Global Research

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.

The latest radical move by hardline Zionists in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s Likud Party could see Israel´s government annex all of the occupied West Bank, incorporating most of historic Palestine into the Israeli state.

The central committee of the right-wing party overwhelmingly voted on Sunday for a resolution urging Likud parliamentarians to push for the annexation of the territories that are already illegally-held.

The non-binding vote by the party’s decision-making committee also called on its MPs “to spread Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria (the West Bank),” the biblical terms used by Jewish radical settlers to refer to the occupied Palestinian regions.

“This is a historic event that we have been waiting for,” Likud extremist Natan Engelsman told Focus Information Agency.

“If the president of the United States believes Jerusalem is ours, there is no reason why a right-wing party and coalition cannot. It’s important for us to show Trump what the ruling party in Israel wants, and since he loves the Jewish people, sooner or later, he will come to the same conclusion,” the activist added.

Netanyahu, a member of the central committee, was not present for the vote.

While the prime minister claims he still supports a “two-state solution” with the people of Palestine who have faced seven decades of continuous dispossession, he has also pushed for Jewish settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank, a move that is illegal even in the courts of the Israeli occupation state.

According to Palestine’s Land Research Center, this year alone the Israeli government illegally seized approximately 2,500 acres of Palestinian land, destroyed 500 buildings and constructed eight new Jewish settlement units in 2017, according to Palestine’s Land Research Center. The expansionist moves also saw 900 incidents of Israeli violence, including attacks by Israeli security forces on East Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Settlement activity also tripled this year compared to the previous year: in 2015, 1,982 homes were built for settlers; in 2016, 2,627; and in 2017, around 6,500 houses were built.

In October, Netanyahu postponed a vote on a controversial bill that critics say would amount to the de facto annexation of Israeli settlements surrounding Jerusalem.

On Christmas Eve, Israeli Minister of Public Works and Housing Yoav Galant declared that a plan would be put into place to build 300,000 new houses in East Jerusalem under the name of “housing on the land of united Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.”

Many analysts expected bolder expansionist moves by the right-wing head of state, especially in light of U.S. President Donald Trump‘s announcement that Washington would move its embassy to Jerusalem – a gesture that was tantamount to a U.S. recognition of unilateral Israeli claims to the divided and unlawfully-held Arab city.

The U.S. announcement was welcomed by the Israelis, who have been working alongside Saudi Arabia in hopes to pressure the Palestinian Authority to accept Donald Trump’s so-called Arab-Israeli “deal of the century” that has not yet been announced. The “deal” would see the Palestinian question settled in exchange for the normalization of ties between Tel Aviv and the Gulf monarchies and the integration of Israel into the regional “family of nations” that the Saudis claim leadership over.

According to regional reports, Saudi King-in-waiting and Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman has attempted to present Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas with an ultimatum whereby he must accept the U.S.-Israeli-Saudi plan for the region or resign. Abbas has also faced Israeli and Saudi pressure to halt the rapprochement process between Palestinian factions Hamas and his own Fatah movement but has rejected such pressure.

In early December, a Palestinian official told The New York Times that the Saudis floated the idea of compensating the Palestinians for the loss of West Bank territory by adding territory to the Gaza Strip from Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, an arid and rocky desert territory plagued by attacks by the Islamic State group, who frequently attack Palestinian targets. The Egyptians have rejected the idea, according to a western official.

Netanyahu is also eager to secure a mandate from an increasingly racist public in an early election as he awaits possible criminal indictments against him on corruption suspicions for abusing his power for personal benefit. He denies wrongdoing.

Although parliamentary elections are not due until November 2019, police investigations in the two cases of alleged corruption against Netanyahu and tensions among partners in his governing coalition could hasten a poll, increasing pressure for the beleaguered leader to secure right-wing support.

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 rejected by the international community. The occupation is still unrecognized.

It claims the entire city as its indivisible capital, but the Palestinians want the eastern sector as the capital of their future state.

About 600,000 Israelis live in over 230 illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem among 2.9 million Palestinians, with frequent outbreaks of violence and brutal repression by the occupation authority.

By enacting civilian law over settlements, the move could streamline procedures for their construction and expansion. That land is currently under military jurisdiction and Israel’s defense minister has a final say on building there.

In 1981, Israel enacted a civilian law on the Golan Heights, territory captured from Syria in 1967, a de-facto annexation of the strategic plateau. The move has not won international recognition.

Likud’s central committee counts around 3,700 members, and according to Israeli media, some 1,500 were present for Sunday’s vote.

Introduction

The working class protest, popular revolt, and urban insurrection which shook Argentina’s second industrial city, Cordoba, on May 29-30, 1969 attracted shortly thereafter the brief but intense interest of scholars, primarily sociologists, who struggled to explain the paradox of a violent urban uprising led by the best paid and presumably most privileged sectors of the Argentine working class.1 The Cordobazo, as the uprising came to be known, defied the common wisdom of the moment on working class politics in Latin America. Students of Latin American labor in the years prior to the Cordobazo had borrowed liberally from the writings on the American working class of Herbert Marcuse, Daniel Bell, and Seymour Lipset, who themselves had merely restated Lenin’s and Gramsci’s labor aristocracy theories, and posited that the decline of militancy and the “embourgeoisement” of at least the more privileged sectors of the working class in the United States also characterized Latin America. Students of Latin American labor argued that workers, especially in the more technologically-sophisticated, capital-intensive industries such as automobiles, the very one which dominated the Cordoban economy, found their material needs and social mobility aspirations fully satisfied by the relatively high wages and sophisticated industrial relations systems that the modern corporation offered. Politics, even unions, were thereby becoming increasingly irrelevant for such workers.2

After the dramatic events of May 29-30, 1969, such arguments lay buried in the ashes of Cordoba. The purpose of scholarly exegesis suddenly turned to accounting for the explosion of this supposedly content, apolitical labor aristocracy, to explain the workers’ startling occupation of the city and the unforeseen destruction of a significant part of a major Latin American industrial metropolis. The explanations offered by sociologists, Argentine and foreign alike, responded as much to the respective authors’ ideological and political inclinations as to empirical inquiry. For some, the Cordobazo was the result of particular model of economic development and a peculiar urban milieu, the social anomie caused by sudden industrialization and equally sudden industrial decline, the response of a labor elite to falling living standards and frustrated expectations of social mobility.3 For others, it was rather a testimony to the class consciousness-raising experience of employment in the most advanced sectors of imperialism, a revolutionary act in which the automobile workers played the role of vanguard.4 None of the explanations offered, however, had either the advantage of historical perspective nor the recognition of the interplay of multiple causality and temporal conjuncture which historical analysis utilizes. The purpose of this article is to take a step toward providing such an historical analysis and thereby extricate the Cordobazo from the realm of political folklore and retum it to its rightful place as a complex social, political, and cultural phenomenon and reestablish its true significance as a seminal political event in modern Argentine history.

The Regime

Perón with military uniform, drinking coffee. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

In 1955, a coup d’etat overthrew Juan Domingo Peron’s government, thereby beginning a period of a circumscribed democratic rule and successively weak military and civilian governments. The proscription of the country’s principal political force, Peronism, deprived all the governments of the period of the legitimacy they needed to withstand the opposition and intrigues of other political actors in Argentine society and remain in power. The outlaw status of the Peronist party, in turn, forced its followers to work through non-parliamentary means and to establish practices, especially within the ranks of the Peronist working class, which justified direct action and labor militancy. Society was increasingly divided in its outlook and political practices between the pueblo-antipueblo and peronista-antiperonista, a polarization which undermined political dialogue and compromise through normal constitutional means.

The June 28, 1966, coup d’etat which ended President Illia’s Radical government (1963-66) established what was until then the most authoritarian regime in the country’s hardly democratic recent past and deepened the frustrations and sense of exclusion on the part of the Peronist working class and an increasing portion of Argentine society in general. General Juan Carlos Ongania’s “Argentine Revolution,” as the civilian and military planners of the coup subsequently baptized the dictatorship, loudly proclaimed its intent to dispense with the venality of civilian politicians and oversee a process of deep structural change in Argentine society. The government suppressed nearly all forms of political participation for that purpose. The Congress was shut down, political parties were proscribed, and all forms of opposition and dissent intimidated into silence.5 It did so, moreover, without any promise of a future democratic restoration, speaking of “los tres tiempos,” the economic, the social, and the political, with a Comtian certainty in the evolutionary sequel of its authoritarian program. Similarly, it employed the term “revolution” not only for its connotations of systemic change, but also for its sense of a social process with no temporal limits. In a country in which interest and participation in politics, in some form, was high, the regime’s autocratic pretensions soon transgressed the limits supported even by those who were originally sympathetic to ousting the feckless Illia.

