaged, their activities approved and backed by the Victorian government. The other insists that the issue has become something of a conference set, an interminable chat show that tanks more than thinks. 

“As a Melbournian,” claims Yoa, “I do believe enough is enough.  Action needs to be taken instead of just talking about it.”

But the options are thin, and refusing to involve those involved in matters of violence or misdemeanour adds teeth to their cause, whatever it might be.  Then comes the issue of policing itself, its protocols, its approaches.  As Deng himself explains,

“These are young people who like to make a name for themselves to look tough in front of the Victorian police”.

They are far from the only ones in this.

*

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

A friend asked “Why write for the left? It’s preaching to the converted”. The question reflects an error. The appeal of wide reach. It is why friends of Cuba despair. They say Cuba should abandon socialism because the world’s not following. It can’t beat the propaganda of the internet. The youth won’t listen.

They miss the point. It’s age old, and still alive in Cuba: the power of direction, of example. Fidel Castro said about Che Guevara that he never lost faith in example. One life, reflecting and living truth, has durable effects. It changes relations. It changes thinking. But it takes time, focus, dedication.

Of what will you convince multitudes? Victor Hugo writes:

“This sincerity of muck pleases us … When you have passed your time on earth enduring the spectacle of high and mighty airs put on by reasons of … political wisdom … it is a relief to step into a sewer and see the sludge that rightly belongs there.“ ^[i]

He means history and daily life. Some readers skip Hugo’s lengthy diversion into the sewers of Paris. But it matters. Drawn by “high and mighty airs”, you don’t “breathe in the enormous fetidness of social catastrophes”. Mao Tse- Tung said the same about how to know reality.^[ii]

Critics say Che Guevara’s death was useless. The conditions for revolution didn’t exist in Bolivia. He didn’t achieve political success and so he can be dismissed. They’ll say the same of Ana Belén Montes, who completed her 16^th year in a US jail. She’s over sixty, suffering cancer, still silenced.

Her cousin, Miriam Mock, writes that, at year’s end, Ana is the same caring, engaged, studious person as when she was apprehended. She’s allowed to communicate with only a few friends and family members. They’re not allowed to quote her. Her prison-mates supported her through cancer.

But psychologists insist: “There are no single brains”. ^[iii]  They use concepts like “mirror neurons”. Attitudes and orientations are passed around by “emotional transmission”: within families, workplaces and social networks.^[iv] Psychologists don’t see how the idea of shared thinking is radical.

It has political implications, or should. It means that unless you do the hard work to discover and to live truth – some truth about human beings – you think like everyone else. You won’t know your humanity. You can’t, because the society you obey is a dehumanizing one, thoroughly.

Hence, the continued silencing of Ana Belén Montes. With a prestigious job and a comfortable life, she cared about truth. She told the judge in 2001 that she stood before him because she obeyed her conscience. She stepped into the sludge and knew truth about US foreign policy. She acted on her concern for people who were dying, innocent folk getting in the way of US power.

José Martí said “To think is to serve”. He meant, for one thing, that you don’t get truth by “mere thinking”. Einstein knew it. He said great scientists, as opposed to good ones, are capable of solitude. They are capable of caring – for the universe perhaps, and for the people in it.^[v]

Einstein recognized relations. He said the truth of socialism is obvious because if you see a group of happy people, you’ll notice passers-by smiling. Marx was one of many smart, sensitive philosophers (ones we don’t teach) who noticed what psychologists have now established: We don’t think alone. The Buddha was another: He said half the job of living ethically is walking with the right people.

They speak to you, silently, with their lives. Thomas Merton warned about filling the world with words, “expressing [ourselves] like nervous gunners, firing burst after burst of ammunition into the dark where there is no enemy.” There is an enemy, of course. We just need to identify it, properly. It takes work.

It’s our own shared thinking, rooted in social practises. It is why the Left must talk to and listen to each other. Finding the way forward is not about, as Merton says, “boring through silent nature in every direction with our machines … pretending to have a purpose”.

Yes, purpose. It’s an idol. Liberal philosophers say you need purpose to have reasons. They call it “instrumental rationality”: You act reasonably when we act for ends, for purpose. They say it is uncontroversial, or at least academic philosophers do. Some even say you need purpose to live.

It is not true. You need relations, the right sort of relations. It is how more adequate purpose is discovered.  It takes time. It’s worth the effort. It’s why Ana Belén Montes needs to be known. Her example is a real threat to dehumanizing liberal ideology. Otherwise she would not still be silenced.[vi]

We need her for direction in 2018. Please sign petition here.

*

Susan Babbitt is author of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014).

This article was originally published by CounterPunch.

Notes

[i] Les Misérables (tr. Julie Rose) 1034-5

[ii] Talks at the Yenan Forum on art and literature http://collections.mun.ca/PDFs/radical/TalksattheYenanForumonArtandLiterature.pdf

[iii] Cozolino, L. The neuroscience of relationships: Attachment and the developing social brain (Norton, 2006) 6

[iv] Mauss et al, 2001; Larson and Almeida, 1999; Hill et al 2010 all cited in Michal Barnea-Astrog, Carved by experience (UK: Karnac Books, 2017)

[v] “Science and religion” and “Religion and science” in Ideas and Opinions (NY: Wings Books, 1954)

[vi] http://www.prolibertad.org/ana-belen-montes. For more information, write to [email protected] or [email protected]

Featured image: Constructions of the Israeli settlement Ramot continues on Palestinian lands on 22 November 2017 (Source: Mahmoud Ibrahim/Anadolu Agency)

Israel has seized around 2,500 acres of Palestinian land, destroyed 500 buildings and constructed eight new Jewish settlement units in 2017, according to Palestine’s Land Research Centre (LRC).

According to the report of the centre, Israel seized Palestinian lands with “military aims” and the “aim to construct Jewish settlement units” in the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem.

The report also recorded 900 incidents of violence and attacks of Israeli forces in East Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque.

According to Israeli and Palestinian law institutions, activities of Jewish settlement in West Bank and East Jerusalem have increased by three times in 2017 compared with the previous year.

Peace Now movement also announced that Israeli government approved the construction of 1,982 houses in 2015, 2,629 houses 2016 and this figure increased to 6,500 in 2017.

Israel’s Minister of Public Works and Housing, Yoav Galant, on December 24 announced a plan to build 300,000 new houses in East Jerusalem under the name of “housing on the land of united Jerusalem, the capital of Israel”.

Jewish settlement building activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are considered to be one of the most important obstacles in front of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that was halted in April 2014.

The Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently accelerated the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

It has been stated that Israel has established 131 settlements in the West Bank, 10 in East Jerusalem and 116 in the regions of the Hill of the West Bank since 1967.

It is said that Israel wants to bring the number of settlers in the West Bank to a million in a short period of time, while half a million residents are currently living in Jews settlements in Palestinian soil and 220,000 in the settlements in East Jerusalem.

UC Berkeley School of Law released a study that named Aida refugee camp in the occupied West Bank the most tear gassed community in the world. For anyone who has spent time in Aida, the findings are not so surprising.

While refugee camps across the occupied West Bank are inundated with Israeli raids and political violence, Aida is in a special position, as Israel’s separation wall hems the northern edge of the camp. Just behind the wall is an Israeli military base with two large gates in the wall that open wide enough for two military jeeps to exit at once. One gate opens into one of the main streets in Bethlehem, right by the main entrance to Aida, while another opens directly into the camp.

Tear gas is Israel’s go-to crowd control method, but there need be no crowd or protest in Aida for Israeli forces to shoot gas through its streets, saturating the resident’s air.

“Residents have alleged that tear gas utilization by [Israeli forces] is not directly correlated to political tensions, non-violent or violent protests, or stone throwing incidents,” states the Berkeley study, which is entitled, “No Safe Space: Health Consequences of Tear Gas Exposure Among Palestine Refugees.”

Even if there are indeed protests being led along the streets of the camp, it is impossible to control where the gas goes once released into the air.

As the study found, “Aida camp has the appearance of a densely populated urban slum,” with an area of about 17 acres (roughly the size of the White House grounds) and about 6,400 resident living in small apartments.

The study analyzed that on average the numbers translate into a density figure of 90,000 people per square kilometer, “exceeding the figures of even the most densely populated cities in the world,” meaning just a bit of tear gas in a small area has a major impact on a disproportionate number of people living in the camp.

What Is Tear Gas?

Tear gas is not actually a gas at all, but rather a solid chemical irritant released like an aerosol.

The study explained that the “gas” is usually made up of synthetic CN (chloracetophenone), CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile) or naturally occurring OC (oleoresin capsicum, also known as pepper spray and made from potent capsaicins inside hot peppers).

The problem is little to no studies have been done on the long term effects of tear gas. Since the substance was created for crowd control, it is also unknown what effects it could have on people and communities that are exposed to it on a weekly or even daily basis, as in Aida.

In addition, newer forms of CS, such as CS1 and CS2 have been “siliconized to increase the half-life and potency of the chemical,” the Berkeley study explained. Even less is known about these new strains.

Berkeley was unable to determine what specific chemicals are being utilized inside the gas shot by Israeli forces in recent years.

What we do know is “chemical irritants” were banned for use in war and international conflict by the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention. While civil law enforcement forces are allowed to use them for certain measures “as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes,” the forces shooting gas in West Bank refugee camps are nearly always soldiers, not border police forces.

Mass, Frequent Exposure

In polling for the study, researchers found that 100% of residents surveyed reported being exposed to tear gas in the past year.

Many residents say Aida is used as training grounds for new soldiers on how to use Israel’s crowd control techniques.

“Many interviewees remarked early in the interviews that ‘this is normal’ or ‘we are used to this,’” researchers documented. “But as the interviews went on, they noted that while they have gotten accustomed to frequent tear gas exposure, they were deeply concerned about the long term impacts of this exposure.”

One woman interviewed in the study told researchers that she was concerned that

“if it can hurt this bad within seconds, what does it do over years?” Another man asked, “We don’t know if it causes cancer or chronic asthma. I am sure we will die young because of this.”

One mother noted she was most concerned for her young children.

“My baby was exposed by the time she was 2 months old,” the woman was quoted as saying. “By the time she is my age, what will happen? Her skin is so delicate and her lungs are so small and thin, I’m sure she will suffer bad effects for years.”

Of those polled, 55 percent of respondents describe between three and ten tear gas exposures — both indoors and outdoors — in the one month period before the poll was taken.

Over the same period, 84.3 percent of people said they were exposed to the gas while inside their home, 9.4 percent at work, 10.7 percent in school, and 8.5 percent elsewhere, like in a car for instance. Meanwhile 22.5 percent of people polled said that they had been hit directly with a tear gas canister in the past — which has the potential to be a deadly projectile on its own.

More than 75 percent of people polled told researchers they experienced “eye-related complaints” (pain, burning, tearing), skin irritation, pain and respiratory problems that lasted more than 24 hours after the exposure to the gas.

In addition, 20 percent of people reported ongoing symptoms such as “headache, difficulty concentrating, eye irritation, sweating, difficulty breathing, coughing, dizziness and loss of balance were attributed to chronic tear gas exposure.”

Researchers reported in the study that “the community’s sense of injustice about these attacks was profound, and it has deeply impacted their lives day to day,” from students being gassed while in class, studying or trying to sleep, to parents frantically attempting to ensure infants and young children have some sort of protection against the gas.

The study found that

“virtually everyone we interviewed or surveyed in Aida reported that they had some medical or psychological symptoms attributed to tear gas.”

*

Sheren Khalel is a freelance multimedia journalist who works out of Israel, Palestine and Jordan. She focuses on human rights, women’s issues and the Palestine/Israel conflict. Khalel formerly worked for Ma’an News Agency in Bethlehem, and is currently based in Ramallah and Jerusalem.

Featured image is from the author.

Featured image: Yaqui community gathering (Source: Andrea Arzaba, CC BY–SA 4.0)

Since Mexico privatized its oil and gas resources in 2013, border-crossing pipelines including those owned by Sempra Energy and TransCanada have come under intense scrutiny and legal challenges, particularly from Indigenous peoples.

Opening up the spigot for U.S. companies to sell oil and gas into Mexico was a top priority for the Obama State Department under Hillary Clinton.

Mexico is now facing its own Standing Rock-like moment as the Yaqui Tribe challenges Sempra Energy’s Agua Prieta pipeline between Arizona and the Mexican state of Senora. The Yaquis in the village of Loma de Bacum claim that the Mexican government has failed to consult with them adequately, as required by Mexican law.

Indigenous Consultations

Under Mexico’s new legal approach to energy, pipeline project permits require consultations with Indigenous peoples living along pipeline routes. (In addition, Mexico supported the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes the principle of “free, prior and informed consent” from Indigenous peoples on projects affecting them — something Canada currently is grappling with as well.)

It was a similar lack of indigenous consultation which the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe said was the impetus for lawsuits and the months-long uprising against the Dakota Access pipeline near the tribe’s reservation in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, in late 2016. Now, according to Bloomberg and Mexican reporter Gema Villela Valenzuela for the Spanish language publication Cimacnoticias, history is repeating itself in the village of Loma de Bacum in northwest Mexico.

Agua Prieta, slated to cross the Yaqui River, was given the OK by seven of eight Yaqui tribal communities. But the Yaquis based in Loma de Bacum have come out against the pipeline passing through their land, even going as far as chopping out a 25 foot section of pipe built across it.

“The Yaquis of Loma de Bacum say they were asked by community authorities in 2015 if they wanted a 9-mile tract of the pipeline running through their farmland — and said no. Construction went ahead anyway,” Bloomberg reported in a December 2017 story. “The project is now in a legal limbo. Ienova, the Sempra unit that operates the pipeline, is awaiting a judicial ruling that could allow them to go in and repair it — or require a costlier re-route.”

As the legal case plays out in the Supreme Court of Justice in Mexico, disagreements over the pipeline and its construction in Loma de Bacum have torn the community apart and even led to violence, according to Cimacnoticias.

Construction of the pipeline “has generated violence ranging from clashes between the community members themselves, to threats to Yaqui leaders and women of the same ethnic group, defenders of the Human Rights of indigenous peoples and of the land,” reported Cimacnoticias, according to a Spanish-to-English translation of its October 2016 story.

“They explained that there have been car fires and fights that have ended in homicide. Some women in the community have had to stay in places they consider safe, on the recommendation of the Yaquis authorities of the town of Bácum, because they have received threats after opposing signing the collective permit for the construction of the pipeline.”

TransCanada’s Troubles Cross Another Border

While best known for the Canada-to-U.S. Keystone XL pipeline and the years-long fight to build that proposed tar sands line, the Alberta-based TransCanada has also faced permitting issues in Mexico for its proposed U.S.-to-Mexico gas pipelines.

According to a December 2017 story published in Natural Gas Intelligence, TransCanada’s proposed Tuxpan-Tula pipeline is facing opposition from the indigenous Otomi community living in the Mexican state of Puebla. With Tuxpan-Tula, TransCanada hopes to send natural gas from Texas to Mexico via an underwater pipeline named the Sur de Texas-Tuxpan pipeline into the western part of the country.

The Otomi community recently won a successful bid in Mexican district court to stop construction of Tuxpan-Tula.

“At a recent hearing on an indoor soccer court at the foot of Cerro del Brujo, or Shaman’s Hill, in the southern Mexican state of Puebla, a district judge sided with an indigenous community and ordered construction” of the pipeline to halt, Natural Gas Intelligence reported. “[T]he court made the order in response to pleas from the local Otomi indigenous community, which claims that the construction would disturb sacred ground.”

Energy sector privatization in Mexico, decried by the country’s left-wing political parties and leading 2018 presidential contender Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has actually opened up the sort of legal opportunities that the Otomi have pursued in court.

“What is new in Mexico is the requirement that indigenous communities should be consulted,” Ramses Pech, CEO of the energy analysis group Caraiva y Asociados, told Natural Gas Intelligence. “That kind of consultation has long been a part of any project in the U.S. and other countries, but not so here. It was obviously needed in Mexico, too, but it has added to the complexities of the Mexican legal system in areas such as land and rights of way.”

In the U.S., the tribal consultation process is governed by the National Historic Preservation Act’s Section 106. That law gave the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe standing to sue U.S. government agencies, though ultimately unsuccessfully, for what the tribe alleged were violations which took place during the inter-agency permitting process.

*

This article was originally published by DeSmogBlog.

In 2016, under Prime Minister David Cameron, UK citizens were offered a referendum in order to decide whether or not the UK should stay in the European Union, and continue to have most of its affairs run from Brussels.

The result, as most know, was that a majority voted in favor of leaving the EU. 17.3 million voted this way. 

Cameron unknowingly committed political suicide by allowing the referendum to take place; as he – and his advisors – were convinced that the majority would vote in favor of staying in the EU.

So began the saga called ‘Brexit’.

A new Prime Minister was chosen by the Conservative party, Theresa May, ex head of the Home Office. May was seen by her cabinet colleagues as best able to negotiate the terms involved in leaving the EU. However, no country has ever quit the EU before, so there is no precedent for what the precise procedures will be.

But what we hear, is that it will take a minimum of two years to achieve, and that around 50 to 70 billion pounds will be the price to be paid for liberty. What we also know is that, to enable the transition to take place, the government has to adopt the entire EU rule book as part of British law, before then being eligible to take out those rules that the country decides in doesn’t want to adhere to! A truly bizarre concept – and a strong hint that something else is actually going on here.

Brexit is to be found on the front page of the national UK press almost daily. It is, in spite of the referendum victory for the ‘leave’ proponents, a highly controversial situation. One which has been revealed to be extremely complex, largely due to the fact that the entire divorce proceedings have been left in the hands of bureaucrats from both sides of the English Channel.

What are the motives for imposing the various conditions that these faceless clerks are imposing on the process? Who is actually behind this agenda – pulling the hidden strings?

There are significant numbers of UK citizens who don’t want the UK to go through this divorce. They are headed by some powerful media oligarchs and big business interests. These ‘stay’ proponents are using their considerable fire-power to try to persuade the nation that the UK will  suffer serious economic decline, should the full exit be achieved.

They have recently revived ex Prime Minister and war criminal, Tony Blair, to lead their cause. Blair, you will remember, was the one to insist that Iraq had a hidden cache of weapons of mass destruction – and that Saddam Hussein was lying, saying that his country had no such weapons.

We shouldn’t need to remind ourselves that the entire horror of the invasion and military destruction of Iraq was predicated upon a fabrication of evidence concerning the existence of these weapons, at the insistence of Tony Blair and George Bush, the then US President.

So The Battle of Brexit rages, day in day out. But it transpires that all the supposed in-fighting and negotiation procedures with Brussels, are, in all likely-hood, a smoke screen. A smoke screen for something far more devious which is going-on just under the surface.

What is this unseen devious activity?

The activity to which I refer relates to the current ramping-up of the imposition of a totalitarian ‘European Super State’ on all EU member states.

As I explained in ‘A Totalitarian Europe Now On Our Doorstep’, a significant element of this imposition, is a an inter EU membership agreement known as PESCO: ‘Permanent Structured Cooperation’. PESCO is a European wide military unification programme, designed to bolster the power of the bloc and, in partnership with NATO, act as a new strategic force to challenge ‘Russian aggression’. One of the most over-hyped scare stories of 2017.

The UK has the largest military defense unit within Europe. A European wide ‘One Army’ cannot do much without the involvement of the UK’s military.