One of the regime’s principal goals, and closely related to its authoritarian political character, was economic modernization. Much of the government’s economic program hinged on weakening the power of organized labor as both a factor of power in civil society and an obstacle to plans for rationalizing the country’s economic structures and attracting foreign investment. The government froze wages and established obligatory arbitration in industrial disputes for this purpose, thereby effectively prohibiting the right to strike. It also eliminated thousands of jobs in public sector industries such as the railroads and the Buenos Aires port works and generally established a climate which emboldened business to attack its labor costs. Those Peronist union leaders who had initially looked favorably upon the coup, such as Augusto Vandor of the Union Obrera Metalurgica (UOM), were forced to confront the regime once it was clear that their hopes for reestablishing the alliance between the armed forces and the trade unions which had characterized the Peronist governments of the 1940s and 1950s would not be realized under Ongania. The vandorista-dominated COT called a general strike to protest the government’s labor policies on March 1, 1967. Ongania responded by stripping six of the country’s principal unions, among them the UOM, of their legal status (“personeria gremial”) and suspending all collective bargaining until December 31, 1968, leaving the trade union movement in disarray.6

It was in large measure due to the inability of Vandor and the established union leadership to resist effectively the government’s anti-working class measures that a dissident trade union movement, the COT dc los Argentinos (COTA), emerged in the March, 1968 COT national congress. The COTA mobilizations would play an important role in the events leading up to the Cordobazo. The COTA, led by Raimundo Ongaro of the Buenos Aires print workers’ union, built on the still potent Resistance sentiment within the ranks of the Peronist working class and drew support from many of the country’s disgruntled unions, but was especially strong in the provinces, most notably in Cordoba. The rivalry which union leaders in the country’s second industrial city felt for their portefio counterparts, evidenced once again by their willingness to adhere to a renegade COT which challenged the leadership of Vandor and other trade union bosses, was also stoked by the severe crisis affecting the Cordoban economy.

Ongania’s economic and labor policies were especially resented in Cordoba. In the city’s pivotal automobile industry for example, Industrias Kaiser Argentina (IKA), soon to be IKA-Renault, had taken advantage of the government’s hardline labor policies and had already in early 1967 reduced wages by some 20%, laid-off nearly 1,000 workers, and periodically reduced the workweek, the latter a policy which naturally had an adverse effect on the workers’ monthly incomes. All these measures, moreover, were intended as merely the first phase of a wholesale attack on its labor costs.7 The local UOM was similarly passing through a disastrous year with almost weekly bankruptcies in the highly dependent small parts industry while the strategic light and power workers’ union (Luz y Fuerza) confronted a rationalization of the provincial public power company, the Empresa Provincial de Energía Eléctrica de Córdoba (EPEC), which led to the suspension of personnel, reduced work weeks, and plans to transfer jurisdiction over nuclear power development from the province to the central government.8

The Unions

The establishment of the foreign automobile firms in the mid-1950s transformed the local economy and labor movement and eventually made Cordoba propitious grounds for a major working-class protest. Cordoba’s “new industrial worker,” concentrated in the city’s great automotive plants, moved in an environment significantly different from that of most Argentine workers. The most distinguishing characteristic of the auto workers’ union, the Sindicato de Mecanicos y Afines del Transporte Automotor (SMATA), was its autonomy and independence from the control of Buenos Aires. Though the SMATA belonged to a centralist union structure, and was therefore technically subject to the control of the auto workers’ union headquarters in Buenos Aires, in actual practice it was virtually independent.

Source

Independence was in great part due to the decentralized nature of collective bargaining in the Argentine automobile industry. Unlike textiles, metalworking, or indeed most industries in Argentina, there were no national collective bargaining agreements in the automobile industry. Instead, agreements were negotiated on a company by company basis. Such procedures gave the automobile multinationals the flexibility they wanted in a highly volatile market but also made the Cordoban auto workers’ local more dependent on rank and file support with the leadership held more accountable by the workers they represented. The SMATA’s more democratic internal union practices and traditions of consultation and mobilization led it to become one of the most militant unions in the country during the 1960s. The shop stewards’ commission (“cuerpo de delegados”), collective bargaining committees (“comisiones paritarias”), and open assemblies greatly raised the participation of the workers in union affairs, evidenced by the high levels of union affiliation (almost 90% of the labor force in 1969), the heavy turnout of workers in union elections (above 85% of union members for the period 1962-66), and the massive participation of the workers in the labor protests of the decade, of which the Cordobazo was merely the culmination.9 The union’s ability to resist disciplinary measures coming from Buenos Aires was also bolstered by a change in SMATA union statutes in 1968, adopted at the Cordoban local’s insistence, which circumscribed the SMATA central’s powers to discipline maverick union locals and, most importantly, established a broad fiscal decentralization which gave locals almost complete control over union funds.10

Other Cordoban unions were similarly free from the strictures which Argentine trade unionism frequently imposed on union locals and were more responsive to rank and file pressures. The strategic light and power workers’ union had the advantage of membership in a federalist union structure and therefore enjoyed nearly complete control over union monies, collective bargaining negotiations, and the unfettered administration of elections and union social services. Its relatively small size, union membership never reaching more than 3,000, and the fortuitous presence throughout these years of a union president, Agustin Tosco, of great prestige, adamantine integrity, and deep democratic convictions, also fostered the participatory union democracy and established a leadership highly sensitive to the changing moods of the rank and file.11

The significance of these more independent and democratic structures as an explanation for the leadership exercised by these unions in the Cordobazo is a complex question. In the case of both the SMATA and Luz y Fuerza, the formation of a deep trade union consciousness, a close personal identification between the workers and the union, encouraged resistance to the regime’s assault on union autonomy and privileges. This “conciencia sindical,” was itself the product of diverse influences. In Luz y Fuerza, the character of the labor force, largely middle class and university-trained, made the union members particularly sensitive to the loss of democratic freedoms under Ongania. Employment in a public service industry, in turn, and exposure to the economic model’s perceived baleful effects on the development of a fully integrated national electric power system made the association between union rights and problems of national economic development unusually close. For example, the workings of a rate system which now strongly favored the big-bloc purchasers, largely the foreign-owned automobile companies, at the expense of the smaller, locally-owned industries as well as private consumers contributed to fashion the union’s dissent as an anti-imperialist issue. That is, for the light and power workers, the problems experienced by their particular economic sector received an ideological and political interpretation which merged with their own grievances over the loss of union rights and encouraged their union’s opposition to the regime.12 In the SMATA, the hardline Peronist leadership’s militancy had not only won the union such benefits as employment stability and quarterly cost of living adjustments (“clausula gatillo”) in all its collective bargaining agreements, but also had filtered all these gains through a syndicalist ideology that stressed SMATA autonomy and union rights to co-management (cogestion) and participation in planning as part of Peronism’s obrerista legacy.13

Despite the severity of the government’s measures, the Cordoban unions were therefore more likely to confront the regime than were most Argentine trade unions. Nevertheless, the Cordoban labor movement had deep divisions and the cooperation that the unions would demonstrate in the months leading up to the Cordobazo is best explained as the result of the crises existing in individual industries. The SMATA and Luz y Fuerza workers’ discontent with the specific measures of the regime and their adverse effects on rank and file interests compelled the leadership to adopt increasingly militant tactics between 1966 and 1969 but also to look for allies among other unions. For the auto workers employed in the IKA-Renault plants, the suspension of collective bargaining rights and the sudden assaults on all forms of union protection, especially as they negatively affected employment stability and incomes, led to unrest and violent protests between 1966 and I969. To this there was added a simultaneous rationalization of the plants by Renault after the French multinational bought out IKA in late 1967, deeply disrupting established work practices and increasing production rhythms.14

For the light and power workers, the influence that their union had come to enjoy with EPEC, reflected in consistent gains in collective bargaining agreements and a considerable union role in administering the company, ended with the 1966 coup. The regime’s refusal to allow EPEC jurisdiction over the development of the nuclear power plant in Rio Tercero, transferring authority instead to a federal government agency, offended both regionalist sentiments and the deep commitment of the union members to protect the integrity of the public power company. Their suspicions that EPEC was headed towards a wholesale privatization were only reinforced when the regime-appointed local governor assumed control over all appointments for the EPEC directorship.15 Thus, despite the fact the SMATA and Luz y Fuerza headed the rival vandorista and ongarista factions respectively in the local labor movement, by early May 1969 they were in close consultation and preparing the labor protest that would culminate at the end of the month.

The leadership role both the SMATA and Luz y Fuerza would assume in the Cordobazo was due in no small part to their more independent, democratic structures and the constant need and willingness of the leadership to respond to shifting rank and file wishes. The traditions of militancy and mobilization which characterized both unions allowed them to give a concrete focus to the working-class discontent triggered by the Ongania dictatorship. Yet even unions not characterized by such internal practices such as the UOM or the local the bus drivers’ union, the Union Tranviarios Automotor (UTA), were swept into the gathering working-class opposition to the regime and played leading roles in the May protests.

The explanation for this broad working-class front is, again, certainly partly attributable to specific problems existing in individual industries. The bankruptcies, for example, in the local parts industry occasioned by the regime’s economic model, the near complete elimination of obstacles to foreign investment and corresponding loss of protection for small industrialists in the metalworking industries, were also accompanied by a general employer offensive against labor costs. One particular source of worker discontent was the refusal of the Cordoban branch of the employers’ association, the “Federacion Argentina de la Industria Metalúrgica del Interior,” to implement the abolition of the quitas zonales as pledged in the I966 UOM collective bargaining agreement. The quitas zonales practice permitted employers in the provinces to reduce the wage rates established in the UOM national contracts and resulted in the Cordoban metal workers receiving wages 20% lower than their Buenos Aires counterparts.16 The bus drivers affiliated to the UTA were similarly bitter over the failure of their cooperatives and the privatization of the city’s bus system that was consummated in the months leading up to the Cordobazo and would seriously interfere with established job classifications and retirement plans.17

Elpidio Torres (Source)

The massive nature of the Cordoban working class’s participation in the Cordobazo, however, cannot be attributed to such instrumentalist factors alone. The local working class also had a tradition of militancy which preceded the onset of the Ongania dictatorship and which influenced the unions’ participation in the uprising. The sources of this militancy were not only industrial, but also political and cultural. In the SMATA, the Peronist union leadership under Elpidio Torres had been forced, both by the union’s more democratic structures but also by the presence of a captious leftwing opposition in the plants, to adopt a combative union style and discourse in order to maintain its standing among the rank and file. The SMATA union leadership presented every gain won in collective bargaining agreements as a hard fought conquest, wrung from a miserly foreign predator, the ubiquitous octopus representing the company in union publications. To outflank the left’s more intransigent positions and the Marxist shop stewards’ greater belligerence on the shop floor, the Peronist leadership of the SMATA made periodic calls for the nationalization of IKA-Renault and at least publicly expressed demands for worker participation in administering the company. Torres and the union leadership also challenged certain managerial functions such as the company’s right to control overtime work.18 Finally, Torres reinforced the linea dura tradition of the Cordoban SMATA by participating enthusiastically in the Peronist labor movement’s strikes and protests, especially after the early years of building the union machinery among the inexperienced auto workers in the late 1950s and early 1960s were completed. Indeed, rather than the product of either a labor elite’s social mobility frustrations or a revolutionary predisposition, what explained the militancy of the SMATA in the years prior to the Cordobazo was a rather more conventional hardline Peronist labor tradition in which demands for the lifting of the proscription weighing against the Peronist party and the retum from exile of Peron played a prominent part.

The linea dura tendency, a proclivity for confrontation with the employers rather than negotiation and an obstinate demand for the relegalization of the Peronist party and the return of Peron from exile, also served the tactical needs of many of the city’s unions in the formative stage of the modem Cordoban labor movement. Like the SMATA, the Cordoban UOM under Alejo Simo was a young union in a young industry which initially needed to adopt militant tactics in order to be accepted as an interlocutor by reluctant employers and thus gain even a minimum of credibility among the workers. The establishment of a solid union machinery was also necessary to ward off the ever present threat of an intervention from the Buenos Aires headquarters of the highly centralized UOM. That is, like the SMATA and Luz y Fuerza, though due not to the structural factors which encouraged independence in those unions but rather to the strategic calculations of the leadership which served to protect their own union positions, union tactics were formulated with virtual independence from Buenos Aires. The UOM local’s leadership of the linea dwra faction, the so-called ortodoxos, in the city’s the Peronist trade union movement allowed it to join the anti-vandorista COTA and add its members to the ranks of the militant Cordoban unions.19

The immediate tactical needs of the unions, moreover, found resonance in Cordoba’s recent labor tradition. The Peronist labor Resistance had one of its strongholds in Cordoba. The most intransigent, linea dura programmatic statements of the Resistance, the 1957 “Declaracion de la Falda” and the 1962 “Programa de Huerta Grande” had both been drafted in Cordoba under the heavy influence of the attending Cordoban delegations. The linea dura tendency also received sustenance in Cordoba after the rise of vandorismo and a more bureaucratized trade union movement since it built on regionalist sensibilities and the rivalry local union leaders felt for their portefio counterparts. Finally, there were the political priorities of a few unions like Luz y Fuerza which joined the COTA and led the opposition to the regime, not simply in response to rank and file unrest, nor to strengthen support for the leadership and outflank the internal opposition, but because of genuine political differences with the regime, an ideological dissidence expressed in its attacks against both Ongania and the vandorista union bureaucracy.20

The Students

Perhaps as important as these factors in explaining the massive, popular nature of the protest was the influence of the specific characteristics of Cordoban society and its political culture. Cordoba’s historic rivalry with Buenos Aires had become impregnated with the radical currents germinating in Argentina society throughout the 1960s, currents that gained even greater strength after the 1966 coup. The rebel ethos which characterized the city in these years affected many groups and classes, but unquestionably had its greatest impact among Cordoba’s large university student community. The students comprised some 10% of the city’s population and since the 1918 University Reform the local student community had become accustomed to a high degree of self-government, university autonomy, and even a considerable influence in public life. Despite such privileges, the regime repressed the university with the same severity it had attacked the labor movement. The university was placed under government control, classes were suspended for a year, the faculties purged, and debate and dissent were intimidated by an atmosphere of persecution, conformity, and mediocrity. The regime responded predictably to the early protests of its university policies by the Federación Universitaria de Córdoba (FUC), the principal organization which coordinated university student politics, by intervening in the FUC and banning all student political organizations.21

The regime’s repressive measures did nothing more than push student politics underground where they became even more radicalized. Anti-capitalist ideologies and the romantic appeal of revolution were already strong sentiments within student ranks. Student activists had powerful symbols such as the Cuban Revolution, an exiled Peron, even Che Guevara, Cordoba’s native son whose death in the Bolivian jungle in 1967 had deeply affected the local student population, to attract new militants and build up sentiment for resistance to the regime. Guerrilla groups such as the Uturuncos, the Fuerzas Armadas Peronistas (FAP), the F uerzas Armadas de Liberación (FAL), and others had been active and won over student cadres in the years prior to the Cordobazo. It was largely in student ranks that the growing, underground Cordoban “new left,” Peronist and Marxist alike, was sustained. The Maoist, Partido Comunista Revolucionario (PCR) and Vanguardia Comunista (VC), the neo-Trotskyist-Leninist, Partido Revolucionario de los Trabajadores (PRT), and the Peronist left, Juventud Universitaria Peronista (IUP), for example, developed strongholds in various university departments.