What has been taking place ‘under the surface’ of the supposed Brexit deal, is a secretive negotiation, led by Theresa May, to pave the way for the British armed forces to be amalgamated into the new Single European Army. An army whose leadership is presently moving into the hands of French and German military command; with Germany likely to come out on top, as the main controlling agent once plans are completed.

England’s exit from the EU, in order to be effective, cannot be achieved if its armed forces are no longer capable of defending its status as a Sovereign Nation State. And this will be the position if Prime Minister May completes the negotiation process before anyone in England wakes-up to what is really happening.

Already, the Royal Navy has been run-down to levels unseen for decades. The air force has also been weakened and the army has shrunk by 30% in the past ten years. Some of this is due to government cuts in military spending, but mostly it is directly attributable to to the ‘selling-off’ of British defense forces to the Brussels military unification programme.

The current head of this programme, Federica Mogherini, who is also Vice President of the European Commission, stated in a recent interview in Brussels, that the new army would be a “Credible security provider worldwide” and added “We are looking for possibilities to deploy one of our battle groups.” An ominous threat indeed and further indication of global control interests.

How can the United Kingdom become an independent nation once again, if she has almost no army, navvy or air force to protect her shores?

Which causes one to ask: Is Brexit real? Or is the nation being sold-out – with Britain, far from freeing itself, becoming ever more tied-in to the Brussels globalist agenda? An agenda concerned with building a New World Order, comprising – as one of its key attributes – a supranational centralized European Union acting as ‘The United States of Europe’. And in the process, wiping-out the existence of the Sovereign Nation State from the political and geographical map, altogether.

The totalitarian train is advancing down its preordained track, and it is clear that the result of the referendum posed a significant threat to this process. A threat which the financial power cabal, could not allow.

With the process of European military unification now well advanced, the Superstate is set to dwarf its component parts. Already the establishment of a ‘One Europe Treasury’ promised by President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, will centralize EU member state’s fiscal  procedures, secret service and police operations, and now each country’s military as well.

One can see why Brexit couldn’t be allowed to happen. Britain’s military is needed to support the totalitarian state, not to protect the sovereignty of the British Isles.

There is no Brexit. It is a sham. But the majority of British citizens have failed to notice the two-faced manipulations of their Prime Minister. Those who voted ‘leave’ still believe that England will quit the Union and, amongst other things, be free to negotiate new trade deals with the rest of the world, as of old.

The coming year will reveal what course of events predominate. But with cracks appearing in European Union unity, and a growing number of nations questioning their commitment to the technocratic cabal leadership in Brussels, there is a growing sense of unease spreading through the kingdom of the current rule makers.

2018 could be the year in which the tide is turned. Turned  in favor of a growing rebellion against the imposition of centralized slavery by a one point control system. A system imposed in order to support the further aggrandisement of the blood-line family elites who cling-on to their despotic power bases across the world.

We, ‘the people’, are now discovering that we have the powers necessary to put an end to our mostly self-imposed slavery and to go forward driven by the spirit of creativity. I say ‘self imposed’ because we have, wittingly or unwittingly, allowed ourselves to be manipulated by those who seek supreme control over the planet and its peoples.

The first step in bringing about change for the better, is to finally cease allowing ourselves to indulge in this slavish form of self deception. Courage to all in 2018!

*

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, a writer, actor and international activist. He is President of the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside. Julian is the author of two acclaimed titles: Changing Course for Life and In Defense of Life, which can be purchased by visiting www.julianrose.info . He has just completed his third book ‘Overcoming the Mechanistic Mind’ for which he is currently seeking a publisher.

In our last article, we predicted that the 2020’s will be an era of transformation. We focused on the development of the movement since the “Take-Off” phase of the 2011 Occupy encampments, followed by Black Lives Matter, Fight for $15, Idle No More, carbon infrastructure protests, debt resistance, immigration protests and more. The 2020s will be a decade when the impacts of years of mismanagement of crisis situations, such as climate change, inequality and US militarism, become unavoidable requiring major transformations. What we do now to prepare will help determine the result.

Transformative Era will be Driven by Long Neglected Issues

For many of the issues the popular movement has been raising, the government has failed to act or taken counterproductive actions, putting the profits and interests of campaign donors ahead of the necessities of people and protection of the planet. The environment is being destroyed, the food supply is being poisoned by pesticides and the wealth divide is widening.

The massive threat of climate change has become more immediate and worse.In the last year, the scientific consensus has become more dire. The impacts are upon us now –  wildfires and superstorms, war brought on by drought, mass migrations and deaths.

At the same time multiple analyses and government reports point to a fading US empire. Since the end of World War II, the US has dominated the globe politically, economically and militarily becoming the largest empire in world history. That era is coming to an end.

In his new book, “In the Shadows of the American Century,” historian and chronicler of empire Alfred McCoy writes that US empire will end in the next decade. The US is falling behind in all spheres of influence. McCoy demonstrates how US spying on foreign governments and using torture in multiple countries have undermined the US’ moral authority, as have aggressive bullying for corporation-friendly trade deals, holding back climate agreements in the Obama era and pulling out of the climate agreement in the Trump era. He chronicles the rise of China, India and Russia, among other countries. The power dynamics of the world are changing with the US being left out of important decisions while China and Russia work in tandem in more areas.

McCoy describes various scenarios for how US empire will end, depending on how the current crises play out. No matter what happens, it is up to those of us living in the US to demand the US dismantles its empire in a way that causes the least harm. Paul Street writes,

“the decline of the American Empire might be a good thing for ordinary people at home as well as abroad.”

Ending empire is an opportunity for changes that move us toward being a cooperative nation in a multipolar world rather than hanging on to power through military might.

The end of empire will have many repercussions. Public investment in empire has meant a lack of investment on urgent needs, e.g. repairing failing and inadequate infrastructure, rebuilding cities that have been ignored, especially in black and brown communities, strengthening education from pre-school through post-graduate, to name a handful of many inadequately-funded areas. The empire economy helped create an unfair economy at home that pushed people into poverty, debt and homelessness. To reverse those impacts, the US must shift military spending to meet civilian needs and provide funding for a new democratized economy.

System-changing Issues

The credibility of the power structure that allowed these crises to fester will shrink. On each of the issues where the people’s movement has been growing, those in power have either denied reality and done nothing or have made matters worse through counterproductive policies. Multiple crisis situations barreling toward us require mobilization for system change, not simple reforms.

The US democracy crisis is due to the corruption of money in elections, laws that prevent challenges by third parties, media that warps coverage in favor of the duopoly, gerrymandering and more. The mirage of US elections has become evident to tens of millions of people resulting in both duopoly parties being unpopular and in disarray.

System failure is also a failure of the capitalist economic system, dominated by Wall Street, monopolies and massive transnational corporations. The kleptocrats in power are looting public treasures, monetizing and profiteering off our basic necessities such as water, energy and transportation. Increasing numbers of people agree we need a new economy based on economic democracy and the Commons where key sectors are socialized and under democratic control.

In “Seymour Melman and the New American Revolution,” Jonathan Feldman describes Melman’s ideas for dismantling empire and capitalism and shifting economic and political power to people through worker ownership and other democratized systems.

The movement must position itself for this coming era of transition by: (1) weakening the power structure by protest of mistaken policies and building alternatives to replace them; and (2) specifically defining the transformations we want so that the power holders cannot deceive us with false measures.

Opportunities to build movement power

Economic justice: Inequality in the United States is extreme and the world’s wealthy grow obscenely richer. Three people in the US have wealth equal to half the population while millions in urban areas have zero wealth, tens of millions cannot handle a surprise $500 expense and an entire generation is entering adulthood in massive debt to a job market that will keep them in debt.

Over the last 40 years, CEO pay rose 937 percent while worker compensation remained stagnant. The recent tax cuts will add to all of these problems with increased debt caused by tax cuts for the rich causing cuts to social safety net programs like Medicaid and privatizing Social Security and Medicare. An economic crash seems almost inevitable as this decade comes to a close.

National consensus on issues like taxing the rich and building the economy from the bottom up will grow, creating opportunities for new economy programs, e.g. workers owning businesses, laws ensuring a livable wage, public banks, participatory budgeting where people decide public expenditures, a guaranteed income to ensure people can meet their basic needs and other programs giving people power in the economy. Not only should the recently-passed tax cuts be repealed, but an aggressively progressive income and wealth tax should be put in place along with a financial transactions tax to shrink the wealth divide and finance essential services.

Healthcare as a public good: Health care continues to be a top issue of concern as people cannot afford necessary care. Even with insurance, the deductibles and co-pays on top of high premiums are unaffordable and tens of millions of people cannot afford any insurance. To confront the healthcare crisis, the US most move from a system dominated by profits for insurance companies, Big Pharma and providers to a system where health care is a public good with equal access for all funded by a progressive tax. National improved Medicare for all has majority support and is poised to become a litmus test issue in upcoming elections.

Internet freedom with equal access for all and independent media: The attack on net neutrality has created a massive movement and national consensus that access to the Internet should be equal for all. People recognize that the Internet is essential to participate in the economy, politics and culture, resulting in calls to nationalize the Internet. The quality of Internet service must be improved so there is high speed Internet, as exists in other developed countries. We must create an Internet for the 21st Century.

Further concentration of media is limiting access to a diversity of views. Freedom of speech in the 21^st Century requires protection of political speech on the Internet not only from government but from corporations, e.g. Google and Facebook, that control social media. Laws must protect independent and social media as democracy requires diverse information and robust debate.

Confronting climate change and reversing environmental degradation: There must be a rapid transition to a clean energy economy, which will create jobs for those who install solar, wind and other clean energy sources, construct efficient transit and housing, and conduct research to develop technology needed to remake the economy. The climate crisis will impact all aspects of life, including food, farming, water management, housing and more. Energy must be democratized so people who create more energy are compensated as producers and energy is socialized through public utilities. A carbon tax will encourage the change to clean energy and provide funds for the transition.

End of empire: There will be massive shifts in the economy at home and abroad and in foreign policy as empire comes to an end. The military-security state comprises a large and decentralized sector of the US economy. A just transition to a civilian peace economy will be required. The US will no longer has the power to coerce countries into signing trade deals, an economic arm of empire, that allow the exploitation of workers, communities and the environment. A new era of trade designed to protect people and planet will become possible. New international institutions will be needed to correct the weaknesses of the United Nations and allow governance that protects human rights and economic and racial equality. Mechanisms will be required to resolve conflicts between nations peacefully.

Systemic Racism: Through all these issues, racism, a hierarchy of power that allows one group of people to dominate another, is intimately intertwined. Institutions that perpetuate racism and inequality will need to be dismantled. This is not identity politics, as some have accused, nor does it negate the suffering and oppression of poor white people. It is a reality that must be faced if we are to create new systems that do not default to disparities between groups of people. Indigenous rights and sovereignty must be respected. Reparations must be paid for generations of stolen wealth.

The Task of Insuring Justice

While transitions are inevitable, it is not inevitable they will be made based on economic, racial and environmental justice and peace. It is our responsibility to educate ourselves and each other so people understand the root causes of the crises we face, build popular power and create alternative systems that have desirable results. This is not the time for reform or the belief that we just need to elect the right person. The current systems, including the electoral system, are rigged against us and we need to use popular power change them.

As Kevin Buckland writes in Roar Magazine:

“If we fail to offer scalable discursive, tactical and structural alternatives to the extractivist logic that has created the climate crisis, capitalism may itself transform the coming wave of disruptions into its own benefit, exacerbating existent inequalities for every social and ecological ‘issue’ as it strengthens its stranglehold of the future on a rapidly destabilizing battleground.”

Buckland focuses on the climate crisis, but the same is relevant for other crises. A crisis  provides an opportunity for change. Those who have solutions on hand and power will determine what type of change occurs.

We face formidable opponents. They have resources, money and tools that can thwart our efforts. But this is nothing new. All movements for social transformation have faced difficult odds, still they have prevailed. We outnumber our opponents and when we work together, though we may not have the money, we do have resources and tools. We also have allies.

At a recent family gathering, one of our relatives who does human rights work remarked that people in other countries feel that they should be able to vote in US elections because the US has such a significant global impact. While that isn’t going to happen, there are ways that the international community outside the US can have influence, and that is through boycotts, divestments and sanctions. This can happen at the individual level, through institutions such as universities and at the governmental level. Activists can call on their governments to target US institutions of military and economic dominance.

During the South African Apartheid, it was South African activists who called on other nations to boycott their country. This was a primary reason why apartheid ended. A decade ago, hundreds of Palestinians came together and called for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) of Israel. The BDS movement is having such a great effect that Israel is fighting to stop it.

And while we are reaching out to our international allies, we can share information with each other about what systems work and don’t work so that we can create the new world we need more rapidly. Collectively, we have greater wisdom than individually.

We live in a difficult time, but it is also a time of opportunities to correct our mistakes and build something better. Change is coming. As we wrote in 2011, history is knocking. We must all decide in 2018 how we will answer it.

*

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

All images in this article are from the authors.

Telesur: Marking 59 years since the triumph of the revolution, do you think there is something particular this year about the celebration given the looming elections and Raul Castro’s impending retirement?

Arnold August: Basing oneself on Cuban press publications in the last few days of December leading up to the January 1 celebration, and talking with Cuban colleagues last night and today, there is no mention at all regarding the April 19^th 2018 election of the new president.What are then the themes to mark the passing of 2017 to 2018? Cubans, like everywhere in the world, first and foremost highlight events of the outgoing year.

For example, the official Granma daily reviewed major events or accomplishments of 2017. Domestically it was the successes in the health sector. Internationally, among others,it was the ongoing efforts in favour of Latin American/Caribbean integration and cooperation such as ALBA, the Venezuelan resistance and the Trump move to recognize Jerusalem. While the youth communist daily Juventud Rebelde hailed the 70,000 youth participating in voluntary work, and the international Youth and Student Festival in Sochi, it also did deal with 2018. It pledged to focus on the 90^th anniversary of Che’s birthday, June 14. The revolutionary youth, through its prestigious regular contributor Graziella Pologotti, wrote that one of the peaks for 2018 will be the 150^th anniversary of the October 10 1868 revolt against Spain as the precursor of the 1959 triumph. This piece was reprinted on Cuba Debate. The workers’ weekly Trabajadores featured a special front page contribution by the president of the Instituto de Historia de Cuba, Rene González Barrientos. He painted a picture of all the 1868 focal points while suggesting that the 2018 climax will be the commemoration of the 1868 initiation of the Manuel de Céspedes-led rebellion for independence and the eventual end of slavery. The historian provided readers many of the memorable features of the War of Independence. In my telephone discussions with Cuban friends on the 31^st of December and January 1^st regarding 2018, they manifested a desire that the revolutionary tradition continues.

Thus, looking at 2018 from the perspective of the Cuban Revolution, while the April 19 new legislature that will among other important responsibilities also elect the new president will constitute but one more event in its long history going back to 1868 and since then to 1959. By asserting this, does mean that I am underestimating the historical significance of April 19, 2018? No. However, this stance allows us to prepare for a new ideological and political offensive against the Cuba Revolution.

What is the content of this? We saw a preview of this in December last year. Raúl Castro, in the habitual closing session speech to the last session of the current legislature, notified in almost casual ways that the convocation of the new legislature and thus the election of the next president has been postponed to April 19 when Raúl will not be seeking a new mandate. However, he dealt with in some detail (the length depending on the theme), with many topics that normally whet the appetite of the international mainstream media: Irma recovery successes and challenges, municipal elections voter turnout results, foreign debt payments, dual currency, Cuba-US relations, “sonic” attacks, the non state or private sector,the new state sector regulations, the U.S. blockade, Cuba-U.S. cooperation and exchange, full and elaborated support for the Bolivarian Revolution, in favour of Christina and Lula in Argentina and Brazil respectively, CELAC, climate change and the U.S. on the Paris agreement, support for Palestine and opposition to Washington’s recognition of Jerusalem.

Nevertheless, Raúl barely stepped down from the podium when the international conglomerate media “reported”virtually in chorus only one theme: April 19.What was the content of this topic that filled the vacuum to replace all or some of the controversial topics elucidated by Raúl that previously fuelled the international rumour and disinformation mill? There were various features such as Raúl trying “to hang on to power etc.” However, the common denominator more often than not was the following: the “Castro era” will come to an end on April 19^th. Thus, the new president will have to confront “growing demands for democratization and opening”and deal with the increased use of social media in Cuba. The narrative often spars against invisible “hardliners” in Cuba. However, who are the hardliners? It seems to be a red herring to serve as a pretext for creating divisions and pressuring Cuba to “change” according to U.S. desires. Thus, my New Year’s wish would be for them to name who these “hardliners” may be. It does not seem that this wish would ever be fulfilled as the list would be far to long to assemble.

It may seem to some that the “democratization” demand consists of innocent comments. However, this political orientation is similar to what the media immediately concocted after the passing of Fidel Castro on November 25, 2016: Castro the “dictator” is gone and thus there is no longer a “pretext” for maintaining a so-called closed socialist economy, one-party system and full independence in the face of U.S. demands for flexibility in Cuba-U.S. relations. Of course, nothing in the future can to compare to form of the November/December 2016 anti-Fidel media blitzkrieg. Nevertheless, the content is similar and advances the same U.S. imperialist goal of chaos and regime change.

Fidel Castro made a surprise appearance at the 6th Communist Party Congress in Havana, Cuba (Source: KPCC)

However, two years ago these forces inside and outside of Cuba completely underestimated the political consciousness of the Cuban leadership and the vast majority of people at the grass roots. The Cuban Revolution was and is being strengthened. Without “firing a shot”, it won that battle. What will happen in the first few months of this year as the Cuban Revolution heads toward April? It is after all unprecedented. For the first time since the Cuban Revolution a non-Castro will be the most visible political personality in the formal Cuban political system.

This is what, as you ask, is particular this year. However, it is not as earth-shaking as the international monopoly media would have us believe. The April 2018 National Assembly of People’s Power session is not, as we have seen above, on the agenda of highlighted events to transpire in 2018. On the contrary, 2018 is the year whose peak will be attained on October 10 indicating the Cuban revolution is 150 years-old. It is able to deal with the inevitable generational change as just one more of many challenges it has faced over decades and decades. In fact, its detractors are immune to the fact that this has been going on since Fidel Castro ceded his formal position over a decade ago to his brother who in turn has been working with both the other “históricos” and the next generation.

To that effect, this transformation is being exhibited not only in the political system. For example in December 2017 for the first time a young woman (34 years-old at the time), Yailan Orta was nominated as the editor of Granma. This is unique. As the former editor of Juventud Rebelde she also emerged in 2016 and 2017 as a leader of the grassroots youth resistance to the CIA-fomented World Learning Program and the blockade. In addition the new Granma director Yailanis very active in social media, a characteristic of the press leadership unheard of previously for generational and technical reasons. She thus maintains direct contact with the forty percentage or so (and growing) of the population that has access to internet, many of course who are youth. The attempt by the international media to create divisions and chaos in Cuba in the wake of April 19 will be solidly defeated in the short and long term. The opponents of the Cuban Revolution, both open and hidden, are no match for the new generations represented by the many young and not so young revolutionary journalists, all other sectors of society and the next president.

Telesur: What do you expect in Cuba-U.S. relations for 2018?

AA: I will go out on the limb and predict that Trump will somewhat soften his stand on Cuba.

On December 17, 2017, according to the official White House transcript, this is what Trump said during an impromptu meeting with reporters. One asked for his view on the third anniversary of the Barack Obama-Raúl l Castro joint statements announcing the new bilateral recognition and Embassy re-openings:

“Yeah. Yeah, that’s right. It is the anniversary, and hopefully everything will normalize with Cuba. But right now, they’re not doing the right thing, and when they don’t do the right thing, we’re not going to do the right thing. That’s all there is to it.”

Dealing with unpredictable Trump, visitors to TeleSur can venture to reach their own conclusion. “Hopefully everything will normalize with Cuba.” Let that sink in. Does he mean it?

Even if Trump made this remark next to the Marine Air Force One Helicopter, his statement did not drop from the sky. Since his election in November 2016 to date, the pro-engagement forces in the U.S. have doubled-down on its demands to further open trade and travel to Cuba. This wave of opposition to restrictions that runs the gamut from sectorial demands such as the export of agricultural products from Trump-supporting Midwest states and Texas, to travel industry, to agricultural-machinery manufacturing,to port cities in Florida and Texas close to the Havana harbour and Mariel container port, to across the board bipartisan Republican and Democratic parties at the national, state and city levels, Trump may be foolish, but not to the extent of seeing the writing on the wall for 2020.

This why, as 2017 was the year of Trump imposing restriction on Cuba while maintaining diplomatic relations, 2018 may be the year that he backtracks to a certain extent.

From the Cuban side, 2017 was the year that the Cuban Revolution valiantly stood up to Trump as the U.S. imperialist bully while keeping its cool on maintaining the door open to the negotiating table. Cuba, as it  has done since 1959, did not give in one iota on the principles of defending its sovereignty and independence. It was also the year that, despite the rhetoric, a series of successful bilateral meetings took place in Havana and Washington dealing with interests of common concern.

In 2018, the new generations further coming into power may be even more, not less, prone to defend Cuba’s sovereignty, dignity and further develop the Cuban Revolution against all attempts by the U.S. and its allies (open and disguised) to subvert it.

This article first appeared on GR in October 2017.

During his presidential campaign and throughout his nine-month presidency, Donald Trump has been fixated on ending the Iran nuclear deal, which he called “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.”

Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran agreed to curtail its nuclear program and in return, it received billions of dollars of relief from punishing sanctions.

Iran has allowed 24-hour inspections by officials from the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “Iran has gotten rid of all of its highly enriched uranium,” Jessica T. Mathews wrote in the New York Review of Books.

“It has also eliminated 99 percent of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium…. All enrichment has been shut down at the once-secret, fortified, underground facility at Fordow … Iran has disabled and poured concrete into the core of its plutonium reactor — thus shutting down the plutonium as well as the uranium route to nuclear weapons. It has provided adequate answers to the IAEA’s long-standing list of questions regarding past weapons-related activities.”

Yukiya Amano, director general of IAEA, refuted Trump’s allegation that Iran had kept IAEA weapons inspectors from entering military bases. Amano said,

“So far, IAEA has had access to all locations it needed to visit. At present, Iran is subject to the world’s most robust nuclear verification regime.”

But in spite of the fact that the IAEA has affirmed eight times — most recently in August — that Iran is meeting its obligations under the deal, Trump refused to certify Iran was in compliance and he decided the deal is not in the US national security interests.

The US Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act requires the president to determine every 90 days whether Iran remains compliant with the JCPOA and whether the agreement still serves US interests. Trump reluctantly certified Iran’s compliance in April and July. But on October 13, to the consternation of his secretary of state, secretary of defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he refused to certify Iran’s compliance with the deal.

France, Britain, Russia, China, Germany, the United States and Iran are parties to the historic agreement. After Trump’s October 13 announcement, the leaders of Britain, France and Germany said in a joint statement that retaining the Iran deal “is in our shared national security interest.” They stated,

“The nuclear deal was the culmination of thirteen years of diplomacy and was a major step towards ensuring that Iran’s nuclear program is not diverted for military purposes.”

Trump Walks in Lockstep With Netanyahu

Trump walks in lockstep with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has consistently opposed the Iran deal. The Christian Zionists, who await Christ’s second coming in Israel, constitute a significant portion of Trump’s base.

After his election but before inauguration, Trump inserted himself into US foreign policy by criticizing Barack Obama for refusing to veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s illegal settlement-building.

In 2015, before the US joined the JCPOA, Netanyahu staged an end-run around then-President Obama and directly addressed the US Congress, prevailing upon them to oppose the deal.

“That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told Congress. “It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons — lots of them.”

Netanyahu was thrilled with Trump’s refusal to recertify Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA.

 “It’s a very brave decision, and I think it’s the right decision for the world,” Netanyahu said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee also heralded Trump’s attack on the JCPOA.

The White House fact sheet outlining Trump’s new Iran policy accuses Iran of “unrelenting hostility to Israel.” In his speech announcing his refusal to recertify Iran’s compliance with the deal, Trump stated that Iran “remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and provides assistance to al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist networks.”

In fact, Iran and al Qaeda, representing different sects of Islam, are sworn enemies. And after JCPOA was agreed upon in 2015, Noam Chomsky wrote in TomDispatch:

Other concerns about the Iranian threat include its role as “the world’s leading supporter of terrorism,” which primarily refers to its support for Hezbollah and Hamas. Both of those movements emerged in resistance to US-backed Israeli violence and aggression, which vastly exceeds anything attributed to these villains, let alone the normal practice of the hegemonic power whose global drone assassination campaign alone dominates (and helps to foster) international terrorism.

Trump’s refusal to recertify Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA came one day after the US announced it would withdraw from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The United States accused UNESCO — which promotes worldwide literacy, clean water, women’s equality, cultural heritage and sex education — of “anti-Israel bias.” Israel said it would pull out of UNESCO as well.

UNESCO incurred the wrath of Israel and the United States in July when it declared the core of Hebron, a city in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, an endangered Palestinian World Heritage site. In 2011, UNESCO was the first UN agency to allow Palestine to become a member, which led to Palestine’s upgraded legal status at the General Assembly the following year.

In 2015, UNESCO passed a resolution “strongly” condemning “Israeli aggressions and illegal measures against the freedom of worship and Muslims’ access to their holy site.” The resolution condemned the “continuous negative impact of the Israeli military confrontations” in Gaza as well.

October 12 was also the day that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, which control Gaza and the West Bank respectively, announced they were forming a unity government. Netanyahu opposes Palestinian unity. Iran is the only major power in the Middle East calling for the creation of a Palestinian state.

“President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are united in a shared agenda of escalation with Iran, with the goal of enabling increased US and Israeli military aggression,” Jewish Voice for Peace’s Executive Director Rebecca Vilkomerson wrote in a statement. “Trump’s hypocrisy is evident when he talks about caring about everyday Iranians, yet continually tries to ban them from entering the US.”

Trump Punts to Congress

After he drove a stake through the heart of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and later, the Affordable Care Act, Trump punted those issues to Congress to clean up the messes he made. On October 13, he followed suit with JCPOA.

Trump did not urge Congress to reinstate sanctions on Iran, which would completely scuttle the JCPOA. But he placed the onus on Congress to add new terms not covered by the JCPOA, including sunset clauses and ballistic missiles.

If Congress fails to so act, Trump threatened that “the agreement will be terminated … and our participation can be canceled by me, as president, at any time.”

In order to enact Trump’s requested legislation, GOP senators would have to muster 60 votes, including eight Democrats, which is unlikely.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry, who spearheaded US diplomacy with Iran, called Trump’s decision “a reckless abandonment of facts in favor of ego and ideology from a president who would rather play a high-stakes game of chicken with Congress and with Iran than admit that the nuclear agreement is working.”

“Breaking the Iran agreement would not only free Iran from limits placed on its nuclear program,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) said, “it would irreparably harm America’s ability to negotiate future nonproliferation agreements. Why would any country in the world sign such an agreement with the United States if they knew that a reckless president might simply discard that agreement a few years later?”

This is particularly disturbing in light of the volatile standoff between the United States and nuclear-armed North Korea.

Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA has made the world a safer place. We must apply pressure on both Congress and the White House to retain the Iran deal.

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 a member of the national advisory board of Veterans for Peace. The second, updated edition of her book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues, will be published in November. Visit her website: MarjorieCohn.com. Follow her on Twitter: @MarjorieCohn.

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

This article was originally published by Truthout.

Global Research is an independent media funded exclusively through the support of its readers. Every contribution helps us continue to bring you the up-to-date, incisive information that you can count on.

If you are unable to make a donation, you can help us by cross-posting and/or forwarding Global Research articles, sending them to your friends on your e-mail lists, posting them on internet blogs, etc., and subscribing to our free newsletter.

*     *     *

Trump’s “America First” National Security Strategy (NSS) Imperils the US and the World

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, January 01, 2018

Trump’s NSS stresses military might but makes scant reference to diplomacy. His administration is building 10 new aircraft carriers worth $13 billion each as a counterweight to China, and expanding the US nuclear weapons program to the tune of $1 trillion over the next 30 years.

Syria 2011 All Over Again? Watch as Kurdish, Islamist Groups Call for a Violent Uprising in Iran

By Paul Antonopoulos, January 01, 2018

In scenes reminiscent of Syria 2011, armed groups in Iran have used mostly peaceful protests to call for an armed struggle against the Iranian government.

What’s Killing the World’s Bees? The Role of Fungicides

By RT News, January 01, 2018

The discovery has now been added to the growing list of threats that could potentially lead to the extinction of the essential pollinators. The revelation that common fungicides are having the strongest impact on the insects came as a surprise, as they typically affect mold and mildew, but appear to be killing bees by making them more susceptible to the nosema parasite or by exacerbating the toxicity of other pesticides.

Africa in Review 2017: AFRICOM, Finance Capital and the Elusive Independent Policy

By Abayomi Azikiwe, January 01, 2018

This presence of Pentagon and French military personnel in Niger is indicative of the ever-widening AFRICOM and NATO efforts to maintain control over the land, resources, labor and waterways of the African continent. Throughout the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) region AFRICOM is active in conducting joint maneuvers with national armies and navies which are ostensibly designed to enhance the security capacity of the various member-states. Instead the imperialist powers are carefully positioning themselves to serve their own strategic and economic interests.

Will 2018 Bring Greater US Fire and Fury?

By Stephen Lendman, January 01, 2018

This year will likely be more dismal than the last one. With most Russian forces out of Syria and Washington’s rage for endless war and regime change, conflict may escalate, not end, new hordes of terrorists brought in to replace eliminated ones.

Israel Ruling Party Votes for Push to Annex Parts of West Bank

By Middle East Eye, January 01, 2018

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party unanimously urged legislators in a non-binding resolution on Sunday to effectively annex Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, land that Palestinians want for a future state.

In December 2017 the RAF announced that British Reaper drones had reached the significant milestone of flying 100,000 hours of combat operations. First deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and, on operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria since 2014, the UK’s Reapers have been continuously engaged in surveillance and strike operations for a decade. However, with the collapse of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, ten years of continuous drone operations should be coming to an end. But statements by British government ministers as well as senior military officers indicate that the UK wants its Reapers to continue to fly, seemingly indefinitely.

The hyper-asymmetric nature of drone strikes, enabling so-called ‘risk-free’ war, has long raised concerns that the technology would tempt politicians into engaging in permanent war. As we enter 2018, it seems that UK actions may prove these fears correct.

Operation Shader

UK Reapers and other RAF aircraft have been engaged in military operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, dubbed Operation Shader by the UK, at the invitation of the Iraqi government. The UK, the US and others nations came to the aid of Iraq under what international law calls collective self-defence. However, the situation is now rapidly changing. After Iraqi forces secured the western desert and the entire Iraq-Syria border, the Iraqi government declared a final victory over ISIS on December 9. The Iraqi statement followed a similar one by the Syrian government in November, which declared victory over the Jihadist group in Syria after the last town held by the group, Albu Kamal, was captured. Given that Iraq has declared victory over ISIS, it follows that Operation Shader should now come to an end. While it is likely that there will be ongoing guerrilla attacks from the group, this does not mean that the level of armed violence will be of a level to cross the threshold that marks a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) as defined under international law.

Despite the Iraqi declaration of victory, statements from various UK ministers and officials indicate the intention to keep British drones deployed. In November, the UK’s Air Component Commander, Air Commodore Johnny Stringer, told a press conference that while manned aircraft are likely to be withdrawn soon, the UK’s drones and other surveillance aircraft would continue to fly in Iraq and Syria. Ministers, too, continue to argue that ISIS still poses a threat, with Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson telling MPs in a written statement in mid-December that:

“Daesh is failing, but not yet beaten. It continues to pose a threat to Iraq from across the Syrian border and as an insurgent presence. It is also a global terrorist network. Daesh has the ability to plan and inspire terrorist attacks at home and abroad. Therefore, we will act to protect the UK and our allies, as long as necessary.”

Kill them all!

Alongside these statements have been others, arguing that all UK members of ISIS should be killed. Firstly, in October International Development Secretary, Rory Stewart argued that the “only way” to deal with British members of Islamic State is “in almost every case” to kill them because of the danger they pose to the UK’s security. A few weeks later, the newly appointed Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson also insisted in his first press interview that all British-born Isil fighters should be killed by drone, a position apparently supported by the UK National Security Adviser, Sir Mark Sedwell when he gave evidence to Joint National Security Strategy Committee in late December.

Such comments have been condemned by senior opposition politicians including Clive Lewis, Menzies Campbell, Dan Jarivs and Baroness Sharmishta Chakrabarti, and also by important international law experts. Professor  Philippe Sands, for example, argued that such a a shoot-on-sight policy  would be “inconsistent with English, European and international law, as well as with United Kingdom foreign and domestic policy for nearly a century since the end of the Second World War.”

One key issue here is whether ‘membership’ of ISIS means that a person is automatically liable to be targeted. While there are continuing arguments about what constitutes membership of an armed group, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) argues that only those who fulfill a continuous combat function are members of an armed group. In other words, many of those involved in ISIS may not be automatically targetable, even under International Humanitarian Law (the Laws of Armed Conflict). Outside of an armed conflict (and as Iraq has declared victory over ISIS we may well now be outside a situation of IHL), international law is even stricter on when people may be targeted.

In an important evidence session at the All Party Parliamentary Group on Drones at the beginning of December, international law experts Nils Melzer and Marko Milanovic made a number of useful points, but perhaps none more so than the need to avoid conflating involvement or support for an armed group with direct participation in hostilities. In war between nation states, Professor Melzer argued:

“the civilian population is supportive of their armed forces… they’re producing weapons, they’re paying taxes, they’re producing food, they are providing logistic functions. That does not make them targets, they are still civilians. They’re contributing to the general war effort, but that’s not direct participation in hostilities… We have to apply the same to non-state [groups]… [W]e have to make sure that in targeting decisions, we distinguish between the fighting forces of whatever organised group we are confronting, and the supportive civilian base. It’s difficult to distinguish, but we have to, because if we don’t it means we deliberately target civilians, which is a war crime, invariably. So, then this is a distinction I don’t see in some of the government declarations. We’re saying ‘He’s a member of… because he has hostile intent.” Well the whole civilian population in a war has hostile intent… [W]e have to make sure that when we target persons in and around conflict, we only target the fighters…

Anthony Dworkin, Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations has also argued against membership alone as being a sufficient criteria under international law to target drone strikes:

Government officials’ talk of eliminating ISIS members on the battlefield may simply be a way to sound tough in the face of public concerns about the return of foreign fighters. But it reinforces a dangerous and flawed vision of military action against terrorist organisations that equates armed conflict with a license to kill all members of an opposing group. Such a vision is not compatible with the understanding of the international rule of law that Western nations should be committed to uphold.

An impending decision

Along with others, we have long argued that armed remote-controlled drones can seduce politicians into seeing the use of armed force as the easy option: no longer the last choice, but the first. Bellicose statements in the last few weeks by some UK politicians as well as declarations that UK drones will continue to fly come what may are perhaps indicative of the impact that this remote war technology is having.

As 2018 begins, the UK has the chance to prove drone critics wrong. With the Iraqi and Syrian declaration of victory over ISIS, the UK should bring its armed drones back to the UK, just as it repatriates its other armed aircraft.  A decade of British drone strikes should now come to an end. If, however, the UK chooses to continue to deploy its armed drones and convinces itself that there is no alternative but to continue to engage in lethal strikes, there should be no doubt of the corrosive nature of drone technology, and we shall have entered the era of permanent war.

*

Featured image is from the author.

Among Bloomberg’s many profitable activities there is a convenient Bloomberg Billionaires Index, which has just published its findings for 2017.

It covers only the 500 richest people, and it proudly announces that they have increased their wealth by 1 trillion dollars in just one year.

Their fortunes went up by 23 per cent to top comfortable 5 trillion dollars (to put this in perspective, the US budget is now at 3.7 trillion).

That obviously means an equivalent reduction for the rest of the population, which has lost those trillion dollars.

What is not widely known is that the amount of money circulation remains the same; no new money has been printed to accommodate the 500 richest billionaires!

In fact, Forbes, the magazine for the rich, states that there are over 2.000 billionaires in the world, and that this number is going to increase and increase fast.

Screengrab from Bloomberg Billionaires Index. See this for the complete list.

China

China has now surpassed the US, with 594 billionaires as compared to the US’s 535 – and every three days a new millionaire is born there. There is even an exclusive club of billionaires, the China Entrepreneur Club, which admits members only by unanimity of its current 64 members. Together they have 300 billion dollars, equivalent to 4.5 per cent of the Chinese Gross National Product (GNP).

As a norm, the Chinese wealth is a family affair, which means that in 10 years they will leave a heritage of 1 trillion dollars, most probably to their sons; and the amount of inherited wealth is going to rise to three trillion dollars in 20 years.

We know from a large study by the French economist Thomas Piketty covering 65 countries during modern times, that the bulk of wealth comes from inherited money. That is because, as we all know, money begets money.

“Misery brings misery, wealth brings wealth”

In fact, Ronald Reagan started his campaign: “Misery brings misery, wealth brings wealth” — therefore, we must tax rich people less than poor people.

However, the just adopted Donald Trump’s tax law in the US cuts taxes to companies, thus increasing the US deficit by 1.7 trillion dollars over ten years. Nobody has apparently noticed that the US deficit already amounts to 18.96 trillion dollars or about 104 per cent of the previous 12 months’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

This tax reform will have a deep impact on Europe, by shifting there many of the costs of the reform, through balance of payments and trade. The five most important ministers of finance of Europe, the UK included, have written a letter of protest, obviously much to the glee of President Trump, who perceives only the US as winner, and all others as losers.

All this staggering amount of money in a few hands (8 people have the same wealth as 2.3 billion people), brings us to three relevant considerations: a) what is happening with the world debt b) how are governments helping the rich to avoid taxes; c) the relation between injustice and democracy. None of those perspectives gives space for hope, and least of all trust in our political class.

World’s Debt

Let us start with the world’s debt. I do not remember having seen one single article on that in the closing year. Yet the International Monetary Fund has alerted: gross debt of the non-financial sector has doubled in nominal terms since the end of the century to 152 trillion dollars.

This is a record 225 per cent of the world GDP. Two thirds come from the private sector, and one third from the public sector. But this increased from below 70 per cent of the GDP last year now to 85 per cent, a dramatic rise in such a short time.

In fact, the respected Institute for international Finance estimates that at the end of 2017 the global debt –private and public– would have reached a staggering 226 trillion dollars, more than three times global annual economic output…

This doesn’t seem to interest anybody. But let us take the state of the American economy, and the case of a proud President boasting about the index of growth, now estimated at 2.6 per cent.

Well, this shows the inadequacy of the GDP as a valid indicator. Growth is a macroeconomic index. If 80 per cent goes to a few hands, and the crumbs to all the others, who pay most of taxes, it is not an example of growth; it is just a problem waiting to explode.