For the city’s large Catholic student body, the liberation theologians who organized the clandestine study groups that served as early centers of opposition to the regime and were the promoters of human rights organizations such as the Movimiento de Reivindicaciones por los Derechos del Pueblo, allowed them to reconcile their Catholic beliefs with oppositional, even revolutionary politics. The local radicalization of Argentina’s famously conservative Catholic Church was itself emblematic of the changes sweeping the city in these years. After the 1966 Latin American Bishops’ Conference held in Mar del Plata, liberation theologians had begun to make significant inroads in Cordoba, especially at the parish level. Radical priests had moved into the city’s poorest neighborhoods and embarked on literacy campaigns and community service programs which frequently drew in student volunteers. In 1968, the first congress of the “Movimiento de Sacerdotes del Tercer Mundo” was held in the city, the official baptism of the radical Church and an event which drew many Catholic students further toward oppositional politics.22

The underground student resistance was nevertheless found more in the two student organizations that emerged out of the proscribed FUC, the Peronist, Frente Estudiantil Nacional, and the Marxist, Coordinadora Estudiantil en Lucha, both of which then based their opposition to the regime more on its university policies and the general lack of democratic freedoms in the country than in favor of the establishment of socialism in Argentina. Whereas the students’ participation in the Cordobazo was massive, only a relatively small number of them were members and even fewer were seasoned militants in the revolutionary parties in 1969. By the time of the Cordobazo, moreover, much of the Argentine left had temporarily adopted programs giving immediate priority to ending the dictatorship and postponing the struggle for socialism. The radicalization of Cordoba’s political life throughout the decade accelerated discontent with the regime, encouraged greater student militancy, and provided some with an ideological justification for protest and confrontation with the regime. Nevertheless, the underground leftwing student culture would not find a full and tragic expression until after the Cordobazo when many of the student dissidents of the 1960s would become the revolutionaries of the 1970s. The Cordobazo itself served to crystallize those sentiments into a more purposeful ideological and political opposition.

The most significant result of the students’ radicalization in these years was thus perhaps less the growth of left-wing sentiment among them than the specific opposition to the regime that their organizations and parties encouraged. This non-sectarian opposition also increased opportunities for making common cause with Cordoba’s still far from radical Peronist working class. The worker-student alliance had actually been born in the early months of the regime when engineering student and part-time IKA worker Santiago Pampillon was killed by police gunfire during a 1966 student protest and occupation of Barrio Clinicas, an historic downtown neighborhood and traditional stronghold of the university students. The Cordoban COT’s declaration of a general strike to protest Pampillon’s death was only one of countless examples of reciprocal solidarity between students and workers in the city over the next several years.23 The COTA mobilizations were a step further in sealing the alliance. For the first time since the historic break between the working class and students which had taken place under Peron’s first government, students entered union halls, mingled with workers, and were accepted more or less as equal partners in building the alternative trade union alliance. Students did much of the spade work for the COTA in these months, running errands, printing manifestoes, organizing rallies, all of which helped to break down the barriers between workers and students, kept the lines of communication open between them, and allowed the students to coordinate their opposition to the regime with that of the local working class.24

The Events

By early 1969, a series of incidents raised the already charged political atmosphere in Cordoba to a fever pitch. On january 11 and 12, the militant sectors of the Peronist trade union movement and Peronism’s revolutionary political wing met in Unquillo, outside the capital city, to plan the next stage in the COTA campaign. Under the influence of the Cordoba delegation, the congress released a document, the so-called “Declaracion de Cordoba,” which urged a broad civil front against the regime.25 That same month, Ongania’s appointed governor in Cordoba, Carlos Caballero, presented a project to harness the city’s unruly labor movement through a vaguely corporatist scheme, the Consejo Asesor Economico. Caballero’s proposal required representatives from the labor movement, along with those from business, the Church, and the military, sit in a purely ceremonial consejo asesor, something Caballero ingenuously believed would allay the workers’ growing discontent with the regime and weaken increasing demands for the reestablishment of democratic rule. The workers naturally distrusted the motives of the governor, the very government official they accused of supporting the brigadas fantasmas, reputed bands of off-duty policemen and local thugs who were using strong-arm tactics to force union cooperation with the government. The increased property and municipal taxes which Caballero decreed in these same months merely aggravated middle-class discontent, already deep given the lack of democratic freedoms, and added it to that of the workers and students.26

The frustrations of both the workers and students reached a breaking point by early May. On May 6, the Cordoban UOM called a twenty-four hour strike to protest the unresolved problem of the quitas zonales.27 On May 12, the regime repealed the “sabado inglés,” a provincial law dating from 1932 which granted workers in certain local industries a full day’s pay for a half day’s work on Saturday. The revocation implied a monthly 9% reduction in the workers’ already greatly deteriorated wages.28 The May 14 protest of the SMATA workers and violent confrontation with the police to protest the government’s action served as a dress rehearsal for the Cordobazo,with the auto workers’ union holding the police at bay and controlling the city center for a period of several hours.29 The labor protests coincided with ongoing unrest among the country’s university students, particularly in the provinces. The death of one student in a May 15 protest in Corrientes touched off a week of nation-wide student demonstrations, many of which received the support of local unions. Student protests in Cordoba on May 17 and May 21 served further to rally the university and trade union opposition to the regime.30

The ecumenical spirit apparent in working-class ranks over the previous year reached a climax in this month. Though the two rival national COT’s on May 26 had individually declared a general strike for May 30 to protest recent events, in Cordoba the vanclorista and ongarista factions, locked in a bitter dispute for control of the local COT, managed to negotiate a common 48-hour general strike to begin on May 29. Representatives from the SMATA, UOM, UTA, and Luz y Fuerza, as well as from various student organizations, met on May 28 to plan the strategy for the strike. It was agreed, at Tosco’s suggestion, to stage a paro activo, a mass abandonment of work and subsequent street demonstration in order to display the unity of the Cordoban working class and fortify local labor militancy, rather than the lackadaisical stay-at-home strike, the paro matero, called by Vandor and the national COT.31 The plans for the strike were otherwise general. The SMATA workers, the largest working-class contingent in the protest, were given instructions to abandon their jobs at ten o’clock on the morning of the 29th and proceed in separate columns to the COT headquarters at the Vélez Sarsfield plaza, in the city center, with every indication given for a peaceful demonstration there and then dispersal.32

In the IKA-Renault plants, shop stewards on the morning shift stopped work in their departments and gathered the workers together to organize the factory abandonments.33 As they left the plants, workers grabbed steel bars, tools, bolts and screws, anything that might be of use in a confrontation with the police. Once outside, the some 4,000 workers from the morning shift joined Torres and the other workers who were waiting. Together they proceeded to march the some eight kilometers to the city center. As they moved through the Santa Isabel and Villa El Libertador neighborhoods, workers from the UOM, other IKA-Renault factories, students, and even common citizens began to join them, the column swelling to some 6,000 by the time it reached Vélez Sarsfield avenue. I-Iere the first confrontation with the police took place, scattering the column into the adjacent Nueva Cordoba and Güemes neighborhoods, student and working-class preserves respectively, where the workers received the first demonstrations of solidarity from the Cordoban citizenry:

The dispersed column finally reunited in San Juan boulevard, near their ultimate destination, the COT headquarters, and shortly thereafter the police opened fire, killing one IKA-Renault worker, Maximo Mena. The worker column then charged the police cordon, disbanding the latter and leaving the city center empty of the security forces. At this point, the protest lost its organization and became a spontaneous urban revolt which drew in nearly the entire Cordoban citizenry. Word spread through the downtown neighborhoods of Mena’s death and the workers were soon joined by middle-class residents who had watched the confrontation from their windows and balconies and were now sharing in the collective indignation, not only with the immediate police brutality, but with three years of authoritarian rule. One student present, Luis Rubio, was stunned to see these middle-class residents part with their property, to “bring out furniture and mattresses to build the barricades and start bonfires” that would serve as ramparts against the police.35

Meanwhile another worker-student column, this one led by Tosco, had marched on the city center from the north. To the rage of IKA-Renault workers was added the indignation of the Luz y Fuerza, UTA, and other workers who had been attacked by police with tear gas outside the EPEC offices where they had gathered to march. Upon reaching the city center, after Mena’s death a scene of confusion and tumult, this column melted into the general protest. By one o’clock, some one hundred and fifty city blocks, nearly the entire western district of the city, had been occupied by the protesters. Since both the SMATA and Luz y Fuerza headquarters lay within the occupied zone, Tosco and Torres initially attempted to establish some degree of organization over the protest. Nevertheless, the uprising had taken on a spontaneous character, responding to the ebb and flow of the struggle in the streets without regard to any greater tactical design. The union leadership was largely working in the dark, barely able to follow the course of events much less control them.