What is more, nobody is thinking about the increase in deficit. The total private debt at the end of the first quarter of 2017 was 14.9 trillion, with an increase of 900 million dollars in three months.

While salaries increased from 9.2 billion dollars in 2014 to 10.3 billion dollars in the second quarter of 2017, the debt of families rose from 13.9 billion dollars to 14.9, an increase of one billion dollars in just four months.

Growth? What Growth?

What growth are we talking about? In fact, we have 86 per cent of the population facing an increasing debt, while becoming because of the concentration of wealth in the hands of just 1 per cent of the population.

This should be a cause of concern for any administration, left wing or right-wing be it. In fact, it is not surprising that the 400 richest men of the US, led by Warren Buffet, have written to Trump telling him that they are doing fine and that they do not need a tax rebate; and that he should worry about the poorest part of the population.

The Hidden Money

Now a favourite way of avoiding taxes is to place money in tax havens, where between 21 and 30 trillion dollars are ensconced.

The Tax Justice Network reports that this system is “basically designed and operated” by a group of highly paid specialists from the world’s largest private banks (led by UBS, Credit Suisse, and Goldman Sachs), law offices, and accounting firms and tolerated by international organizations such as Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the OECD, and the G20.

The amount of money hidden away has significantly increased since 2005, sharpening the divide between the super-rich and the rest of the world. And this is why there was a lot of pressure to oblige banks to open their accounts to fiscal inspection, and press on the Bahamas, Hong Kong, Panama and other third world countries.

Now, another good example of the reigning hypocrisy: The last meeting of the Ministers of Finance of the European Union (Ecofin), has not been able to take a decision on something heinous: several member countries (Luxemburg, UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Malta and Cyprus), host tax havens on their territories.

The Queen of England has invested 10 million pounds in an English tax heaven. And two US states, in particular Delaware, have tax havens that are impenetrable even to the CIA and FBI.

Tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, Jersey and the Bahamas were far less permissive, researchers found, than states such as Nevada, Delaware, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming and New York.

“[Americans] discovered that they really don’t need to go to Panama”, said James Henry of the Tax Justice Network. Ecofin has decided that they will continue to bang Third World countries, until they decided what to do at home.

So, the West proclaims principles of transparency and accountability, as long as it can impose these on others. But there is a paradox for Western governments: if those tax havens were closed, as the majority of the deposit comes from the West, they would be able to get much more taxes.

To take just the case of the US: Reed College economist Kim Clausing estimates that inversions in tax havens and other income-shifting techniques reduced Treasury revenues by as much as 111 billion dollars in 2012.

And, according to a new Congressional Budget Office projection, the corporate base erosion will continue to cut corporate tax receipts over the next decade.

It must be clear therefore that if governments let their revenues from corporations and high earners shrink, they are not acting in the interest of the average citizen.

“Let Us Protect the Richest”

So, let us draw our conclusions. Nobody is paying attention to the world debt, which is increasing beyond control, but we are leaving the problem to the next generations, hoping that they will address it. We are mortgaging them with debt, with climate change, and whatever else is possible, to avoid any sacrifices on our part now.

Our motto seems to be: Let us protect the richest, and expect less from them and more from the others. In 1952, corporate income taxes funded about 32 percent of the US government. That shrank to 10.6 percent by 2015. While tax havens aren’t the sole cause of this shift, it’s worth noting that the share of corporate profits reported in tax havens has increased tenfold since the 1980s. And now comes from Trump the giant tax gift for companies.

This policy, hidden to citizens, and never legitimised by any formal act of law, is now becoming evident because of the giant increase of inequality, which has no precedent in history.

According to Oxfam, Great Britain will have more social injustice in 2020, that at the times of Queen Victoria. The world is moving faster to financial investments and transactions, and not to the production of goods and services, which do not fetch instant rewards. It is estimated that with one trillion dollars you can buy the world production of a day of goods and services.

That same day, the financial transactions reach 40 trillion dollars. That means that for every dollar generated by human hands, there are 40 dollars created by financial abstractions.

Globalisation

Globalisation is obviously rewarding capitals, not human beings. Well, this is having an impact on politics, and not the best one.

There is everywhere an increasing number of losers, especially in rich countries, also because of technological development, and shift in consumption. A classic example is the coal mines that Trump wants to resurrect, to make America great again.

But coal is inexorably being phased out because of climate concerns (even if not fast enough), and automatisation reduces considerably the number of workers to be employed. Robots will in 2040 be responsible for 42 per cent of production of goods and services, up from the present 16 per cent. This means around 86 million of new unemployed, in the West alone, according to the International Labour Organization.

Those left out from the benefits of globalisations look at the winners, whom they see well connected to the system. This results in the globalisation of resentment and frustration, which in a few years has led to the rise of the rightist parties in all European countries, triggered Brexit, and Trump. Once upon a time, the left was the banner-bearer of the fight for social justice. Now it is the right!

Finally, globalisation has lost its shine – but not its power. Now, the debate is about how to de-globalise, and what is worrying is that the debate is not about how to bring the process to the service of humankind, but how to deploy populism and nationalism, and xenophobia, to “let us make US great again”, to the increase in clashes and conflicts.

Too Late?

International organisations like the IMF and the World Bank – who have been claiming for two decades that market is the only basis for progress, that once a totally free market is in place, the common man and woman would be the beneficiary – have switched the reverse gear.

Now they are all talking about the need for the state to be again the arbiter for regulations and social inclusion, because they have found out that social injustice is a brake not only for democracy, but also economic progress.

But despite all the mea culpa, they are rather late in the day. The genie is out of the bottle, and the powers do not even try to put it back. Utter hypocrisy, vested interests, and the lack of vision have regrettably replaced policy.

*

Roberto Savio is the founder and former Director-General of international news agency Inter Press Service (IPS). In recent years he has also founded Other News, a service providing ‘information that markets eliminate’.

While Russia strives to move Syria on from a stage of war and bloody anarchy to one of peace, stability and reconstruction — by inviting all parties to next month’s Sochi conference to agree a roadmap including a new constitution and presidential and parliamentary elections – the US and Israel are drawing up plans to detonate the region and plunge it into new wars on the pretext of confronting the Iranian threat.

Israel’s Channel 10 has revealed that a secret agreement was reached on 12 December, following talks between Israeli national security advisor Meir Ben-Shabbat and his US counterpart H R McMaster, for the two sides to take action and devise scenarios against Iran on several fronts. This reportedly entails measures aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, rolling back its presence in Syria, and confronting its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon. The White House later confirmed the existence of the agreement after news of it was leaked to media.

Two major developments are expected to unfold in the region in the new year. First, the collapse of the Islamic State (IS) and its loss of most of its territory in Syria, and secondly, the defeat of the American project in Syria. This was based on using armed opposition groups to topple the regime of President Bashar al-Asad, and was thwarted by the Syrian Arab army’s steadfastness, the intervention of Russia, and the support of allies like Iran and Hezbollah, putting Syria on the threshold of a new phase of national reconciliation and renewal.

Against this backdrop, the current US administration fears its influence in the region is receding in favour of Russia and China and of regional powers such as Iran and Turkey. The Israeli occupation state, for is part, is alarmed by the strength of Hezbollah and its growing military capabilities, and fears the consequences of it emerging triumphant from the Syrian conflict and being able to devote is attention fully to confronting the Israeli threat and opening new attrition fronts against it in South Lebanon and southwestern Syria.

Neither Channel 10 nor the White House gave away details of the plans and scenarios that the US and Israel might pursue against Iran and Hezbollah. But it is obvious that one of these scenarios is to try to destabilize Iran from within by engineering disturbances or protests and activating a number of armed separatist groups. Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin-Salman, one of the Trump administration’s closest Middle Eastern allies, said as much openly in a TV interview some months ago. He warned his country was going to ‘take the war inside Iran’ as a pre-emptive measure – meaning before Iran tries to take the ‘war’ into Saudi Arabia. It would not be surprising if the demonstrations held on Friday in several Iranian towns in protest at inflation were in some part a product of that strategy.

It is doubtful that any US and Israeli scheme to remove Iran and its influence from Syria and Lebanon would stand much chance of succeeding, unless it envisages all-out war. Even then, it would be a dangerous gamble that could have catastrophic consequences, particularly for the Israeli occupation state. If the US’ Patriot missiles were unable to intercept the handful of home-made rockets fired by Yemen’s Houthis against Saudi cities, Israel’s Iron Dome system is unlikely to fare better against Hezbollah’s more advanced and accurate missiles, especially if they are fired in their hundreds, if not thousands, against Israeli cities.

The threat faced by Israel has been compounded. The main threat is from within: from the stirring of a new Palestinian uprising and the prospect of it developing into a campaign of armed resistance. This is not unlikely given the recent firing of missiles from the Gaza Strip at Israeli settlements to is north, and the emergence into the open of Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s alliance with Iran – with Qasem Soleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Brigade, boasting of having been in direct contact with the two Palestinian Islamist groups’ military commanders.

Israel and the US’ threats may be tantamount to psychological warfare, or they could be aimed at reassuring their frightened Arab allies and prompting them to spend tens of billions more dollars on American weaponry. Either the way, the coming year may prove to be a frightening one for the US and its Israeli ally. They may try their luck, but the outcomes will definitely not be to their liking. For the region is changing — and fast.

*

Featured image is from the author.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani attributes days of violence to foreign intervention, saying:

“The enemies of the Islamic Republic of Iran are angry with the glory, success, and the progress of the Iranian nation, and they have vowed to get the regional troubles into Iran, but, sure, the people and officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond to them.”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry expressed a similar view, saying

“(e)xternal interference destabilizing the situation (in Iran) is unacceptable.”

Lethally shooting around 20 or Iranians through New Year’s day, including at least one policeman, suggests foreign interference.

What’s going on resembles March 2011 protests in Daraa, Syria. US-supported armed protesters fired on police, instigating conflict.

Security forces responded to violent armed insurgents, killing civilians and police, attacking government offices.

What began in Daraa, spread elsewhere in Syria, things escalating into Obama’s war, unresolved nearly seven years later.

Events are also similar to late 2013, early 2014 Euromaidan violent protests in Kiev. The Obama administration’s coup involved snipers, killing and injuring hundreds of civilians and police, firing on them with automatic weapons from Kiev’s Philharmonic Hall.

Witnesses saw them carrying military-style bags used for sniper and assault rifles with optical sights.

Ahead of the uprising, Maidan leaders practically lived at Washington’s embassy in Kiev. US-supported putschists toppled Ukraine’s democratic government.

Fascist tyranny replaced it – the most brazen European coup since Mussolini’s 1922 march on Rome.

Events in Iran also eerily similar to earlier CIA-instigated street violence in Venezuela, scores killed, hundreds injured – a US-orchestrated color revolution attempt to replace Bolivarian social democracy with fascist tyranny.

Tactics included shootings, roadside bombs, arson and other vandalism against state facilities, barricades of burning rubbish, blocking roads, destroying a food storage depot, and holding a maternity hospital under siege.

Later, a helicopter attacked the Interior Ministry and Supreme Court. Other disruptive tactics were used.

Since early in Hugo Chavez’s tenure, Washington sought regime change. The Trump administration is committed to ousting President Nicolas Maduro, perhaps a renewed attempt to come this year.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Secretary Ali Shamkhani said a “proxy war” is being waged against the Islamic Republic on streets and via social media.

He blamed Washington, Britain and Saudi Arabia for what’s going on.

“Based on our analyses, around 27 percent of the new hashtags against Iran are generated by the Saudi government,” he explained.

Israel’s dirty hands are involved, long wanting its main regional rival eliminated, pro-Western puppet rule replacing the Islamic Republic.

A “small and minority group” is responsible for rioting, lawbreaking and violence, Rouhani said.

Reportedly, Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is now in charge of cracking down on elements responsible for violence if it continues – ongoing since December 28.

On Monday, a policeman was lethally shot, three others wounded from gunfire, the death toll mounting, anti-government armed gunmen responsible.

Maryam Rajavi from the so-called People’s Mujahedin of Iran called on Washington, Brussels and the Security Council to intervene. The CIA-supported group calls for toppling the Islamic Republic violently.

Trump and Netanyahu expressed support for protesters. Reportedly, Washington and Israel may try to assassinate IRGC al-Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani.

He’s in charge of Iranian anti-terrorist operations in Syria.

Things remain volatile. They bear the disturbing earmarks of an attempted US-orchestrated color revolution.

Iran is well aware of what’s going on, its security forces trained and able to confront made-in-the-USA violence and instability.

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

Introduction

The Trump regime proclaimed that the vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations regarding the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was a strategic US decision.

Both President Trump and his bombastic UN Ambassador Nikki Haley threatened that all decisions and agreements regarding alliances, loans, aid and diplomatic relations were at stake.

Moreover, the Trump regime clearly defined the style and substance of US imperial dictates: All UN member nations (large and small) must grovel in the most abject manner to his orders. Ambassador Haley demanded that each nation on earth accept Trump’s and the racist-Zionist Netanyahu’s declaration that the ancient city of Jerusalem is the eternal, undivided and ethnically managed capital of the Jews. Trump’s message was loud and clear – he was the great ‘decider’ and the UN votes would identify America’s true friends and enemies.

“We are making a list… and there will be consequences…”

Clearly Trump’ boast of US power and Haley’s assumption that her terrifying threats would ensure that Washington had a majority vote on the ‘gifting’ of Jerusalem to Zio-fascism. They believed that US dominance and global hegemony was absolute and unassailable. The vote proved something else, something very new was happening.

The US suffered an overwhelming and humiliating defeat, one that kept Ambassador Haley dexterous fingers busy ‘taking notes’: 128 nations demanded that the Trump regime withdraw its declaration that Jerusalem was Israel’s undivided capital for Jews. Only 9 micro-nations (some mere postage stamps and a few death-squad banana-stans) voted with the Trump-Haley decision, 35 mendicant-states put their heads down and abstained while 21 timorous ambassadors chose to hide their shamelessness in the toilet stalls rather than show up for this important vote.

Political Context

First and foremost it is important to discuss the steps leading up to the US suffering such a crushing debacle. In other words, who was responsible for leading the Trump Administration by the nose down the blind alley of submission to the dictates of Zio-fascism.

The leader and driving force behind the UN disaster was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu whose quest to seize Jerusalem and convert it into the ‘eternal’ capital of the Jews was his top priority. For decades the entire world has rejected Israel’s seizure of Jerusalem and its conversion into an ethnically cleansed capital for the ‘Jewish’ state. The UN and international jurists denounced Israel’s colonial conquest and ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Netanyahu took charge with the election of Donald Trump as President. Operation Jerusalem was his first order to Puppet Donald. A number of Israel-First multi-billionaires, who financed Trump’s electoral campaign, demanded an immediate pay-off from their puppet: The Administration’s unconditional support for Netanyahu’s agenda. Despite protests from the rest of the world, especially the US closest European allies, Trump plunged the nation right into the Zionist soup: a Jewish Jerusalem; the systematic eviction of all Arabs, Christian, Muslim and secular, and the eventual annexation of all of Palestine; as well as an increasing military confrontation with Iran.

Real estate speculator, Jared Kushner (image left), Trump’s pampered son-in- law, and a complete Netanyahu flunky, became the senior advisor for the Middle East. Kushner pressured Trump’s National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn to intervene with Russia on behalf of Israel’s take-over of Jerusalem. Flynn was subsequently prosecuted for discussing global US Russian relations and the ‘good soldier’ is falling on his sword on behalf of the Zionists. Not surprising, the Congressional Democrats, the FBI and the Special Prosecutor found it easier to prosecute Flynn for his discussion regarding de-escalating the tense US-Russian relations provoked by the Obama administration than his discussions with the Kremlin in support of Israel’s seizure of Jerusalem!

Netanyahu’s operational weapons in manipulating US policy involved Jared Kushner, the billionaire Israel-First donors, the AIPAC and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Tel Aviv succeeded in securing Trump’s commitment to the Israeli agenda, despite opposition from the entire UN National Security Council and the overwhelming majority of the General Assembly. In the style of a typical authoritarian, US President Trump grovels at the feet of his ‘superior’, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while tearing at the throats of his ‘inferiors’, the 193 member nations of the UN General Assembly.

Netanyahu’s vitriolic bar room threats against the entire membership of the UN prior to the vote ensured the repudiation of all Security Council representatives with the exception of his South Carolina puppet, Ambassador Nikki Haley. Trump and Haley backed the blustering Netanyahu by issuing gangland threats to all UN representatives who dared to oppose Washington’s dictates.

In this way, Prime Minister Netanyahu secured the greatest diplomatic and political success of his career – the total submission of the US to his agenda, at the risk of a major humiliation in the UN. This, in effect, formalized Israeli hegemony over Washington, for the world to see.

In contrast to Netanyahu’s beaming success, the US suffered a historic diplomatic defeat: Fourteen times as many nations voted against the demands of the US President over– Netanyahu’s grab of Jerusalem.

What makes the defeat even more striking is the fact that all major allies and most of the biggest aid recipients openly defied the US threats. Eight of the ten biggest US aid recipients voted against Trump–Netanyahu–Haley. This bizarre troika is now left with an enemy list circling the entire globe, and a few timorous allies in the South Pacific and among the death squads of Guatemala.

Trump’s total and puerile embrace of the raving Netanyahu has exposed and widened fissures in US global hegemony.

Apart from ‘capturing’ Netanyahu’s vote, the other pro Trump nations included a handful of insignificant Pacific islands (Marshall Islands, Palau, Micronesia), Togo, a corrupt African mini-state and two banana-sized ‘death squad democracies’, Honduras and Guatemala. The latter two regimes hold power via stolen elections backed by narco-thugs in the pay (dubbed ‘foreign aid’) of the US.

All of the leading Asian and Western European countries voted against Trump. They openly rejected the crude blackmail of the US-Israel duet. Subservient regimes in Eastern Europe, corrupt regimes in Latin America and some horrifically impoverished nations in Africa and Asia chose to abstain or excuse themselves to the toilet stalls of Times Square. Narco-neo-liberal regimes in Mexico, Colombia, Paraguay, Panama and the Dominican Republic abstained. Even rightwing Eastern European regimes, which usually give unquestioned support to all US demands, like Romania, Bosnia, Poland and Latvia defied Nikki Haley’s ‘name taking’ by abstaining. The ‘no-shows’ (hiding in the toilets) included US puppets like Georgia, Samoa, St Kitts and Tonga.

An openly humiliated UN Ambassador Haley was left with the task of thanking the abstainers and ‘no-shows’ for their courage and preparing a few bags of goodies (matzos, Mogan David wine and discounts to the brothels of Tel Aviv) for the torturers of Honduras and half-drowned ‘leaders’ of Palau in gratitude for such loyalty.

Conclusion

Clearly Trump’s championing of a racist, colonialist, ethnic cleansing state like Israel may come to be viewed as a strategic diplomatic disaster. The Manhattan egomaniac has tied the US fortunes to the whims of a pariah state led by a complete lunatic.

Trump’s decision to demonstrate total loyalty to his Zionist billionaire campaign ‘donor-owners’ and his Israel-First son-in-law in his first major foreign policy decision failed to impress any of the influential nations of the world – East or West. Indeed, it showed how fractured and dangerously dysfunctional the US Administration had become.

Most important, Trump’s proclamation of a unipolar world, based on his notion of the US’s economic power, has collapsed. Israel, despite Haley’s bluster and list-taking, has no legitimacy. The continued Mossad assassinations of leading Palestinians and others and the increasing IDF slaughter of the spontaneous Palestinian civilian resistance have failed to improve Israel’s international standing – except among Guatemalan torturers.

However, it is not clear that the US has lost its big power influence regarding other regional conflicts. The subsequent UN Security Council vote in favor of Washington’s demands for added sanctions against North Korea demonstrated Trump’s power to intimidate the oligarchs and leaders of China and Russia.

In other words, limits on US power still depend on the issues, the allies, the diplomatic appeals, the adversaries and the distribution of benefits and costs.

In the case of Jerusalem, Real Estate Mogul Trump’s bizarre decision to hand an entire city over to the Zionists alienated all Muslims and Christians the world over, as well as the secular Western liberal nations and emerging powers, like Russia and China. The US tied its prestige to the whims of a paranoid nation arrogantly flaunting its racist superiority complex, backed by groups of immensely wealthy overseas dual citizens.

Diplomatically, Israel’s vituperative response to any legitimate criticism from world bodies undermines its chances of coalition building.

Finally, Washington’s support for Israel’s perpetual and overt violation of international law and its bombing of humanitarian missions makes Israel a very costly ally.

*

Featured image is from Jerusalem Post.

At least 36,898 people were killed, and 8,753 were wounded in Iraq during 2017. These figures should be considered lowball estimates, especially considering that the number of casualties being reported publicly was reduced. During 2016, 52,369 people were killed 21,795 were wounded. The Iraqi government chose to censor information about security casualties and perhaps even civilian ones. Consequently, at the end of 2016, the United Nations was hectored into limiting the number of casualties it was allowed to compile on the ground.

The Antiwar.com breakdown is as follows: at least 9,036 civilians killed, and another 6,607 wounded. However, Kurdish intelligence reported, in July, a belief that at least 40,000 civilians were killed in Mosul alone. Certainly, many bodies remain uncounted under the rubble left by the battle for Mosul, or in unmarked mass graves. The number of civilian wounded dropped considerably despite security campaigns across Iraq. This is unlikely to be true.

At least 1,696 security personnel were killed and 1,827 were wounded. In September, Coalition forces revealed that over 1,200 Iraqi soldiers were killed during the Mosul campaign alone, nearly doubling the number of dead.

Among the militants, at least 24,276 were killed, and 309 were wounded. Unlike the civilian and security casualties, the number of militant dead could be an exaggeration, or it could also be a low number.

Among foreign military forces, 33 were killed or died while in Iraq. The U.S. lost 17 personnel (four in hostile events). The Turks lost 14, while another 10 were wounded. France lost one member in a hostile attack. A British servicemember was also killed. Iran lost at least one soldier. In March, officials admitted that 2,100 Iranian servicemembers were killed in Iraq or Syria, so the number of dead personnel must be higher, but is not being included in this compilation.

Iraq also executed at least 111 prisoners. Some analysts believe the number is higher.

At least 546 members of the Kurdistan Workers Party (P.K.K.) were also killed.

At least four people were killed, and five more were wounded in recent violence:

Four militiamen were wounded in a highway bombing near Riyadh.

A bomb in Radwaniya wounded a tribal fighter.

An airstrike killed three militants in Sansal.

An ISIS mufti was killed Houd al-Zour, along with a number of companions.

*

Margaret Griffis is a journalist from Miami Beach, Florida and has been covering Iraqi casualties for Antiwar.com since 2006.

There is a scene in George Orwell’s famous dystopian novel 1984, where the protagonist, Winston Smith, is having a conversation with a philologist by the name of Syme. Syme is involved in a government effort to restructure the language spoken by the novel’s upper classes, those who have power or work for the ruling party. The language is called “Newspeak.” Syme’s job is to get rid of dangerous words. Here is how he describes his task: “We’re destroying words – scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. … The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought. In the end we shall make thoughtcrime [having unorthodox thoughts] literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

Now let’s shift to another scene, not a literary or fictional scene, but a probable real life one.

Sometime in the month of December 2017, somewhere in the bowels of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Washington, D.C., a high-level appointee of the Trump administration moved to take ideological control of the agency’s budget-writing process. This official presented a directive to the agency’s departments, such as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), listing seven words that were not to be used in budget preparation. If they were, they would be flagged and the document sent back for “correction.”  The seven “forbidden” words are: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

Screenshot Washington Post, December 15, 2017

The higher-ups at the HHS have insisted that there is no “ban” in place. Departments like the CDC can still do research in areas to which these unwelcome key words relate. But this disclaimer is misleading. To do the research you need money, and the money comes from the budget. The “discouragement” of key words is meant to marginalize their related research agendas. If fully effective, this attempt at censorship – for that is what it is – could contribute to undermining several generations of cultural progress, and challenge the “science-based” methodology that serves as a foundation for the modern world.

We already know that President Trump has no time for facts that differ from his personal worldview. That is why the U.S. is not part of the “science-based” treaty to slow down global warming. We also already know that he does not think minorities (both racial/ethnic and sexual) deserve protection under the law. These and other prejudices, worn so publicly by the president of the United States, have let loose a revolt of religious and social reactionaries, perhaps numerically represented by the 33% of Americans who approve of Trump’s performance. These folks would take the country back to a time of discrimination, segregation, and scientific know-nothingness. And for Trump these folks are the only ones who really count. He has recently declared that unfavorable polls are “fake news.” This is Trump “making America great again.”

It appears that one way Trump and his allies think this can be done is by censoring the language used by the people in power and those who work for them. As the computer engineer and writer Jem Berkes points out in reference to 1984, “the ultimate aim of Newspeak is to enclose people in an orthodox pseudo-reality and isolate them from the real world.” Sounds a lot like what is happening at HHS.

Can Censorship Work?

Can this work? It probably already has among the roughly one-third of adult Americans who are sympathetic to Mr. Trump’s ultimate aims. These include many Christian fundamentalists and various racist conservative sects, the Alt-Right and Fox TV talking heads. Among those who are of the opposite point of view, both cultural and political progressives, there is no chance that this proposed “orthodoxy” will go unchallenged. Many of this latter group are old enough to remember what the president’s “great America” once looked like – for instance, what life was like before the civil rights acts. And many of those who can see through Trump’s double-talk, of whatever age, have an instinctive preference for equality, fairness and clear thinking.

However, between these two opposing groups lies the insulated masses – the millions who pay little attention to politics and know little of the importance of science. These folks, focused on their day-to-day concerns, are essentially isolated in their localness. They have no sense of what is presently at stake, and therefore find it difficult to think critically about the Trump agenda. For this group, skewing language may well result in skewing their worldview. It is probably from the thinking of this segment of the population that Trump and his agents want to ultimately eliminate the values represented by the “seven forbidden words” and all that they mean for social policy.

Thus, the end game is to have no more thinking of society and its problems in terms of a citizen diversity, minority vulnerability, or entitlement based on proven need. For instance, citizens are not to think that sexual minorities are in need of legal protections. Indeed, the country’s LGBT population turns out to have less right to protection than an unborn fetus. In addition, citizens are to no longer pay heed to evidence-based and science-based arguments when they may call into question the practices of alleged societal customs.

Donald Trump’s Use of Language

You might find the scenario laid out above farfetched. Yet it correlates well with the way Donald Trump uses language, as well as his devaluing of any objective standard for truth. Thus, President Trump’s persistent combination of gross exaggeration and “alternative facts” gives many of his public statements an Orwellian odor.

In his ghost-written book The Art of the Deal, Trump is quoted as stating that “if you tell people a lie three times, they will believe anything.” No doubt he has told himself this more than three times, for he now seems to live his public life by this tenet. There are fantastic and untrue self-aggrandizing claims such as, because of the changes Trump is initiating, “our children will grow up in a nation of miracles,” and “we have done more in five months than practically any president in history.”

There are also fantastic and untrue negative claims such as some 3 million votes were cast illegallyin the presidential election – all of them apparently for Hillary Clinton- and “[President] Obama founded ISIS, literally.” According to the Washington Post’s Fact Check project, “President Trump has made 1,318 false or misleading claims over [his first] 263 days [in office]. Many of these claims are repeated over and over again – significantly more than three times.

Turning Back the Clock

Forbidding specific terminology from the budget language of HHS departments constitutes one avenue of attack against those who refuse to believe Trump’s innumerable lies. You might not believe his fantasies, but you are not to use “evidence-based” counter-arguments if you operate within the executive branch bureaucracies he ultimately controls.

Of course, the implicit censorship inherent in ideology has always played a role in U.S. politics. And the ultra-conservative ideology behind the “seven forbidden words” gambit has been around for a long time. It dominated economic policy until the New Deal and social policy until the Civil Rights Movement. By modern standards it brought disaster in both realms. So why would anyone want it back? Maybe because the aims of greater economic and racial/ethnic equality make some white citizens feel disempowered and uncomfortable. One way to address that discomfort is to turn the clock back. To do this, you just restructure reality by labeling those parts that you don’t like as “fake.” Trump does this almost daily.

The strategy of eliminating the official use of words like “diversity,” “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “transgender,” “evidence-based,” “science-based,” and “fetus” is part of this effort to turn the clock back. Maybe then, so the story goes, with no words to express these concepts, the uncritical minds of our time will be – as Syme the philologist predicts – unable to think unorthodox thoughts.

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest; America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism. He blogs at www.tothepointanalyses.com.

ICAN’s campaign to prohibit nuclear weapons was conducive to the historic October 2016 UN General Assembly Resolution L.41 to convene negotiations on a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”.

The voting result was 123 nations in favour and 38 against, with 16 abstentions. All the nuclear weapons states with one notable  exception voted NO (against), with China, Pakistan and India abstaining.

North Korea was the only declared nuclear weapons state which voted YES at the UN General Assembly, in favor of the prohibition of nuclear weapons under Resolution L.41.

Nobody knows about this. WHY: Because the mainstream media has not mentioned it (“Fake News” through Omission) or as in the case of The Guardian and Bloomberg, the DPRK was casually lumped together with the other nuclear weapons states which voted NO (against the resolution).

“Oops News”. “We made a mistake”. We did not really check the UN General Assembly documents. See the Ottawa Citizen quoting Bloomberg, with a CORRECTION, see below:

Screenshot of Ottawa Citizen, October 28, 2016

The Guardian report (below) lumps North Korea together with the nine nuclear weapons states.

Screenshot of The Guardian, October 2016

The Guardian article (screenshot above) is misleading.

The vote is the following (Nine Nuclear Weapons States):

North Korea Voted YES,

U.S. Britain France, Russia, Israel, voted NO.

India, Pakistan and China abstained.

Australia was correctly described in the Guardian as “outspoken” (ally of US, UK): Australia was among the 38 countries which voted NO to Resolution L.41.

“Sloppy Journalism” or “Fake News”?

Michel Chossudovsky, December 11, 2017

***

Will the speech by ICAN representatives in the Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony change the course of events or will the world’s nuclear powers be tone-deaf to the woes of peace activists?

Read our selected articles below and share it to your social media, repost and forward to your mailing lists. etc.

 

*     *     *

Anti-Nuclear Coalition Accepts Nobel Peace Prize as Calls for Disarmament Grow

By Julia Conley, December 11, 2017

In its efforts to rid the world of the nuclear threat, ICAN worked to advance of a U.N. treaty banning such weapons. The treaty has been signed by 122 countries—but none of the world’s nine nuclear powers have supported it.

Trump, The “Warrior Leader” and the Grave Danger of Nuclear War

By Stephen Lendman, December 11, 2017

Controlled by Wall Street, war profiteers, other corporate predators, Pentagon hawks and likeminded GOP extremists, businessman Trump transformed himself into a warrior leader – continuing naked aggression begun by Bush/Cheney and Obama, threatening war on North Korea and Iran.

Is the United States on the Brink of Nuclear War?

By Andre Damon, December 11, 2017

In the thirteen days since North Korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching large portions of North America, the United States has further escalated its war threats.

ICAN Statement on Nobel Peace Prize 2017

By International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, December 11, 2017

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) is a coalition of non-governmental organizations in one hundred countries. By harnessing the power of the people, we have worked to bring an end to the most destructive weapon ever created – the only weapon that poses an existential threat to all humanity.

Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: Birth of the Israeli Bomb. The World’s Fifth Nuclear Power

By John Steinbach, December 11, 2017

With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World’s 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal.

VIDEO: The Privatization of Nuclear War, Towards a World War III Scenario: Michel Chossudovsky

By James Corbett and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 11, 2017

With tensions growing in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, a new generation of nuclear weapons technology is making nuclear warfare a very real prospect. And with very little fanfare, the US is embarking on the privatization of nuclear war under a first-strike doctrine.

*     *     *

Truth in media is a powerful instrument.

Global Research is a small team that believes in the power of information and analysis to bring about far-reaching societal change including a world without war.

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party unanimously urged legislators in a non-binding resolution on Sunday to effectively annex Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, land that Palestinians want for a future state.

By enacting civilian law over settlements, the move may streamline procedures for their construction and expansion. That land is currently under military jurisdiction and Israel’s defence minister has a final say on building there.

The settlers are subject to Israeli civilian law.

“The time has come to express our Biblical right to the land,” Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan told a meeting of Likud’s Central Committee, according to the Jerusalem Post.

He added that Israel should not miss the opportunity of having in the White House US President Donald Trump, who Erdan said does not believe settlers are an obstacle to peace. He downplayed the role of the overwhelming majority of the rest of the international community.

Likud Central Committee votes to unanimously accept resolution calling on party's leaders to formally annex West Bank and increase settlement expansion https://t.co/H5qHdgXKiW

— AmericansforPeaceNow (@PeaceNowUS) December 31, 2017

“We are telling the world that it doesn’t matter what the nations of the world say,” Erdan told the crowd. “We must recognise this sovereignty.”

Jamal Juma’a, Palestinian activist and coordinator of the Stop the Wall campaign, told MEE:

“It’s clear that this is part of the consequences of Trump’s decision concerning Jerusalem, this is part of the ongoing process of annexation of the West Bank, it is another slap to international law.”

Netanyahu is not bound to follow the resolution. He did not attend the meeting, which attracted several hundred delegates including ministers, legislators and party officials. The Likud Central Committee is the party’s governing body.

The prime minister says he still supports a two-state solution with the Palestinians, although he has also pushed for Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank, which has been under Israeli occupation for 50 years.

In October, Netanyahu decided to postpone a vote on a controversial bill that critics say would amount to the de facto annexation of Israeli settlements surrounding Jerusalem.

Deemed illegal

The bill had been expected to be voted on by a ministerial committee in a move that would fast-track its progress through parliament.

Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in the Six-Day War of 1967. It later annexed East Jerusalem in a move never recognised by the international community.

It sees the entire city as its indivisible capital, while the Palestinians want the eastern sector as the capital of their future state.

Israeli settlements are deemed illegal under international law and widely seen as the main obstacle to peace.

More than 600,000 Jewish settlers live in the occupied West Bank and annexed East Jerusalem among 2.9 million Palestinians, with frequent outbreaks of violence.

Likud’s Central Committee counts around 3,700 members, and according to Israeli media about 1,500 were present for Sunday’s vote.

“You gotta remember, establishment, it’s just a name for evil. The monster doesn’t care whether it kills all the students or whether there’s a revolution. It’s not thinking logically, it’s out of control.”—John Lennon (1969)

Militant nonviolent resistance works.

Peaceful, prolonged protests work.

Mass movements with huge numbers of participants work.

Yes, America, it is possible to use occupations and civil disobedience to oppose government policies, counter injustice and bring about change outside the confines of the ballot box.

It has been done before. It can be done again.

For example, in May of 1932, more than 43,000 people, dubbed the Bonus Army—World War I veterans and their families—marched on Washington. Out of work, destitute and with families to feed, more than 10,000 veterans set up tent cities in the nation’s capital and refused to leave until the government agreed to pay the bonuses they had been promised as a reward for their services.

The Senate voted against paying them immediately, but the protesters didn’t budge. Congress adjourned for the summer, and still the protesters remained encamped. Finally, on July 28, under orders from President Herbert Hoover, the military descended with tanks and cavalry and drove the protesters out, setting their makeshift camps on fire. Still, the protesters returned the following year, and eventually their efforts not only succeeded in securing payment of the bonuses but contributed to the passage of the G.I. Bill of Rights.

Similarly, the Civil Rights Movement mobilized hundreds of thousands of people to strike at the core of an unjust and discriminatory society. Likewise, while the 1960s anti-war movement began with a few thousand perceived radicals, it ended with hundreds of thousands of protesters, spanning all walks of life, demanding the end of American military aggression abroad.

This kind of “power to the people” activism—grassroots, populist and potent—is exactly the brand of civic engagement John Lennon advocated throughout his career as a musician and anti-war activist.

It’s been 37 years since Lennon was gunned down by an assassin’s bullet on December 8, 1980, but his legacy and the lessons he imparted in his music and his activism have not diminished over the years.

All of the many complaints we have about government today—surveillance, corruption, harassment, political persecution, spying, overcriminalization, etc.—were used against Lennon. But that didn’t deter him. In fact, it formed the basis of his call for social justice, peace and a populist revolution.

Little wonder, then, that the U.S. government saw him as enemy number one.

Because he never refrained from speaking truth to power, Lennon became a prime example of the lengths to which the U.S. government will go to persecute those who dare to challenge its authority.

Lennon was the subject of a four-year campaign of surveillance and harassment by the U.S. government (spearheaded by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover), in an attempt by President Richard Nixon to have him “neutralized” and deported. As Adam Cohen of the New York Times points out,

“The F.B.I.’s surveillance of Lennon is a reminder of how easily domestic spying can become unmoored from any legitimate law enforcement purpose. What is more surprising, and ultimately more unsettling, is the degree to which the surveillance turns out to have been intertwined with electoral politics.”

Years after Lennon’s assassination, it would be revealed that the FBI had collected 281 pages of surveillance files on him. As the New York Times notes,

“Critics of today’s domestic surveillance object largely on privacy grounds. They have focused far less on how easily government surveillance can become an instrument for the people in power to try to hold on to power. ‘The U.S. vs. John Lennon’ … is the story not only of one man being harassed, but of a democracy being undermined.”

Such government-directed harassment was nothing new.

The FBI has had a long history of persecuting, prosecuting and generally harassing activists, politicians, and cultural figures, most notably among the latter such celebrated names as folk singer Pete Seeger, painter Pablo Picasso, comic actor and filmmaker Charlie Chaplin, comedian Lenny Bruce and poet Allen Ginsberg. Among those most closely watched by the FBI was Martin Luther King Jr., a man labeled by the FBI as “the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country.”

In Lennon’s case, the ex-Beatle had learned early on that rock music could serve a political end by proclaiming a radical message. More importantly, Lennon saw that his music could mobilize the public and help to bring about change.

For instance, in 1971 at a concert in Ann Arbor, Mich., Lennon took to the stage and in his usual confrontational style belted out “John Sinclair,” a song he had written about a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for possessing two marijuana cigarettes. Within days of Lennon’s call for action, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered Sinclair released.

While Lennon believed in the power of the people, he also understood the danger of a power-hungry government.

“The trouble with government as it is, is that it doesn’t represent the people,” observed Lennon. “It controls them.”

By March 1971, when his “Power to the People” single was released, it was clear where Lennon stood. Having moved to New York City that same year, Lennon was ready to participate in political activism against the U. S. government, the “monster” that was financing the war in Vietnam.