By late afternoon, the protest had turned destructive. On Avenida Colon, the city’s principal commercial street, protesters burned down the offices of Xerox, a Citroen dealership, and many other businesses. On the nearby La Canada street, they sacked the junior officers’ club. The targets and nature of the destruction were significant. Whereas during the October 17-18, 1945 protests, the working class in various Argentine cities had vented its collective fury over Peron’s imprisonment against the ]Jockey Club, the university, and other symbols of aristocratic privilege, in May, 1969 the Cordoban worker and student protesters targeted the representatives of the government and its perceived ally, foreign imperialism.36 Moreover, the destruction was not wanton. The Cordobazo was remarkably free of incidents of pillaging or looting. The protesters destroyed but did not ransack. Nor were there many examples of gratuitous violence and none of the sanguinary terror such as surrounded the events of Latin America’s other great urban protest in this century, the Bogotazo.

Source: libcom.org

In the streets and at the barricades, students and workers mingled freely throughout the afternoon. Alberto, an architecture student, nonetheless, had early noticed the difference between the two in response to the police repression unleashed against them:

The workers, seasoned in such confrontations, had a much more expeditious approach to the protest, evidenced by the fact that, despite the repression waged against them and their massive, enthusiastic participation in early hours of the uprising, by late afternoon many, perhaps the majority, abandoned the barricades. The sense of reaching the end of the working day with wives and children waiting for them at home and yet another protest consummated was stronger than any desire to stay in the city center. As they straggled back to their neighborhoods on the city’s outskirts or in the eastern, southern, and northern districts of the city, many for the first time realized the significance of the day’s events. Smoldering buildings and the charred frames of cars, streets strewn with shards of glass, barricades and bonfires gave the appearance of a city at war. Much of the union leadership was also now apprehensive about continued participation in the protest. The UOM leaders retreated to the sanctuary of their union headquarters in the safer eastern district and ceased to participate further in the events.38 Elpidio Torres had been in union’s headquarters since the early afternoon and had passed from euphoria, to petulance, to gloom. From the time of the burnings on Avenida Colon, he had broken off communication with Tosco and other union leaders and withdrew for a period of several hours from a direct involvement in the protest, thereby depriving the uprising of the only labor leader other than Tosco perhaps capable of reestablishing some degree of organization over the workers’ protest.39

Thousands of workers nonetheless stayed in the city center and the working class remained the principal protagonist in the street demonstrations and resistance. The student neighborhoods of Barrio Alberti and especially Barrio Clinicas were now the epicenters of the revolt and Tosco and the student leaders there tried to organize the worker-student resistance, an organization facilitated by the students’ familiarity with the neighborhoods since these city blocks had been the scenes of many their protests in the past. From other parts of the city sympathetic supporters streamed in. A local radical priest, father Erio Vaudagna, arrived with a small group of his parishioners. One student who lived near Barrio Clinicas, Jorge Sanabria, found himself at the barricade alongside not only fellow students, but also workers, businessmen, and even housewives, many of whom he recognized as neighbors but who had never joined in one of their many protests before.40 The city’s streets filled with the protesters. Tosco subsequently estimated the total number in these hours in Barrio Clinicas to be 50,000, and a confrontation with the army, the police, or both seemed inevitable.41

On the city’s western outskirts, General Sanchez Lahoz, on the orders of Ongania and army commander General Alejandro Lanusse, declared a curfew and prepared troops from the Cordoban-based Third Army Corps for a march on the city. Around five o’clock, they began to enter the city’s western districts and by six they had moved into the barricaded zone and received the first gunfire. The appearance of the rooftop snipers added the third element to the Cordobazo, that of an urban insurrection led by more organized groups with clearer political, perhaps even revolutionary designs. The appearance of these groups, not included in the original planning of the protest, remains the most controversial aspect of the uprising. The regime would later attempt to attribute the Cordobazo solely to them, to a carefully organized plot by the revolutionary left with support from the international communist movement. Such a scenario naturally fit the purposes of the regime and served to deflect the causes of the protest from popular discontent to sinister revolutionary cabals. The insurrectional component was, in terms of the number of participants and the underlying causes of the uprising, a relatively minor facet of the Cordobazowhen compared to either the worker-student protest or the popular revolt of the Cordoban citizenry. Nevertheless, it cannot be simply written off as the ranting of a mortally wounded dictatorship; its presence merits some explanation.

For the workers, students, common citizenry, and political militants, the unifying element in the Cordobazo was opposition to the regime. Nearly all groups and classes had been adversely affected by the Ongania government’s suppression of politics. The loss of political freedoms was perhaps felt more acutely in Cordoba than anywhere else in the country given the city’s local political culture, with its high levels of political participation and the presence of social actors outside the established political parties – the students, radical clergy, and the smaller Marxist parties and organizations especially – that by 1969 were outspoken in their opposition to the regime. Also involved were the Radical and Peronist party activists in the city, many of whose political careers and political aspirations respectively had been rudely cut short by the 1966 coup. The proscription of all political life had moved politics to the clandestine party committee, hardly a substitute for an open participation in politics. The snipers who resisted the army’s advance therefore not only included members of the Marxist parties, but also Radicals and Peronists.42

Caught off guard by the events, the city’s political organizations joined the uprising only belatedly and certainly in an improvised and haphazard fashion, highlighting the spontaneous nature of the uprising. Their preparedness, moreover, proved woefully inadequate to meet the overwhelming firepower of the army. Low caliber hunting rifles, pistols, and Molotov cocktails were no match for the army’s tanks, bazookas, and machine guns. Their appearance in the Barrio Clinicas and other parts of the city by the late afternoon and the resistance they mounted throughout the night, nonetheless, was an element of the uprising and escalated the violence, most of the deaths taking place only after the snipers began opposing the army’s advance.

The gunfire from the Barrio Clinicas rooftops could not ultimately stop but did retard the army’s progress. For several hours, the army commanders, astounded by the massive nature of the protest and confused by the unexpected presence of an armed resistance, however modest, hesitated and postponed a final assault on the neighborhoods. As one conscript noted, the initial foray into Barrio Clinicas in the evening encouraged caution on the army’s part:

Shortly before eleven o’clock that night, Luz y Fuerza workers entered the Villa Revol power plant, the principal source of electric power in Cordoba, and blacked out the city. The blackout was part of a contingency plan worked out by Tosco and the Luz y Fuerza leadership on the night of the 28th independent of the other unions in the event of prolonged street resistance and repression by the security forces.44 In effect, for several hours the city was submerged in total darkness. As shots rang out, the protesters communicated to one another by tapping telephone wires to wam of troop movements while the army commanders deliberated nervously about which steps to take next. Once power was restored, around 1 a.m., the anny resumed its assault on Barrio Clinicas. The neighborhoods here remained the strategic center of the protest though Cordoba’s north and south districts were new areas of disturbances, the uprising apparently having moved to the peripheries of the city where the military presence was weak.

At dawn on May 30, the day of the COT’s national strike, Cordoba was an occupied city. Though sporadic gunfire could be heard and the snipers in Barrio Clinicas continued to offer resistance, the army had posted troops at strategic points throughout the city and moved in heavy tanks. As infantrymen mobilized for a final assault on Barrio Clinicas, protest marches previously planned for the national general strike that day drew the support of much of the populace and tied up downtown streets, forcing the military commanders to postpone yet again a final crushing of the resistance. After the marches, however, the troops did finally take Barrio Clinicas, decreed another curfew, and raided the union halls of the principal unions involved in the protest, arresting Tosco, Torres, and several other union leaders, adding their names to the list of the hundreds of workers who had already or would soon fall prisoner. After two days of protest and violence, the Cordobazo had ended. The uprising had caused a considerable destruction of property and left an official figure of twelve dead and ninety-three wounded, but the actualfigure was much higher with perhaps as many as sixty killed.45 The Cordobazo immediately disrupted national politics. The unpopular Caballero abandoned the governorship and the position of the regime was greatly weakened. Ongania was henceforth nearly completely dependent on the support of the army to remain in power and, his government never able to reassert his authority after the Cordoban protest, he was forced to resign a year later.