The release of Lennon’s Sometime in New York City album, which contained a radical anti-government message in virtually every song and depicted President Richard Nixon and Chinese Chairman Mao Tse-tung dancing together nude on the cover, only fanned the flames of the government agents who had already targeted Lennon.

However, the official U.S. war against Lennon began in earnest in 1972 after rumors surfaced that Lennon planned to embark on a U.S. concert tour that would combine rock music with antiwar organizing and voter registration. Nixon, fearing Lennon’s influence on about 11 million new voters (1972 was the first year that 18-year-olds could vote), had the ex-Beatle served with deportation orders “in an effort to silence him as a voice of the peace movement.”

As Lennon’s FBI file shows, memos and reports about the FBI’s surveillance of the anti-war activist had been flying back and forth between Hoover, the Nixon White House, various senators, the FBI and the U.S. Immigration Office.

Nixon’s pursuit of Lennon was relentless and misplaced.

Despite the fact that Lennon was not plotting to bring down the Nixon Administration, as the government feared, the government persisted in its efforts to have him deported. Equally determined to resist, Lennon dug in and fought back. Every time he was ordered out of the country, his lawyers delayed the process by filing an appeal.

Finally, in 1976, Lennon won the battle to stay in the country and by 1980, he had re-emerged with a new album and plans to become politically active again. The old radical was back and ready to cause trouble.

Unfortunately, Lennon’s time as a troublemaker was short-lived.

Mark David Chapman was waiting in the shadows on Dec. 8, 1980, just as Lennon was returning to his New York apartment building. Ironically, Lennon had signed an autograph for Chapman earlier that evening outside his apartment building.

As Lennon stepped outside the car to greet the fans congregating outside, Chapman, in an eerie echo of the FBI’s moniker for Lennon, called out, “Mr. Lennon!”

Lennon turned and was met with a barrage of gunfire as Chapman—dropping into a two-handed combat stance—emptied his .38-caliber pistol and pumped four hollow-point bullets into his back and left arm. Lennon stumbled, staggered forward and, with blood pouring from his mouth and chest, collapsed to the ground.

John Lennon was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.

Much like Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy and others who have died attempting to challenge the powers-that-be, Lennon had finally been “neutralized.”

Still, you can’t murder a movement with a bullet and a madman: Lennon’s legacy lives on in his words, his music and his efforts to speak truth to power.

As Yoko Ono shared in a 2014 letter to the parole board tasked with determining whether Chapman should be released:

“A man of humble origin, [John Lennon] brought light and hope to the whole world with his words and music. He tried to be a good power for the world, and he was. He gave encouragement, inspiration and dreams to people regardless of their race, creed and gender.”

Lennon’s work to change the world for the better is far from done.

Peace remains out of reach. Activists and whistleblowers continue to be prosecuted for challenging the government’s authority. Militarism is on the rise, all the while the governmental war machine continues to wreak havoc on innocent lives.

For those of us who joined with John Lennon to imagine a world of peace, it’s getting harder to reconcile that dream with the reality of the American police state. And as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, those who do dare to speak up are labeled dissidents, troublemakers, terrorists, lunatics, or mentally ill and tagged for surveillance, censorship or, worse, involuntary detention. And it only seems to be getting worse.

As Lennon shared in a 1968 interview:

I think all our society is run by insane people for insane objectives… I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal means. If anybody can put on paper what our government and the American government and the Russian… Chinese… what they are actually trying to do, and what they think they’re doing, I’d be very pleased to know what they think they’re doing. I think they’re all insane. But I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it.”

So what’s the answer?

Lennon had a multitude of suggestions.

“If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there’d be peace.”

“Produce your own dream. If you want to save Peru, go save Peru. It’s quite possible to do anything, but not to put it on the leaders….You have to do it yourself.”

“Peace is not something you wish for; It’s something you make, Something you do, Something you are, And something you give away.”

“Say you want a revolution / We better get on right away / Well you get on your feet / And out on the street / Singing power to the people.”

“If you want peace, you won’t get it with violence.”

Indeed, a revolution of any substance will not come about by way of violence. Government forces are armed to the hilt and waiting for that eventuality.

Fighting the evil of the American police state can only come about by way of conscious thoughts that are put into action. As Lennon sings in “Happy Xmas,” “War is over, if you want it.”

Do you want an end to war? Then stop supporting the government’s military campaigns. Do you want government violence against the citizenry to end? Then demand that your local police de-militarize. Do you want a restoration of your freedoms? You’ll have to get the government to recognize that “we the people”  are the masters in this relationship and government employees are our public servants.

The choice is ours.

The power (if we want it), as Lennon recognized, is in our hands.

“The people have the power, all we have to do is awaken that power in the people,” concluded Lennon. “The people are unaware. They’re not educated to realize that they have power. The system is so geared that everyone believes the government will fix everything. We are the government.”

For the moment, the choice is still ours: slavery or freedom, war or peace, death or life.

The point at which we have no choice is the point at which the monsters—the maniacs, the powers-that-be, the Deep State—win.

As Lennon warned, “You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.”

*

John W. Whitehead is the president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People.

Last week, with great fanfare, Donald Trump rolled out his new National Security Strategy (NSS). Its guiding theme is “America First.” An analysis of the 55-page document, however, reveals a program that renders the United States more unpopular and vulnerable to external threats.

Trump’s plan takes Barack Obama’s policy of “American exceptionalism” to a new level. In his speech accompanying the NSS’s release, Trump stated,

“America has been among the greatest forces for peace and justice in the history of the world.”

Yet Trump has not only continued but also escalated the Bush-Obama wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, dropped Tomahawk missiles on Syria, threatened North Korea and Iran, intensified airstrikes against Muslim countries, and fanned the flames of conflict in the Middle East.

Trump’s NSS stresses military might but makes scant reference to diplomacy. His administration is building 10 new aircraft carriers worth $13 billion each as a counterweight to China, and expanding the US nuclear weapons program to the tune of $1 trillion over the next 30 years.

Nuclear weapons are “the foundation of our strategy to preserve peace and stability by deterring aggression against the United States, our allies, and our partners,” according to the NSS. But Trump has dangerously escalated tensions with North Korea, providing that country with increasing incentives to develop nuclear weapons that reach around the world.

And by refusing to recertify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear agreement, in spite of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency’s finding to the contrary, Trump is further imperiling peace.

The NSS’s brief mention of working with international organizations is belied by the Trump administration’s abiding contempt for the United Nations. The UN Charter was created in 1945 by the countries of the world to collectively restore and maintain international peace and security.

As with Trump’s domestic program, the NSS makes no pretense of concern for human rights in other countries. This is evidenced in practice by Trump’s unwavering support for Israel‘s brutal occupation of Palestinian lands, including, most recently, his declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The NSS accurately states,

“for generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region.”

But the NSS minimizes Israel’s central responsibility for the conflict, stating,

“the threats from radical jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region’s problems.”

In defiance of nearly all other nations, Trump’s Jerusalem declaration endangers world peace. Indeed, last week, the UN Security Council voted 14-1, with a US veto, to condemn Trump’s characterization of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And in a rarely used procedure called Uniting for Peace (UFP), the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly followed suit. UFP allows the General Assembly to take measures to restore international peace and security when the Security Council is unable or unwilling to act. By utilizing UFP, which requires a two-thirds vote, this resolution has greater force than other General Assembly decisions. The International Court of Justice upheld the legality of UFP in its 1962 advisory opinion.

Richard Falk, former UN Special Rapporteur for Palestinian Human Rights, told Truthout that,

“What is already evident on the basis of [Trump’s Jerusalem] decision itself is the severe damage done to the global and regional leadership reputation of the United States.”

While setting forth the goal of being an “energy-dominant nation,” the NSS gives short shrift to “the importance of environmental stewardship.” Obama’s 2015 NSS, on the other hand, correctly stated that climate change was an “urgent and growing threat to our national security.” Yet Trump’s NSS does not recognize the threat of climate change. And in spite of increasingly extreme and unseasonal weather events such as recent hurricanes and wildfires, Trump has alarmingly and irresponsibly pulled out of the Paris climate accord.

The four pillars of the NSS, according to Trump, are protecting the US homeland, promoting US prosperity, achieving peace through strength and advancing US influence in the world.

Pillar I: Protect the Homeland

The NSS singles out unauthorized immigration as a threat to the homeland, but also implicitly attacks authorized immigration as well. It states that residency and citizenship decisions “should be based on individuals’ merits and their ability to positively contribute to US society, rather than chance or extended family connections.” This policy leads to the separation of families and makes us no safer.

Pillar I stresses securing our borders “through the construction of a border wall,” embodying Trump’s campaign mantra. There is no evidence that an expensive border wall will secure US borders or make us safer.

“The United States rejects bigotry and oppression,” according to Pillar I. Yet Trump has instituted three iterations of a Muslim ban, which would exclude from the United States immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries, as well as North Korea and Venezuela.

The Trump administration has also drastically cut back on accepting refugees from Syria, whose people are suffering from a prolonged, tragic civil war.

Pillar I pledges the US government will “help communities recover and rebuild” after natural and other disasters. Yet Trump has failed to meaningfully respond to the devastation wrought by the recent hurricane in Puerto Rico, which is part of the United States.

Pillar II: Promote American Prosperity

One subsection of Pillar II, called “Reduce the Debt Through Fiscal Responsibility,” cites “modernizing our tax system” as a way to “make the existing debt more serviceable.” Ironically, at Trump’s urging, the GOP-controlled Congress passed a radical tax overhaul that will reportedly add $1.5 trillion (or more) to the debt in the next 10 years. This is the height of irresponsibility.

Moreover, the United Nations has just conducted an investigation of extreme poverty in the United States, with disturbing results. It concluded that the prevalence of poverty and inequality “are shockingly at odds with the [US’s] immense wealth and its founding commitment to human rights.” The report documented a rise in poverty that disproportionately affects women and people of color as well as many white Americans. Homelessness, police surveillance, criminalization of poverty and unsafe sanitary practices were also flagged as problems.

Yet documentation of poverty in the United States is conspicuously absent from Trump’s NSS. In fact, Pillar II cites “unnecessary regulations” as problematic. Deregulation serves the interest of the wealthy. Since he took office, Trump has eliminated hundreds of regulations that protect health, safety and workers.

Pillar III: Preserve Peace Through Strength

This pillar identifies China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and jihadist terrorist groups as “actively competing against the United States and our allies and partners.” It stresses diplomacy “short of military involvement” as “indispensable.” Yet Trump castigated Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for pursuing diplomacy with North Korea while escalating the war of words and pushing punishing sanctions against that emerging nuclear power. Although Pillar III pays lip service to the “law of armed conflict,” Trump’s actions have violated those rules.

Pillar IV: Advance American Influence

Pillar IV states, “Around the world, nations and individuals admire what America stands for. We treat people equally and value and uphold the rule of law.” But since taking office, Trump has celebrated white supremacists, pardoned racist Sheriff Joe Arpaio and ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. He has also consistently violated US and international law.

The United States sells weapons and provides military advisers to Saudi Arabia, which enables the Saudis’ illegal bombing and medical/food/fuel blockade of Yemen, the poorest Arab country. This has resulted in famine and an outbreak of cholera affecting millions of Yemenis, particularly children. California Democratic Representatives Ted Lieu and Ro Khanna both warned that such actions expose US officials to criminal liability for aiding and abetting Saudi war crimes in Yemen.

This pillar admits that the UN “can help contribute to solving many of the complex problems in the world.” It emphasizes that the “United States supports the peaceful resolution of disputes under international law.” Yet the administration reacted to the Security Council and General Assembly’s rejections of Trump’s Jerusalem-as-capital-of-Israel declaration by threatening countries that voted against it with loss of foreign aid. Moreover, Trump threatened to cut off funding to the UN itself, the most significant peacekeeping organization in the world.

Resist Trump’s Agenda

Increasing disillusionment with Trump’s policies and, most recently, his unpopular new tax bill, may lead to the loss of a Republican majority in one or both houses of Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. It is incumbent on us all to continue and escalate our resistance to the Trump regime. The future of the United States and indeed, the world, depends on it.

*

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 a member of Jewish Voice 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.

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Featured image is from Albert H. Teich / Shutterstock.com.

For years, throughout the severe economic crisis that has plagued Greece over much of the past decade, the international media and financial press have held Greece up as a striking example of financial folly and mismanagement. Greece’s debt, we have been told, is the product of fiscal irresponsibility, of “lazy” and “unproductive” Greeks living beyond their means and spending recklessly. Moreover, Greece has been chastised for not emerging out of its economic doldrums despite being the recipient of hundreds of billions of euros worth of “free bailout money.” In short, Greece has been presented as an example for other countries to avoid at all costs.

Éric Toussaint, the spokesman of the Brussels-based Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM) and scientific director of the Greek Debt Truth Audit Commission, adopts a radically different view.

In an interview that initially aired on Dialogos Radio in December 2017, Toussaint describes the findings of the commission and describes the legal avenues available to Greece for the repudiation of a significant portion of its debt, which he describes as odious and illegitimate. He also criticizes claims made by economist and former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis in his recent book regarding the supposed lack of options available to Greece in its negotiations with its lenders in 2015.

Toussaint illustrates the capitulation of Varoufakis and current Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, resulting in further harsh austerity measures and no solution for the issue of the Greek public debt.

*

MintPress News: You recently wrote a three-part series of articles looking at the actions of, on the one hand, the SYRIZA-led government in Greece under Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and, on the other hand, the actions of Yanis Varoufakis, the well-known economist and Greece’s finance minister under the SYRIZA-led government in the first half of 2015. Your critique comes following the publication of Varoufakis’ recent book, Adults In The Room, in which Varoufakis gives his account of the Greek crisis and his actions in supposedly standing up to the “troika” (the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund). We’ll use this as a starting off point for our discussion. What were your general impressions of the book?

Éric Toussaint: The book really should be read, because it’s a very useful testimony about what happened. I disagree with the orientation of Varoufakis, but it’s a unique presentation of what happened before the Greek parliamentary election of January 2015 and what happened in the first six months thereafter — leading to the capitulation of the SYRIZA government in July 2015, following its overturning of the result of the July 5 referendum rejecting a new German-backed austerity plan.

MPN: In Adults In The Room, one of the claims apparently made by Varoufakis is that Greece was bankrupt in 2009 and that this set the stage for the so-called “bailouts” and austerity that followed. You dispute this claim, however. What do the facts show?

ET: In reality, the main problem was on the side of the private debt, the debt of the Greek banks, but also other businesses and households. There had been a process of huge growth of the private debt just after the integration of Greece into the Eurozone, because the big French, German, Dutch, and Belgian banks wanted to lend money to Greece, knowing that there was no risk of devaluation because of the monetary union.

They had a surplus of liquidity before the crisis of 2007 – 08, and after the crisis because, as you will remember, the Federal Reserve of the U.S. and the European Central Bank injected a huge amount of liquidity into the banks. These banks used that money to lend where they were having the better profits, and the countries of the “periphery” — like Greece but also Portugal, Ireland, and Spain — were more profitable than countries like Germany, France, Benelux, the U.K. or the U.S.

So the main issue was the problem of the bubble of private credit, but the main problem of the Greek government of George Papandreou in 2009, and the problem of the French government of Nicolas Sarkozy and the government of Angela Merkel in Germany, was that it was impossible to tell voters that we have to once more bail out the private banks. Therefore, it was necessary for them to build a fake narrative of what was happening in Greece, telling the public that the main problem was the huge level of public debt and the incapacity of the Greek government to keep on financing its public and external debt. In reality, they created this fake narrative to convince public opinion about the need to give money to the Greek government to “bail out” the Greek private banks and the French and German and Dutch and Belgian private sector, mainly the banks.

So, I disagree with the dominant narrative and I disagree with Varoufakis, who wrote in his book that the Greek government was bankrupt. I think the main problem was the banks, and the Greek government had the choice to either bail out the private sector or to “bail in” and socialize the banks (forcing the banks to take losses). It ultimately decided not to socialize or to expropriate the private banks. It was an error of the Greek government, and the other European governments were accomplices, along with big financial capital.

In summary, there is a difference between what Varoufakis is saying and what I am saying, and the conclusions are also different. I would say that what the Greek government should have done would have been to suspend the payment of the external debt, including the public debt. Varoufakis is saying the Greek state should have recognized itself that it was bankrupt and should have sold public assets to the foreign private sector, including selling to the other European countries and investors, and to the Greek banks. Do you see the difference?

MPN: Much has been said about Greece falsifying economic figures to enter the Eurozone, but you point out in your articles that Greece’s debt and deficit statistics were falsified by the Papandreou government in 2009 and 2010 and by IMF employee Andreas Georgiou, who was placed in charge of the Greek Statistical Authority (ELSTAT) by the Papandreou government. How were the Greek debt and deficit figures falsified, and is this something that Varoufakis addresses in his book?

ET: No, he says absolutely nothing about this falsification. But this falsification is evident. There is the case of Andreas Georgiou, the director of ELSTAT, who was sued, and at the beginning of August 2017 was found guilty of falsification by the Greek courts.

What happened? Papandreou met with the leaders of the European Central Bank — at that time it was Jean-Claude Trichet, very linked to the French banks — and the IMF, whose general director at that time, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was also very linked to the French banks. The Papandreou government asked the director of ELSTAT to add some debt to the official public debt. At the first step, Eurostat, the European organization of statistics, told ELSTAT that it was an error to add this debt, but Eurostat was afterward also convinced by Trichet and by José Manuel Barroso, then the president of the European Commission, to be part of the falsification of the Greek public debt.

I would estimate they increased the debt more or less 15 to 20 percent in relation to the Greek GDP, so that the official figure reached the huge ratio of 125 percent of GDP for the public debt, and the budgetary fiscal deficit reached something like 13 percent. So with these figures, the troika could say there is an emergency, we have to intervene to “help” the Greek government, with 110 billion euros of loans to Greece. So in this case, I would say that it was a conspiracy. I am not a conspiracist, but in this case we really now have the proof of a huge level of falsification and of the building of the fake narrative to misrepresent what was the real situation.

MPN: You point out that Yanis Varoufakis, despite his radical and leftist profile, maintained friendships and close contact with such figures as the head of the Greek conservative party, Antonis Samaras, who was prime minister of Greece between 2012 and 2014; Yannis Stournaras, who was the finance minister under the Samaras government during that period and who is the current governor of the Bank of Greece; and George Papandreou, who led Greece into the austerity and memorandum regime in 2009 and 2010. Describe the nature of Varoufakis’ relationships with these figures.

ET: You know, Varoufakis is very happy to share that he has developed and maintains many relations with the traditional political class in Greece. In some ways, when you read his book you see that he is trying to convince world leaders that what he was proposing was a better solution for everybody, including for the leaders of the world. And so he insisted on stating that [then-leader of the Greek opposition] Antonis Samaras called him one evening after [Varoufakis] publicly criticized what Papandreou was doing, with Samaras telling Varoufakis “I don’t know you but I like very much what you said on Greek television and to Greek public opinion.”

It shows that Varoufakis has a very complicated personality, because he says he wants to be at the side of the oppressed people, and he’s promised to his voters not to betray them, but at the same time he wanted to convince world leaders and to maintain very good relations with everybody — with Stournaras, with Samaras, with Papandreou, with Christine Lagarde, with [then-German finance minister Wolfgang] Schäuble, with [German Chancellor] Merkel. And in the U.S., if you read the book, he says he was very happy to maintain a very good relationship with Larry Summers and Jeffrey Sachs.

People in the U.S. should know who these guys are. Larry Summers was in charge of the U.S. Treasury in the Clinton administration at the end of the 1990s and he was responsible for the revocation of the Glass-Steagall Act [that had been a way of protecting the economy from unduly risky behavior by banks]. After that he was the president of Harvard University and was totally [chauvinistic] in his declaration of the difference between men and women. He can be fairly described as a right-wing Democrat. Sachs, who was also a friend of Varoufakis, was responsible for the first economic “shock therapy” [harsh and sudden economic austerity policies] imposed on Bolivia in 1995, and the “shock therapy” imposed on Russia and Poland in the early 1990s. So it’s really problematic to see this contradictory posture of Varoufakis.

MPN: In his book, Varoufakis goes on to say that he convinced SYRIZA to depart from its policy platform of 2012 and the Thessaloniki platform of 2014. Instead, Varoufakis convinced SYRIZA to adopt his own set of economic proposals. For instance, Varoufakis seems to have proposed advocating for a debt restructuring instead of a debt reduction. What was SYRIZA originally proposing; what were Varoufakis’ proposals which were ultimately adopted; and why were Varoufakis’ proposals, in your words, doomed to fail?

ET: In the electoral campaign of 2012, SYRIZA succeeded in increasing its popular support. In the election of 2009 SYRIZA received 4 percent of the vote, and in June 2012 26.5 percent of the vote. So it was very clear with the election of June 2012 that sometime in the future SYRIZA would become the government of Greece. And they gained such popular support in 2012 with a program that was very radical.

They were saying that if you elect us as government, we will suspend the payment of the debt and we will audit the debt to identify the illegitimate part of the Greek debt. They also said we will socialize or nationalize the Greek banks. And they said that they would put in practice a very radical fiscal policy and increase the taxes on the rich, the Orthodox Church, and the oligarchs who are active in the shipping industry. So it was a radical program, and they also said that we will not make any more sacrifices for the euro.

Varoufakis was opposed to this orientation, and in his book he explains how he succeeded in convincing Alexis Tsipras and his inner circle to moderate, to soften the program and to say that it was not necessary to suspend the payment of the debt — that it was possible to convince the creditors to restructure the debt without reducing the debt and without a suspension of payments. Varoufakis also wrote that he convinced Tsipras that it was important not to increase the taxes paid by the private sector, the Greek corporations and financial industry, and foreign corporations based in Greece.

What I can say as a comment on Varoufakis’ book is that Tsipras, after the election of June 2012, was also looking for people like Varoufakis, who could help Tsipras to soften the program of SYRIZA while not openly confronting the rest of SYRIZA’s leadership. So I would say Tsipras and Varoufakis organized something like a shadow cabinet within SYRIZA to prepare another official platform. Varoufakis explains that actually they did this against the official line of SYRIZA. For me, at this level, Varoufakis has a huge responsibility for the capitulation that happened at the beginning of July 2015.

MPN: One of Varoufakis’ proposals to the leaders of SYRIZA was to accept a primary budget surplus of up to 1.5 percent of GDP. For those unfamiliar with economics, what is a primary budget surplus and why is it harmful for a country whose economy is in a depressed state, as is the case in Greece?

ET: To achieve a primary budget surplus, you need to cut expenses, and it is clear that the type of expenses to be cut are social expenses and infrastructure investment. A primary surplus is achieved prior to paying the debt. When you say that I will guarantee as a government a primary surplus, it is to use this surplus to pay the debt. You will not question the payment of the debt when you guarantee a primary surplus.

The alternative would have been to say, as a legitimate leftist government, we should have a fiscal deficit, because we should use the money of the government to stimulate the recovery of the economic activity and we should improve the quality of life of the population — and to accomplish this we need more money for health, for education, to create jobs. And so, the proposal of Varoufakis was at odds with a truly radical negotiating position on the part of the Greek government.

MPN: Yanis Varoufakis and Alexis Tsipras have spoken, for instance, at the Brookings Institution, the well-known neoliberal Washington think tank. Can such actions, in your opinion, be reconciled with their supposedly leftist and radical image?

ET: I would say it is not really shocking. Personally I don’t like to do such things, but we can understand that certain people want to be in government and are therefore willing to give some speeches to different publics. But at the same time it is absolutely clear that Tsipras prioritized his being invited by institutional authorities who are neoliberal, and he did that and he has kept on doing that because he wants absolutely to be recognized as a political leader, one who is very responsible to the markets and to the stability of the financial system.

In the case of Varoufakis, he wanted to create, I would say, a more complex image — in some way provoking but in some way saying yes, we need to reach a compromise, an agreement. And he also gave an absolute priority to invitations from right-wing or systemic institutions. It’s very clear, for instance, that he liked very much the conservative leadership in the U.K. and accepted several invitations from them; and he also accepted, precisely at the beginning of his tenure as finance minister, an invitation to go to London to give a speech to foreign investors. It showed, in this way, that he and Tsipras were the main interlocutors with creditors and capitalists. In Varoufakis’ book, he also writes a lot about the good relations he tried to build with China and Chinese authorities investing in Greece.

MPN: You have been the scientific coordinator of the Greek Debt Truth Commission since it was established in 2015. Has the SYRIZA-led government shown any intention of adopting the findings of the commission, and was there any point during your participation on the commission when you realized that perhaps the SYRIZA government’s policies were going in a different direction from the work that you were doing?

ET: I would say that frankly, since the beginning, when I spoke with the then-president of the Hellenic Parliament Zoe Konstantopoulou on February 16, 2015, I told her that I came to you, came to the parliament to make a proposal to you to launch an audit commission, and I can convince people from 10 different countries to work with no payment in favor of the Greek people and in favor of the truth about the debt. Telling that to Zoe [Konstantopoulou], I added that I was convinced that Alexis Tsipras would not be enthusiastic about that proposal. She told me, “No problem, I will do that, I will call Alexis and I will convince him.” She immediately issued a press release regarding our meeting on February 16, 2015. She also called Tsipras, and Tsipras officially told her “do it, it’s part of our program in 2012; do it and do it with Eric Toussaint.

We held the first meeting of the commission on April 4, 2015 in the Greek parliament. Alexis Tsipras came at the beginning of the inaugural session. The president of the Hellenic Republic, Prokopis Pavlopoulos, came also, and so officially they showed their support. Almost all the members of the government also attended, including Varoufakis. But it was clear to me that Varoufakis was not in favor of freely supporting the commission, and the same from Tsipras. Zoe Konstantopoulou was convinced, because she was a political friend and a friend of Tsipras, that he was sincere when he was telling her that he wanted to support our work.

Several weeks later, it was very clear that neither Tsipras or Varoufakis were open to publicly, in front of the media, mentioning the work of the commission. They never — you know, they traveled a lot to Brussels and Varoufakis traveled a lot to Washington to meet Christine Lagarde, the general director of the IMF — and they never questioned the legitimacy of the debt. So for me it was very clear that they were in some way forced by the president of the Greek parliament to express official support, but at the same time it was very clear that they didn’t want to radicalize their position.

I performed this work with the 13 members of the commission. The work done by the commission, I would say, consists of more than 1500 or 2000 hours of work performed over eight weeks among 13 persons. We worked day and night to produce a very efficient and rigorous report, and my expectation was that there was some possibility that several ministers of the SYRIZA-led government — ministers of the then-SYRIZA faction “Left Platform,” jointly with Zoe Konstantopoulou and the pressure from the streets and from the other radical-left groups and the trade-union left — could pressure the government to use our work. But I was not really very optimistic because I was very well informed about what Varoufakis was doing with his team of advisers. I was receiving clear information about the concessions that he was ready to give to the creditors.

But I don’t regret having done this work, and people who participated in the commission — people from France, Spain, Greece, Ecuador, Brazil, the U.K., Belgium — these people are very proud to have done this work. They are convinced that because we have done very serious work, it will be useful in the future — in Greece but also in other parts of the world, because in Spain, in Portugal, in Italy, in Slovenia, in other countries, people are reading our report, are asking us a lot of questions, trying to implement the same methodology to the specific case in their own country. I’m sure it will be useful.

MPN: Describe the findings and conclusions that were published in your report, and also the recommendations made by the Debt Truth Audit Commission.

ET: In the first two chapters, we analyze the building of the Greek public and private debt before the crisis. We explain what happened in the 1990s and in the first decade of the 21st century. We showed that the accumulation of debt was linked to huge amounts of military expenses encouraged by the U.S. government and the French and German governments, which are the main sellers of weapons to Greece. We showed also that interest rates paid by Greece at the end of the 20th century increased the debt, as also happened with the peripheral countries.

Additionally we showed the responsibility of the previous PASOK and New Democracy governments in giving tax gifts to the rich that reduced the government revenue and forced the government to finance its budget by debt. And we showed also that the debt increased after the addition of the Greece to the Eurozone, because a lot of money came from the German and French investors.

Following that, in chapters 3 and 4, we showed the transformation of the debt from the troika’s first memorandum, when the private lenders were replaced by public lenders — the troika, the European Commission, 14 different states of the Eurozone, the IMF and the European Central Bank. We showed that they did that to bail out the private banks — foreign and national — and not in the interest of the people. We demonstrated that the lenders added conditions to the new loans, conditions that violated international treaties on economic, social, cultural, civil, and political rights.

In other words, we demonstrated that the debt to the troika was an odious debt, meaning a debt accumulated against the interests of the people, and that the creditors or lenders knew that they were giving loans against the interests of the people. And, in the case of the troika, this was absolutely evident, because the troika was dictating to the Greek government the terms of the loans — which laws to change, which new laws to adopt, what wage and pension reductions and privatizations to enact. The troika were not only accomplices but they were direct commanders — they were the initiators of these violations.

After that in the report we demonstrated the clear impact on the quality of life of the Greek population. In chapter 5, we named concrete international treaties and which article is being violated by the conditions imposed by the troika. And in the last two chapters we explained in legal terms why the Greek debt to the troika should be rejected as illegitimate, odious, illegal, and unsustainable.

Our conclusion was that the Greek government fully has the right to suspend the payment of the debt, to question the debt, and also to repudiate the part of the debt identified as odious. Notable lawyers helped us, as members of the commission, to write the conclusion based on international law and Greek domestic law. It is clear that should Varoufakis and Tsipras have used this report, they would have had very strong arguments against the creditors, instead of capitulating in front of them in July 2015.

MPN: Is the Greek Debt Truth Audit Commission still active today? And, by extension, how is the CADTM active today on the issue of the Greek debt?

ET: The Debt Truth Commission was dissolved by the new president of the Greek parliament, Nikos Voutsis, in October 2015. We were opposed to its dissolution, and so we decided collectively to transform ourselves into an independent organization with the same name. We are active now as the Debt Truth Committee, recognized by Greek law, and we have met several times in the past two years.

We met once in the European Parliament, invited by several members of the European Parliament — French, Greek, German and Spanish European MPs who are supporting our work. We held several meetings in Greece, not in the parliament because we are no longer invited, but in the office of the Greek Association of Lawyers. There were many Greek citizens who attended the public part of our meetings.

Several of us have published different articles. I published a book in Greek last July with new material about the Greek debt. We also produced several videos and a documentary, “Audit,” a 26 minute film. It is very interesting, I recommend to you to view it. I have to check, but I think that very soon it will be available with English subtitles. So we are keeping on with our work. It is clear that we are notsupported by the government. And the right-wing press maintains silence about our work — but we enjoy significant support in the Greek social movements and radical-left organizations.

MPN: In looking at Greece over the years of the economic crisis, we’ve often heard that Greece has been given all this money by the troika, insinuating that the money was simply given away to Greece. In reality though, where have most of the so-called “bailout” funds ended up?

ET: It’s absolutely clear that more than 90 percent of the loans given to Greece went back outside of Greece to pay back the private banks and public creditors, or to bail out the Greek banks. Less than 10 percent has been used by the regular government as an input to the budget, but they used even that to promote the neoliberal policies! So this money also was used against the interests of the Greek people, because it was used to finance privatizations, to finance the layoffs of thousands of public servants, et cetera.

MPN: What options does Greece have available to it under domestic law, European law, and international law today — with regards to the public debt, and also with regards to the potential abolition or overturning of the austerity measures and memorandum-related policies, such as privatizations, that have followed?

ET: There is something very concrete that could be done with the Greek bonds owned by the European Central Bank. The ECB bought Greek bonds in 2010, 2011, and 2012 at a discount price, a discount of 30 percent. After that, after the “haircut” [downward revaluation of Greek bonds] of 2012, the ECB refused to be part of the “haircut.” Now the ECB is demanding that Greece repay the full amount of the Greek bonds the ECB bought at a discount price. It is demanding the full nominal value of the bonds — and with a very high interest rate, 6.5 percent — at the same time that the ECB is lending money to the private banks at zero interest.

What the Greek government could do is to change the legal status of the Greek bonds, because they are still covered under the legal jurisdiction of Greece. The Greek government could say we are enacting a haircut of 50 or 80 percent on these bonds, to reduce the payments, because we want to use the money in favor of the Greek people’s interests. It would be possible to do that. Tsipras can do that or a future Greek government can do that.

What should complement this, what a government that would like to really help the Greek people’s interests could do would be to, on the basis of our audit, enact another unilateral, sovereign action of repudiation of other parts of the debt. It is clear that this would provoke a huge verbal reaction. But for the past seven years, since the first memorandum of 2010, the creditors have criticized the Greek government and the Greek population, shown the Greek population as “lazy” and as “delinquent” at the level of tax payments. I think that they cannot, as creditors, inflict more pain on the Greek people than they already have.

A legitimate government can affirm the popular sovereignty in the interests of the Greek population, can resolve an issue in favor of the general interest of the population — and not only the Greek people’s interests, but humanity, I would say. We need justice, and if there is no justice for the Greek people, there will be no justice for all the people in Europe and the rest of the world. We have to launch and to expand the struggle to oppose illegitimate and odious debt all over the world.

MPN: Debt, as you say, is not just a Greek or European problem. Total world debt is said to surpass $230 trillion dollars. Is the current global economic model sustainable under such conditions, in your view?

ET: No, it’s not sustainable. As you certainly know, recently the IMF but also the Bank of International Settlements — it is a bank of the big central banks based in Basel, Switzerland — have been saying there are new financial bubbles. These bubbles have been provoked by an inflation of the price of assets, with a massive injection of liquidity decided by the big central banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of England.

In the next months or years this will provoke a new financial crisis. Exactly when it will happen we don’t know. It can happen in one week or in six months or in one year. Certainly it will happen with a stock exchange crash, and a crash on the market of obligations emitted by private corporations and also sovereign debt. Where it will explode — Wall Street, Paris, Frankfurt — we don’t know. Maybe Beijing. But it will explode in the near future.

This model of huge global debt, which is accumulated in favor of speculative activities and to enrich the richest, will end via a new general crisis. Not a terminal crisis of capitalism, because the structure of capitalism has survived such financial crises since the beginning of the 19th century.

But these types of crises generally deliver a huge amount of pain to the majority of the population, so we should be conscious of what capitalism is preparing for the population of the world. We have to combine a struggle against illegitimate debt with other demands about private banks, about taxes, against climate change, in favor of social justice. We need to chart a radical turn opposing the capitalist model.

*

Featured image is from MPN.

In scenes reminiscent of Syria 2011, armed groups in Iran have used mostly peaceful protests to call for an armed struggle against the Iranian government.

In Syria in 2011, peaceful protesters calling for economic and political reforms had their peaceful protests hijacked by armed Muslim Brotherhood fanatics who fired upon security forces, allowing for the protests to descend into a civil war.

The same is now occurring in Iran with protesters who originally called for economic reforms days ago, being hijacked by violent people who are attacking Iranian security forces and sacking government buildings throughout the country.

The violence has been agitated by imperialist shrills who are spreading fake news that the protests are about regime-change in Iran, as reported in detail by FRN earlier today. The details of a color revolution descending can also be read here.

The terrorist group Ansar al-Furaq has called for an armed uprising and struggle against the government. They also claimed yesterday to have blown up an oil pipeline in Iran’s southern Khuzestan province where Iran’s Arab minority are mostly concentrated.

Meanwhile, Al-Sura News has also reported that the separatist Kurdish Free Life Party (PJAK) has also called for an armed struggle.

With a radical Islamist group and separatist Kurdish group calling for armed struggle, this truly bares resemblance to what occurred in Syria in 2011.

*

Featured image is from the author.

Scientists have found what they believe to be the strongest factor leading to the worryingly steep decline of bumblebees… fungicides.

After Donald Trump won the US election, analysts, researchers and journalists got to work to track how this apparent political outsider would suddenly gather a team.

Despite promising to “drain the swamp” of vested interests and lobbyists, it became clear Trump was intent on refilling it with figures and ideas from the well-established network of conservative and neoliberal think-tanks.

Suddenly, staff from groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation were helping to draw up plans for a Trump administration.

Last month, Trump thanked one of those groups personally, with an address to the Heritage Foundation’s annual meeting.

But those think tanks, and the people who lead and run them, have strong links to another influential group that has been trying to bend governments around the world to a particular ideology for almost 70 years.

The Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) was established in 1947 by economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek — a man considered by many to be the godfather of modern free market thinking.

Mont Pelerin Society Membership List

Some scholars have described it as the “neoliberal thought collective” with its ideas heavily influencing the political administrations of Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US, and many world leaders since.

DeSmog has obtained a 2013 Mont Pelerin Society membership list, showing the group continues to boast influential members including former judges, former country leaders, wealthy industrialists, academics and think tank operatives in 62 countries from Argentina to Zimbabwe.

According to the Mont Pelerin Society, its members “see danger in the expansion of government, not least in state welfare, in the power of trade unions and business monopoly, and in the continuing threat and reality of inflation.”

Members continue to meet at annual conferences and regional meetings, often held in appealing locations.  The next meeting will be held in Sweden’s capital, Stockholm.

High profile members include former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, petrochemical billionaire Charles Koch and former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus.

Heritage Foundation’s Influence

As DeSmog has previously reported, many US, UK and Australia-based groups that have spread climate science denial are heavily represented among Mont Pelerin’s membership list. Many groups funded by Charles Koch and his brother David through their family foundations and Koch Industries Inc, are also well represented on the MPS directory.

When Donald Trump won the election, one of the first people appointed onto his transition team was the Heritage Foundation’s Ed Feulner.  Feulner joined MPS in 1972 – the year before he joined fellow Republican Paul Weyrich to start the Heritage Foundation.

Feulner was also president of MPS from 1996 to 1998 and has previously served as MPS treasurer.

In October, Trump gave a keynote address to the Heritage Foundation’s annual President’s Club Meeting.

“Heritage has been instrumental in providing the Trump administration with sound policies and experts who now serve in key government positions,” wrote Feulner in an email announcing Trump’s appearance.

In the speech, Trump remembered the tax policies of the Ronald Reagan era, and recalled how President Reagan had worked closely with Heritage “to unleash the economic miracle of the 1980s”.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Reagan’s chief economic advisor was the late Martin Anderson, who joined the MPS in 1965.  Anderson once reported that 22 of the 76 economic advisors on Reagan’s successful 1980 presidential campaign were MPS members.

Heritage, a conservative libertarian think tank, was also described by Politico as Trump’s “shadow transition team” as its fellows and staffers took up roles for the president.

In February, New Republic wrote how the Heritage Foundation was shaping Trump’s administration and was set to play a “key role in steering domestic policy” for the coming years.

This week, the administrator of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, is scheduled to appear at a climate and energy policy summit hosted by the Heritage Foundation. Among the speakers will be several climate science denialists from the CO2 Coalition, including William Happer.