The ‘Popular Memory’

Oral testimony of the Cordobazo reveals certain recurring themes in the recollections of the individuals who participated in the May, I969 events which, accompanied by a careful historical reconstruction, help to decipher the greater meaning of the uprising. One recurring image is the regime’s authoritarian character as precipitant, the widespread sense of exclusion from the country’s economic, social, and especially political life felt by all groups and classes. Unlike the viborazo, a second great urban protest which would shake Cordoba again in March, 1971, there were no demands for systemic change, no explicitly anti-capitalist impetus behind the events of May, 1969. Such sentiments, though gathering strength throughout the decade, were still inchoate and not the driving force in the Cordobazo. They perhaps provided an ideological justification for opposition among some protesters but did not compel it for most, though the destruction of foreign businesses such as Xerox and Citroen indicate there were at least certain anti-imperialist “imaginaries” present in the uprising, political notions still lacking a fully elaborated ideological content but serving as a, perhaps unconscious, emotional stimulus to the protest.46 The principal image that has remained in the participants’ recollections, however, is of a mass protest, one in which all differences, political and class alike, were momentarily eclipsed. Alberto, the student protester recalled this, as did many participants, of their most vivid memory of the Cordobazo:

In the case of the working class, the government’s illegitimacy was undoubtedly rooted in the combination of its authoritarian political character with economic policies that hurt its specific interests. For the workers, the regime postponed, now indefinitely, the long-standing demand for a lifting of the proscription of Peronism. The resentments that had festered in their ranks since the time of the Resistance as a result of Peronism’s pariah status only grew worse as the regime’s economic policies led to rationalizations, plant closures, and firings. Indeed, for the entire Cordoban working class, but especially for the auto workers, political and economic grievances had certainly become one, evidenced in the blurring of both complaints as causal explanations for the Cordobazo which characterizes many worker testimonies. In a representative testimony, Mizael Bizzotto, an IKA-Renault shop steward, stated:

The role of the local working classes’ Peronist identity in the Cordobazo, however, resided more in a deepened sense of exclusion due to Ongania’s indefinite postponing of the relegalization of their movement, more than it served as an immediate cause of the protest itself, indicated by the lack of Peronist slogans or traditional Peronist imagery during the Cordobazo. No demands for the return of an exiled Peron, for example, seem to have been heard and very few of the workers interviewed attributed their participation strictly to Peronist causes per se, undoubtedly a factor which helps to explain the unity of the Cordoban unions despite the divisions which then separated them. The workers’ protest drew on a Cordoban tradition of labor militancy in which the workers’ Peronist identity and Peronism’s proscribed status were an integral part, but the object of the protest was the Ongania government itself. The political opposition of the working class, in the popular memory and in the concrete historical reality, was not Peronist, but anti-dictatorial:

The students’ distinct political loyalties were similarly muted. The vast majority of the city’s university students, that sector of Cordoban society where leftist sentiment was strongest, also opposed the regime and adhered to the protest for less than revolutionary reasons. Nora, a freshman at the time of the Cordobazo, echoed the recollections of other students about how even the cosseted university environment still bred a sufficient set of grievances to galvanize the student opposition to the regime that eventually culminated in the protest:

The worker-student alliance bom in the CGTA and carried into the streets during the Cordobazo did not, moreover, necessarily mean ideological affinity with the radical currents that were germinating in the students’ ranks. As Fernando Solis, the IKA-Renault employee, said:

Another recurring image therefore was the lack of perception of participating in any sort of revolutionary assault on state power and without motives other than expressing dissatisfaction with the regime, in a protest that united opposition to Ongania and transcended sectarian differences. The political and ideological rivalries in Cordoba and in Argentine society generally, which would indeed become acrimonious in the years following the Cordobazo,were not present in the 1969 uprising. For the workers, there was similarly no distinction by industrial sector, no differences between the supposedly more militant auto workers and the rest of the working class. The SMATA workers had played a crucial role in organizing the May 29 general strike and had provided the largest working-class contingent in the protest, but the Cordobazo was a protest that had drawn in all the city’s workers. A young parish priest, Rodolfo, who had returned recently from Europe where as a seminarian he had been heavily influenced by the liberation theologians, noticed the broad working class participation as a great difference between the Cordobazo and the events of May, 1968 in Paris which he had also witnessed:

Finally there exists the image, perhaps the dominant one, of a successive misinterpretation of the uprising, of a romanticization of the Cordobazo which informed the subsequent political behavior of many of its participants. The testimony of Luis, a university student who participated in the protest and would later become a militant in the Peronismo cle Base movement, reflected the feelings of many who would be deeply and personally affected by the events of May 29-30, 1969:

Conclusion

The Cordobazo had its roots in the particular characteristics and distinct political culture of Cordoba which interacted with a specific historical conjuncture to produce a protest of unforeseen violence and consequences never imagined, notably by its own protagonists. The Ongania regime galvanized the opposition of diverse groups and classes in the city, each with its own set of grievances, who found common cause in the local working class’s protest. The workers provided the largest contingent of protesters for the length of the uprising, but nearly all the Cordoban citizenry was represented in the rebellion. The Cordobazo was also a spontaneous revolt. Other than the loose plan that union and student leaders had worked out for the May 29th demonstrations, there was no organized strategy, much less any presentiment of the shape that events that would take. The Cordobazo certainly cannot be attributed to revolutionary designs, either on the part of Cordoban auto workers or the city’s other unions. Similarly, economic causes were just one of a number of factors contributing to the opposition to the regime. Finally, because of the close association between the government’s economic program and its authoritarian character, the protest was felt and expressed more as a direct political opposition, a protest against non-democratic rule, than an ideological one.

Although the Cordobazo’s immediate causes were not revolutionary, its ultimate effects might well have been. The uprising’s mythologization served to deepen local working-class militancy and sparked the almost six years of uninterrupted labor struggles which followed. Ironically, despite the overwhelmingly Peronist identity of the workers who were its principal protagonists, the Cordobazo came to be subsequently associated almost exclusively with other sectors of the labor movement. The Marxist left in the city appropriated the Cordobazo and transformed it into a legitimizing myth of its own, an instrument it used for the ideological assault on Peronism’s monopoly of working-class loyalties. The clasista movements in Cordoba in the early 1970s drew heavily on the myth of the Cordobazo in their political work in the Cordoban car plants and thereby provided the grist for the romanticized image of the revolutionary Cordoban working class which still exists today.54

Because of the complexity of the event and the confusion which surrounded it, and indeed still does, the left itself gave diverse interpretations to the Cordobazo. Each of the left-wing parties and organizations saw the uprising through its own set of ideological precepts and built its revolutionary program around its example. For the PCR and the Vanguardia Comunista, the Maoist left, it was proof of the latent power of the masses and the efficacy of the revolutionary general strike and popular insurrection as the surest road to socialism. For the Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists in the PRT on the other hand, it confirmed the need to form a revolutionary party to give the working class the institutional and organizational discipline required so as not to dissipate its efforts. For the PRT and Guevarists in the FAL alike, it convinced them of the need to devise a parallel military strategy, a revolutionary army, to confront the repressive powers of the state in future confrontations. For the Peronist left, it was a vindication of the revolutionary essence of Peronism and the innate militancy of the Peronist working class, only in need of the return of its historic leader to wrestle it away from the corrupt and traitorous elements in the movement and to restore its original revolutionary promise. The historical truth behind the myth was not so important as the myth’s existence, and the Cordobazo would exercise a profound influence on the imagination of the local working class and the Cordoban youth in coming years. It was a final, fateful step toward the violent climax the country would experience in the 1970s.

Notes

1.Juan Carlos Agulla, Diagnostico social de una crisis: Cordoba, mayo de 1969 (Cordoba: Editel 1969); “Significado de Cordoba,” Aportes 15 (Jan. 1970): 48-61; Francisco Delich, Crisis y protesta social: mayo de 1969 (Buenos Aires, 1970), “Córdoba: la movilización permanente,” Los libros 3: 21 (Aug. 1971): 4-8; Ernesto Laclau, “Argentina-Imperialist Strategy and the May Crisis,” New Left Review 62 (July-Aug. 1970): 3-21; Robert Massari, “Le cordobazo,” Sociologie du Travail 4 (1975): 403-418; James Petras, “Córdoba y la revolución socialista en la Argentina,” Los libros 3: 21 (Aug. 1971): 28-31.

2.Henry J. Landsberger, “The Labor Elite: Is it Revolutionary ?”, Elites in Latin America, S. M. Lipset and Aldo Salari, eds. (Oxford, 1967), pp. 256-300, is representative of the pre-Cordobazo consensus.

3.Juan Carlos Agulla, Diagnostico social de una crisis: Córdoba, mayo de 1969, (Córdoba, 1969), pp. 23, 81. This particular interpretation continues to be a favorite of non-leftist scholars of the Argentine working class. See Peter Ranis, Argentine Workers. Peronism and Contemporary Class Consciousness (Pittsburgh and London, 1992), pp. 186-187.