A Neoliberal Network

MPS is also heavily linked with the Atlas Network — a co-ordinating group of more than 460 think tanks and operatives in 96 countries.

Atlas president Alejandro Chafuen joined MPS in 2010 and the current chair of Atlas, Linda Whetsone, is the daughter of the network’s founder, Sir Antony Fisher.

DeSmog’s analysis of Mont Pelerin Society’s membership shows scores of members who are affiliated with the same network of think tanks that have fought against policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

When Trump is gutting environmental regulations, pulling out of international climate agreements and pledging to cut welfare support and social security, it starts to look a lot like the world MPS members have been pushing for over decades.

Democracy In Chains

That larger strategy to undermine democracies the world over is chronicled in an excellent book “Democracy In Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America” by award-winning historian Nancy MacLean of Duke University. The book was a finalist in the prestigious National Book Awards for 2017.

MacLean found what George Monbiot calls the “missing link” that helps to explain the radicalisation of governments from the US to the UK and beyond. In an abandoned building on the campus of George Mason University, MacLean found the paper trail of the life’s work of James McGill Buchanan, including confidential letters with Charles Koch that confirm millions of Koch’s dollars flowed to GMU in support of Buchanan’s work.

Buchanan — who was a member and past-president of the Mont Pelerin Society — developed a strategy along with MPS member Charles Koch and other elite industrialists to construct a network of neoliberal think tanks that, as MacLean writes and documents, have infected democracies with radical right wing policy ideas designed to shield and benefit the wealthy elite, and to disempower the majority of citizens.

Buchanan served on the advisory board of the Exxon- and Koch-funded Independent Institute, and as a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute, which Charles Koch co-founded with Murray Rothbard and Edward Crane. Crane is a long-standing member of MPS, and Rothbard is credited as having suggested to Charles Koch that he study the leadership of Vladimir Lenin and to view government as “our enemy.”

Sound familiar?

*

Featured image is from the author.

Featured image: Niger protest against corruption within the Uranium industry during 2017

A military engagement in the West African state of Niger involving United States Green Berets in an apparent firefight with hostile forces resulted in the deaths of four Pentagon troops in October.

These casualties were a manifestation of the increasing role of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) which will be entering its second decade of operation in February. The reasons behind the Niger deployment and the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the American soldiers are not at all clear to many people in both Africa and particularly in the U.S.

One of the Green Berets killed was of African descent. Sgt. LaDavid Johnson’s death in his ancestral homeland became of point of contention between President Donald Trump, the family of Johnson and U.S. Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of Florida. Wilson took exception to the cavalier and insensitive manner in which Trump spoke with women in Johnson’s family prompting the president to suggest that the slain soldier’s family along with the Congresswoman were dishonest.

White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly provided political backup for Trump’s denial of being dismissive to the family of Johnson. Wilson was described by Trump as a failed politician with no merit in regard to her observations of his behavior.

Moreover, the real questions related to why are Pentagon troops stationed in Niger and the actual context under which the AFRICOM troops were killed are not asked by the western corporate and government-controlled media. This incident was not at all an accident due to the fact that U.S. troops are constructing drone launching installations and other so-called counter-terrorism measures in Niger.

The country is an underdeveloped former French colony with one of the world’s largest deposits of uranium. Uranium resources are owned and mined by a French-based firm, Areva, therefore making its natural resources a cause of concern for the imperialist states including Paris and Washington. Areva was interestingly cleared in a 2017 investigation surrounding a major scandal involving the failure to pay market rates for the extraction of this valuable export. (See this)

This presence of Pentagon and French military personnel in Niger is indicative of the ever-widening AFRICOM and NATO efforts to maintain control over the land, resources, labor and waterways of the African continent. Throughout the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) region AFRICOM is active in conducting joint maneuvers with national armies and navies which are ostensibly designed to enhance the security capacity of the various member-states. Instead the imperialist powers are carefully positioning themselves to serve their own strategic and economic interests.

Neighboring Federal Republic of Nigeria has been designated intermittingly as Africa’s largest economy along with the Republic of South Africa. Both Nigeria and South Africa underwent a recession during the last two years partially stemming from the significant decline in petroleum and mineral commodity prices.

Nigeria along with the Republic of Angola, are separately deemed to be the largest oil producers on the continent. However, these nations have undergone economic shock waves as the impact of declining oil prices became evident. Although Nigeria and South Africa have been declared as emerging from recession, the recoveries are fragile.

One reflection of this fragility is found within the delivery sector of the petroleum industry itself in relationship to the tremendous problems of fuel shortages for motorists, businesses and households. This may seem counterintuitive since Nigeria is a huge producer of sweet crude oil.

Nonetheless, there has been very little improvement of the infrastructure in the processing sector for petroleum. The lack of adequate refineries will inevitably limit the ability to supply the domestic market. Nigeria’s recession drove down the value of the national currency (naira) making foreign exchange more expensive and coveted.

In an article published by Punch newspaper on December 24 assessing the problem of long lines and closures of filing stations stemming from lack of supply, reveals that:

“Against the latest round of fuel scarcity rocking many parts of the country, private oil marketers are calling for government intervention to enable them to access foreign exchange at a special rate for the importation of Premium Motor Spirit (petrol). According to them, selling the product at N145 per litre is no longer feasible with the current exchange rate.”

This situation has become so unbearable and unjustified that the labor movement has threatened to intervene by demanding the parliament take immediate action to remedy the crisis.

An article published by the Premium Times says:

“Organized labor on Friday (Dec. 29) threatened to embark on a strike if the ongoing fuel shortage ravaging the nation extends to next year. A press statement issued on Friday said it also hailed the President of the Senate, Bukola Saraki, for directing the Senate Committee on Petroleum Resources (Downstream) to cut short its recess and immediately convene industry stakeholders meeting in a bid to end the ongoing fuel crisis. A NEC member of Nigeria Labor Congress, NLC, Issa Aremu, observed in Kaduna on Thursday that the protracted fuel crisis was a reflection of a ‘crisis of corporate governance in the petroleum sector.’ According to the labor leader, the bane of downstream sector was ‘abysmal absence of accountability, transparency and openness in the administration of the petroleum resources of Nigeria.’”

Nonetheless, the profitability of the retail sector of the oil industry is clearly linked with the shortage of foreign exchange (western currencies) damaging the actual value of production and distribution. These are factors that at present remain outside the influence of people of all classes inside of Nigeria.

Amid this conundrum in one of Africa’s largest economies, in another ECOWAS member-state, the Republic of Liberia, a new president has been elected to take over the reins of political power. George Weah, the internationally-renowned professional soccer champion won the runoff elections against incumbent Vice President Joseph Boake of the Unity party. Weah’s Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) won 61 percent of the vote in an election which suffered a poor turnout and continuing allegations of irregularities. Despite these issues the international observer teams from the region said the process was free and fair.

Liberia was established as a nation by repatriated formerly enslaved Africans from the U.S. in 1847. The country has largely been dependent upon Washington and Wall Street for its economic and political survival. Over the last century with the exploitation of rubber, timber, iron ore, diamonds, gold and agricultural commodities for export, Liberia remained a center of foreign intervention led by America.

By the conclusion of the civil war during 1989-2003, the external debt of Liberia was hovering around $4.5 billion, some 800 percent in excess of its gross domestic product (GDP). Through debt relief and refinancing this number was decreased. However, it still remained around $230 million by 2011.

It will remain to be seen what real economic policies Weah can enact to reverse the present situation of Liberian workers and farmers. Like Niger, the obligation of financial debt by the international banking establishment would compromise any semblance of genuine independence from imperialism.

Namibia, Angola and Tanzania: The Contradictions of Resource Wealth and the Revolutionary Tradition

In 1990, the Republic of Namibia gained its independence as a former colony of Germany, Britain and the apartheid regime in South Africa. The country located on the Atlantic Ocean in Southern Africa, was a prized possession of the imperialist system through the supply of strategic minerals such as uranium, copper, diamonds, lead, zinc, cement along with the exploration for petroleum resources.

The ruling party, South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), successfully transformed from a national liberation movement to a political party. Since 1990, SWAPO has maintained majority control over the state while implementing a progressive, anti-imperialist and Pan-Africanist foreign policy.

Just recently the ruling party elected a new politburo at its Congress during November. The party in the most recent elections of 2014 won 86.7 percent of the votes.

A pro-government newspaper New Era said of the installation of a current leadership that:

“President Hage Geingob has urged the newly elected members of Swapo’s politburo, who will serve for the next five years, to carefully study and familiarize themselves with the oath they took when they were sworn into their new roles over the weekend. Eighteen members of the Swapo politburo – the first nine from the male list and another nine from the female list as elected – were sworn in on Saturday (Dec. 2). ‘Comrades, you have been charged. You took your oath. Go and re-read that oath and what it means. Very soon we will start with our job as people have assigned us to do,’ Geingob advised the elected members.” (Dec. 4)

SWAPO politburo elected in December 2017

Although Namibia has remained socially stable since its national independence nearly 28 years ago, Fitch Rating, the bond evaluation agency which determines a country’s credit worthiness, has downgraded its viability as junk status. The report which was issued on November 20 reported:

“Fitch Ratings has downgraded Namibia’s Long-Term Foreign-Currency Issuer Default Rating (IDR) to ‘BB+’ from ‘BBB-‘. The downgrade of the Long-Term Foreign-Currency IDR reflects weaker-than-forecast fiscal outcomes and our projection that public debt-to-GDP will continue to rise over the medium term. This will leave debt in financial year 2019 (FY19, to end-March 2020) at nearly double the ratio in FY14. The downgrade also reflects a weaker-than-expected economic recovery and our view that medium-term growth has shifted to a lower gear.”

In neighboring Republic of Angola, there were national elections held earlier this year where a new leader of the ruling Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) won office as head-of-state. Former Defense Minister Joao Lourenco became the new president of the oil-producing nation.

Angola MPLA Congress in 2016

Lourenco is facing economic challenges due to the turmoil in the global petroleum market for the last four years. Angola has been noted for having phenomenal economic growth over the last decade. This course has taken a tremendous downturn since 2014 facing the same problems as its West African counterparts in Abuja-Lagos.

Global Risk Insights website says of the situation in Angola:

“In 2015, foreign currency inflow generated by oil exports was at $33.4 billion, a 44.5 percent decline in relation to the same period the previous year. With lower revenues expected in the face of an 8 percent increase in public expenditure, led by capital and social expenditures, the fiscal deficit is expected to widen to 6.8 percent, from 5.5 percent in the initial budget….If exports are falling or if prices are falling (e.g. oil), then less money is going into Angola since 97 percent of Angola’s export revenue comes from oil. This will have a huge hit on the government purse. The government is taking less in tax and vat revenues, thus less able to pay back debts. The total government debt is roughly $46.72 billion then times that by the current rate at which they finance their debt provide an estimate of their interest repayments. The question with a ratio like that is: what is the critical point which suggests default is most likely? The additional deficit will be financed mainly through domestic borrowing. Public debt has reached $48 billion, with $4.4 billion due within the next 12 months.” (March 27, 2017)

President Lourenco has removed the daughter of former President Jose Eduardo dos Santos as petroleum minister. There have been rumors of corruption within the Angolan state yet there is enormous respect for Dos Santos who led the Southern African state through a long difficult period after the death of the nation’s founder Dr. Agostino Neto who died in 1979.

After declaring independence in November 1975, Neto was surrounded by imperialist forces from the racist apartheid regime in South Africa and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) coordinated synthetic “liberation movements” in the pay of western forces. The intervention of internationalist forces from the Republic of Cuba proved vital in the struggle for the consolidation of independence in Angola and eventually the entire liberation of the Southern Africa region in 1994 when the African National Congress (ANC) came to power in the Republic of South Africa.

Another state that was pivotal in the support for liberation movements during the late 20th century was the United Republic of Tanzania. After 1967 Tanzania under President Julius Nyerere declared itself a Socialist state under the Ujamaa system of governance. This domestic policy coincided with the country’s rear base role in supporting the revolutionary organizations fighting colonialism and settler-colonialism in Mozambique, Rhodesia, South Africa and Namibia.

By the late 1980s a process of “liberalization” was launched. A concerted effort to attract greater foreign investment has resulted in economic growth which is also contingent upon prospects for large-scale energy resource development.

Current President John Magufuli of the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) came into office pledging to crack down on corporations which have not paid the required tax rates for operating inside this East African state. The president through his actions has created an atmosphere which is causing consternation among transnational firms.

Bloomberg in a report published earlier this year emphasized:

“Since taking office in late 2015, Magufuli has been on a drive to increase revenue from natural resources to help fund his industrialization plans. His administration has passed laws enabling it to renegotiate contracts and ordered foreign mining firms to sell stakes on the local stock exchange to increase transparency. The authorities have hit Acacia Mining Plc with a $190 billion tax bill, curbed its exports and detained a senior employee, and seized gems and questioned staff from Petra Diamonds Ltd., alleging it hadn’t paid its dues.” (Sept. 18)

Despite trepidation by foreign capital, the government is threatening even harsher action against what it describes as corruption by the western-based companies. The same Bloomberg article revealed:

“Finance Minister Philip Mpango has called for the nationalization of the diamonds that were seized from Petra this month and alleged to be undervalued. ‘Tanzanians are being robbed in broad daylight,’ he said in an address on state television. ‘We cannot continue in this way.’”

Even though these three AU and SADC member-states, Namibia, Angola and Tanzania, are rich in resources, there are still the obstacles placed in their path by international finance capital to contend with as they carry out efforts aimed at industrialization and enhancing the overall national income. SADC and the AU have outlined short and long term plans seeking rapid growth and the significant enhancement of living standards.

Yet these plans cannot be enacted by purely economic means. The questions of ongoing market dependencies and the accountability of foreign investors are political in character. Until these states and regional organizations break this cycle of reliance on the West the unity and sustainable development of Africa will remain elusive.

Walking the Fine Line in the Struggle for Social Stability: Kenya, Sudan and Tunisia

East Africa’s largest economy is to be found in Kenya. The country is a hub for tourism, agricultural production and a burgeoning energy sector.

This year was one of the most challenging for the government of President Uhuru Kenyatta who faced a reelection campaign fraught with threats aimed at destabilization. Memories have not faded of the contentious aftermath of the 2007 elections when President Mwai Kibaki was declared the winner over the former Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

In the 2013 election between Odinga and Kenyatta, the U.S. and British governments publically expressed their bias in favor of Raila. Kenyatta won the election and moved to consolidate his political power through the formation of a new Jubilee Party. The 2017 elections of August 8 witnessed the secure victory of Jubilee in both the presidential and parliamentary vote.

Although the National Super Alliance (NASA) Coalition leader Odinga said they would not pursue legal action to overturn the results as had been done in 2013, apparently the party changed its mind filing suit claiming irregularities. A 4-2 majority on the Kenyan Supreme Court nullified the results in early September and ordered that a revote take place within 60 days.

Obviously this was an opportunity for Odinga to not only extend his campaign but to also pick apart the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IBEC). NASA unsuccessfully demanded the resignation of the IBEC Chairperson Wafula Chebukati and other measures.

Kenyatta stood his ground and continued to campaign for the rerun. Odinga not getting his way withdrew from the second election awarding Kenyatta a handsome victory on October 26. Kenyatta was inaugurated for the second time in early December.

Kenya ruling Jubilee Party members and followers of President Uhuru Kenyatta

Nevertheless, the violence which accompanied the first and second elections resulted in property destruction, injuries and deaths. The strong annual economic growth exceeding 6 percent in Kenya was threatened as a result of the potential for more widespread violence which did not occur.

The Republic of Sudan as well has also undergone tumultuous changes since 2011. The country was partitioned at the aegis of the U.S., Britain and Israel creating the Republic of South Sudan which is proving to be another source for instability in Central and East Africa.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has been under the scrutiny of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the government’s response to the insurgency in the western Darfur region of the nation. ICC authorities have issued arrest warrants for al-Bashir which he has evaded with the support of friendly governments that have rejected the authority of the ICC based upon its obvious pre-occupation with African leaders both in and outside of power.

Perhaps in an effort to rebuild the economy which has undergone severe damage due to the partition with the South, the decline in oil prices along with the sanctions imposed by Washington and its allies, Khartoum has taken several steps which have provided some relief in regard to its relations with the West. During the course of the last three years, Sudan had broken relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran over the response in Tehran to the Saudi execution of a leading Shiite cleric. In addition, Sudan has entered the U.S.-backed Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) war against the Ansurallah forces in Yemen on the side of the imperialists.

However, in a dramatic move, the Sudanese president seems to have reversed course, at least rhetorically. Al-Bashir paid a visit to the Russian Federation city of Sochi in late November where he reportedly requested assistance from President Vladimir Putin expressing his concerns about the role of Washington.

Deutsche Welle published an article on November 23 with startling statements from al-Bashir saying:

“During a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Black Sea resort of Sochi on Thursday, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir accused the U.S. of fomenting the conflict in Sudan and asked Russia for help. ‘We are thankful to Russia for its position on the international arena, including Russia’s position in the protection of Sudan. We are in need of protection from the aggressive acts of the United States,’ al-Bashir said. Sudan’s president also praised Moscow’s military campaign in Syria and highlighted his intentions to ramp up military ties with Russia. ‘We are currently launching a program to modernize our armed forces and we agreed with the defense minister that Russia will contribute to this.’ Putin meanwhile said that Russia wanted to intensify economic ties with Sudan, including in agriculture and energy. ‘There are prospects not only in the hydrocarbon sphere but also in energy, Putin said. ‘There are many prospects of cooperation.’”

Whether the thawing of relations between Khartoum and Washington will continue remains to be seen. If these remarks by the Sudanese leader in Russia are any indication it clearly appears to illustrate that relations with the U.S. is not beneficial to emerging African states.

The North African state of Tunisia saw the first uprising of what became known as the “Arab Spring” of late 2010 and early 2011. After the widespread unrest throughout the country, longtime President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled the country to seek refuge in Saudi Arabia by the middle of January 2011.

However, there has not been a fundamental revolutionary transformation of Tunisia. The nation is still facing economic problems and the existence of an Islamist insurgency which has struck in several areas over the last few years.

In Tunisia since the beginning of 2017 the trade deficit has risen by 23.5 percent totaling approximately $5.8 billion. During November the central bank ordered local-based lenders to halt the financing of over 220 products ranging from fish to perfumes.

Unemployment among youth, which was a trigger for the uprising of 2010-11, remains excessively high. Inland areas of the country continue to battle impoverishment. These difficulties have attracted the attention of international financial institutions which are demanding cuts and further austerity.

Pan-Africanism and Socialism: The Only Solution for the 21st Century

These African states reviewed in this analysis all contain substantial potential for growth and genuine development. The process of interference by the imperialist states led by the U.S. remains the principle obstacle to realizing the much need continental integration under Socialism.

This process must come from the masses of workers, farmers and youth who have the obligation to provide the necessary organizational direction and leadership aimed at reversing the current political trajectory placing Africa in its rightful place as a center for revolutionary change both on the continent and internationally. Regional unification, the redistribution of wealth and the breaking with the centuries-long legacy of slavery, colonialism and neo-colonialism are the prerequisites for the achievement of a powerful state harboring the capacity to effectively defeat imperialism in the present century.

If this is not achieved the destabilization of Africa both militarily and economically will continue unabated. There is no other solution to the crises of modern society outside the transcendence of neo-colonialism towards Socialism and Pan-Africanism.

*

All images in this article are from the author.