4.Echoes of this argument can also be heard in subsequent sociological interpretations, especially by a somewhat dogmatic school of Argentine Marxists, who attribute the Cordobazo solely to working-class economic grievances. See B. Balvé and B. Balvé, El ’69. Huelga política de masas (Buenos Aires, 1989), pp. 195-199. Both the Marxist (which, in reality, is simply a vulgar Marxist analysis) and labor aristocracy arguments suffer from the same ascriptive flaw in interpretation. Both assume that a particular kind of economic development and the existence of a specific “worker’s condition” resulting from employment in a determined economic sector (e.g. an automotive multinational) can explain the working class’s political comportment, in this case its participation in a major urban protest. They minimize the special political circumstances which triggered a by no means, as such interpretations often seem to imply, inevitable protest. They also overlook or minimize the other factors that this article will address: the development of a local militant trade union tradition, the formation of a uniquely Cordoban “conciencia sindical” in the city’s principal unions which heightened the identification between the workers and the union, and especially the important role played by other sectors of Cordoban society, including other sectors of the working class, in the uprising.

5.See Oscar Anzorena, Tiempo de violencia y utopía (1966-1976) (Buenos Aires, 1988); Guillermo O’Donnell, Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism (Berkeley, 1979); Gregorio Selser, El onganiato, vols. I, II (Buenos Aires, 1986).

6.Informe, Servicio de Documentacion e Informacion Laboral, 85 (March, 1967): 12-23.

7.Archives des Usines Renault, Boulogne-Billancourt. Direction juridique 0734 3400 “Argentine” File “Situation IKA,” Memorandum from]. M. Palacios to M. Maison, Jan. 16, 1967; Memorandum from A. Copain Mefray to M. Maison, Feb. 3, 1967.

8.Informe, Servicio de Documentacion e Informacion Laboral 89 (July 1967): 6; Electrum IV, 109 (March, 1967): 1-4.

9.Monica B. Gordillo, “Los prolegomenos del Cordobazo: los sindicatos líderes de Córdoba dentro de la estructura de poder sindical,” Desarrollo Economico 31:122 (July-Sept. 1991): 171-172.

10.La Voz del SMATA, SMATA-Cordoba IV: 32 (Nov. 1968): 6.

11.Carlos E. Sanchez, Estrategias y objetivos de los sindicatos argentinos (Córdoba, 1973), p. 34; I. M. Roldan, Sindicatos y protesta social en la Argentina. Un estudio de caso: el Sindicato de Luz y Fuerza de Córdoba (1969-1974) (Amsterdam, 1978), pp. 119-120.

12.Sindicato de Luz y Fuerza de Córdoba, Memoria y Balance (1966-67). pp. 69-71, “La situacion económica-financiera de la Empresa Provincial de Energia de Cordoba. Una contribución sindical a su solución,” Electrum XVI: no. 65 (Aug. 1972): 6-11.

13.The SMATA’s union publications, comuniqués, and broadsides throughout the 1960s are replete with a syndicalist language which presents the union as the main repository of Peronist traditions regarding the protection and advance of basic workplace rights. This linea dura discourse contains strong anti-capitalist currents that have clear roots to the Resistance. See, for example, La Voz del SMATA 1:3 (June 1964): 1-3 and El mecanico 6:5 (Nov. 1967): 3. On the resilience of the Resistance’s myths and political consciousness in the Argentine working class generally, see Daniel ]ames, Resistance and Integration. Peronism and the Argentine Working Class, 1946-1976 (Cambridge, 1988).

14.James P. Brennan, “El clasismo y los obreros. El contexto fabril del sindicalismo de liberación en la industria automotriz cordobesa, 1970-1975,” Desarrollo Economico 32: 125 (April-lune 1992): 9-12.

15.Gordillo, “Los prolegómenos del Cordobazo: los sindicatos líderes de Córdoba dentro de la estructura de poder sindical,” pp. 181-182.

16.Clarin, May 12, 1969, p. 24, “El sindicalismo cordobés en la escalada,” Aqua’ y ahora 3:26 (May 1971): 6-15.

17.La Voz del Interior, May 7, 1969, p. 21.

18.Gordillo, pp. 177-178.

19.“El sindicalismo cordobés en la escalada,” Aquí y ahora, pp. 6-15.

20.Gordillo, pp. 184-185; Roldan, Sindicatos y protesta social en la Argentina, pp. 133-145.

21.Ramon Cuevas and Osvaldo Reicz, “El movimiento estudiantil: de la Reforma al Cordobazo,” Los libros 21 (Aug. 1971): 17-18.

22.Claudia Hilb and Daniel Lutzky, La nueva izquierda argentina: 1960-1980 (Buenos Aires, 1984), p. 20; Richard Gillespie, Soldiers of Peron. Argentina’s Montoneros (Oxford, 1982), pp. 52-60.

23.Cuevas and Reicz, “El movimiento estudiantil: de la Reforma al Cordobazo,” pp. 17-18.

24.CGT 1:1 (May 1968): 1; COT 1:2 (May 1968): 1; CGT 1:10 (July 1968): 2.

25.“Declaración de Córdoba,” Regional Delegation, March 21, 1969.

26.La Voz del Interior (Córdoba), March 23, 1969, p. 34; La Voz del Interior (Córdoba), May 6, 1969, p. 11; La Voz del Interior (Córdoba), May 21, 1969, p. 10; Agustín Tosco, “Testimonio del cordobazo,” Presente en la lucha de la clase obrera. Selección de trabajos (Buenos Aires, 1984), pp. 37-55.

27.Informe, Servicio de Documentacion e Informacion Laboral 111 (May 1969): 11

28.The importance of the repeal of the “sabado inglés” as a causal explanation for the Cordobazo, nonetheless, has been greatly overstated and is the common property of both the labor aristocracy and vanguard interpretations of the working class’s role in the uprising with which we disagree. The government’s revocation of the “sabado inglés” applied only to workers who entered employment in the companies after the abrogation of the law. For all the workers who were already on the payroll, in IKA-Renault and in other provincial industries where it was paid, it remained in effect. The importance of the “sabado inglés” repeal on the Cordobazo was thus less direct than is generally assumed. Rather, its significance was as yet another event which raised tensions in the city at a critical moment and deepened the unrest in working-class ranks with a govemment widely perceived to be hostile to its interests.

29.Jeronimo 1, 10 (May 20, 1969).

30.Daniel Villar, El cordobazo (Buenos Aires, 1971), p. 12; lorge Bergstein, El cordobazo. Testimonios, memorias, reflexiones (Buenos Aires, 1987), pp. 58-59.

31.Interviews, Elpidio Torres, secretary general of Cordoban SMATA, Córdoba, July 25, 1985; Miguel Correa, secretary general of the CGT de los Argentinos, Córdoba delegation, July 3, 1985; Alfredo Martini, vice-president of Cordoban UOM, Cordoba, July 20, 1987.

32.“Paro Nacional,” union directive, May 28, 1969, SMATA-Córdoba, SMATA archive, SMATA-Córdoba, Volume “Volantes, Comunicados y Diarios del SMATA, 1969.”

33.Narrative histories of the Cordobazo, of varying degrees of accuracy, can be found in Roqué Alarcón, Cordobazo ( Buenos Aires, 1989); B. Balvé and B. Balvé, El ’69. Rosariazo-Cordobazo-Rosariazo (Buenos Aires, 1989); Jorge Bergstein, El cordobazo (Buenos Aires, 1987); M. Bravo Tedin and G. Sarria, El cordobazo, un grito de la libertad (La Rioja, 1989); Daniel Villar, El cordobazo (Buenos Aires, 1971). Our reconstruction and analysis of the Cordobazo is based primarily on the oral testimony of worker, student, and middle-class participants in the uprising, the only historical record that remains, outside of newspaper accounts, of the protest.

34.Interview, Fernando Solis, administrative employee in the IKA-Renault forge plant, Cordoba, August 10, 1989.

35.Interview, Luis Rubio, university engineering student, Cordoba, May 22, 1990.

36.Nor, given the strength of the worker-student alliance in these months in Cordoba and elsewhere in the country, of course, were there examples during the Cordobazo of working-class resentments directed against the students such as those found in the October 17-18, 1945 events. The insults and taunts such as “¡alpargatas si, libros no!” hurled against the students and the general anti-elitist, anti-intellectual tenor of the working-class protest that characterized the October 17-18 events had no counterpart in the Cordobazo. See Daniel James, “October 17th and 18th: Mass Protest, Peronism and the Argentine Working Class,” Journal of Social History (Spring, 1988): 445, 452-454.

37.Interview, Alberto, university student, Cordoba, September 22, 1989.

38.Interview, Alejo Simo, president of Cordoban UOM, Córdoba, June 30, 1985; Alfredo Martini, vice president of Cordoban UOM, Cordoba, July 20, 1987.

39.Interview, Elpidio Torres, president of SMATA-Cordoba, Córdoba, July 25, 1985.

40.Interview, Jorge Sanabria, university student, Cordoba, August 12, 1989.

41.Agustin Tosco, taped testimony of the events of the Cordobazo, circa 1972, Luz y Fuerza headquarters, Cordoba.

42.Agustin Tosco, taped testimony of the events of the Cordobazo, circa 1972, Luz y Fuerza headquarters, Cordoba. Tosco’s testimony is adamant on this point and is confirmed by the oral testimony of Radical and Peronist militants.

43.Interview, Osvaldo, university engineering student performing his military service at the time of the Cordobazo, Cordoba, August 10, 1989.

44.Agustin Tosco, taped testimony of the events of the Cordobazo, Luz y Fuerza headquarters, Córdoba. Interview, Felipe Alberti, member of Luz y Fuerza executive committee, Cordoba, July 22, 1985. Interview, Oscar Alvarez, member of Luz y Fuerza executive committee, Cordoba, August 5, 1987.

45.Daniel Villar, El cordobazo (Buenos Aires), p. 96; La Voz del Interior (Córdoba), May 31, 1969, p. 13; La Voz del Interior (Córdoba), June 1, 1969, p. 16.

46.The authors’ interpretations of the Cordobazo generally coincide, enough obviously, that they feel comfortable co-authoring an article on the uprising. This is perhaps the most important point where they diverge. Brennan puts much more emphasis on the peculiarities of Cordoban society combined with the specific conjuncture of the Ongania dictatorship as the explanation for the May events. Gordillo asserts that,‘in addition to these factors, that there was gestating throughout the 1960s in the city a “culture of resistance” and that certain political “imaginaries,” among them the proto-revolutionary sentiments of the students for example, were also present in the protest.

47.Interview, Alberto, university student, Cordoba, September 22, 1989. Brennan also believes such sentiments were present in the Cordobazo, but argues that their influence in the 1969 protest should not be overstated, that to do so conflates the ideology of the 1970’s with that of the 1960’s and ignores the importance of the liberal political culture of the majority of Cordoba’s university students in 1969.

48.Interview, Mizael Bizzotto, IKA-Renault shop steward, Cordoba, August 15, 1989.

49.Interview, Miguel A. Contreras, President of Cordoban Communist Party, Cordoba, November 23, 1989.

50.Interview, Nora, university student, Cordoba, July 22, 1989.

51.Interview, Fernando Solis, administrative employee IKA-Renault forge plant, Cordoba, August 10, 1989.

52.Interview, Rodolfo, parish priest and member of “Sacerdotes del Tercer Mundo” movement in Cordoba, Cordoba, September 1, 1989. The Cordobazo was, as this testimony indicates, a protest which drew in almost the entire Cordoban working class, not just the presumed labor elite in the local automobile industry. Indeed, one of the few sectors of the working class which did not participate notably in the protest were the Fiat workers, in 1969 still closely watched through their company-controlled plant unions, SITRAC-SITRAM, and therefore not included by the other unions in the planning of the May 29 general strike. Only a handful of Fiat workers marched into the city center to participate in the protest.

53.Interview, Luis, university student, Cordoba, March 3, 1990.

54.Brennan, “El clasismo y los obreros. El contexto fabril del sindicalismo de liberación en la industria automotriz cordobesa,” pp. 15-19.

Featured image is from the author.

Like many people, when the New Year rolls around, I think of turning over a new leaf.  The problem with doing that, especially in New England, is that it’s hard to find one.  Nothing grows in this cold climate at this time of year, except old habits. You can turn them over but they’re still aged without a bit of green newness anywhere. 

Do people fly south in the winter time to find new leaves, only to find their old selves when they get there?  Is that what leaving gets you? Is that why winter in Florida resembles a geriatric ward, a place for reminiscing and Auld Lang Syne?

Stuck in old habits and wanting to throw off the old for the new, we tend to do strange things like buy new clothes, get a haircut, or resolve to form new habits that we think are good for us.  But these resolutions, as the word implies, are a re-solving of what we resolved to make new last New Year’s.  So many solutions to so many old habits over so many years are still habits.  And we end up being stuck in a double-bind of our own making, anchored in the past.  Habits, by definition, are what hold us back in our conditions.

Yet little else is so settled, least of all our lives, and this we sense.  We may be stuck, but time passes and we will die chained to our routines unless we change.  So we reach for new beginnings every chance we can get: New Year’s and birthdays being the most popular – arbitrary constructs used to propel us into what we think will be new lives.

New is easier said than done, of course.  How to change?  Change to what?  Do we really want to change, or are all these habitual resolutions our solutions to the threat that real change entails?  If we truly changed, could we change the world?  And if we don’t, will we have a world to change?

New Year’s brings to mind what everyone knows: that the years come and go, they turn, we get older; we seek at every age to be transformed into new people – somehow freed from something, some inexpressible lonely burden, some guilty sense that time will devour us before we make amends.  The desire for transformation is universal.  So too is the often unacknowledged awareness, that like the years that pass, we too shall “pass” – to use that evasive euphemism.   Doesn’t anyone fail or die anymore?  Or is that for the poor and out-of-sight, the disappeared victims of oppressive injustice and violence?  Is it that the conquerors pass and others fail?

“Don’t wait too long,” sang Frank Sinatra fifty years ago when he was struggling with aging and the thought of being over the hill, his end coming.  “Why must the moments go by with such haste?  Don’t wait too long.”

Much has been written about Frank, and rightly so.  These commentaries have been elicited by the universally acknowledged genius of his singing, especially for his gift of soulfully expressing the deepest human emotions of love and loss and longing. I would suggest that Frank Sinatra, and in particular his great album, September of My Years, be requisite listening for anyone interested in real change for the New Year.  In the midst of the revelry and fireworks, the old year and the new, the resolutions and irresolutions, looking back and looking forward – here is Sinatra singing of the deepest core of the year’s turning – human loneliness.  And how, despite it, to love and connect.  How to embrace seeming contradiction. How to change.

I never met Sinatra, but he was my mentor in this process, one that has no ending.  It’s transformative work. Ephemeral, yet realer than real.

When I was young, he taught me to be old.  Now that I’m old, he’s taught me to be young.  How?  By listening to the singing, the words that fly from his mouth come from the heart’s desires, the hunger of the soul. They pierce to the core of all our longings for change within permanence.  He didn’t write the words, but he had a genius for articulating them.  As Bob Dylan said of Sinatra, “Right from the beginning, he was there with the truth of things in his voice.”

In his voice, yes.  I am not speaking of the man about whom so much has been written, good and bad. I am not speaking of his politics or his personal life.  I never knew the man, just the voice.  That’s enough. From his voice comes truth of a very deep nature.

Listen, you older folks.  “When the wind was green at the start of the spring….”  “When I was seventeen….”  “I know how it feels to have wings on your heels ….”

Youngsters, listen.  “When you’re all alone, all the children grown, and like starlings flown away, it gets lonely early, doesn’t it, every single endless day.”

“Once upon a time….”  Everyone, listen.  Connect.

Perhaps only songs can change us. Arguments so often seem to fall on deaf ears.  Could it be that songs are the expression in sound of the dual nature of our New Year’s longings for newness amidst the old?

John Berger, a master political writer no matter what his ostensible subject matter – a portrait, a landscape, a singing performance – put it perfectly shortly before he died in an article in Harper’s magazine.  “A song, as distinct from the bodies it takes over, is unfixed in time and place. A song narrates a past experience.  While it is being sung it fills the present.  Stories do the same.  But songs have another dimension, which is uniquely theirs.  A song fills the present while it hopes to reach a listening ear in some future somewhere.  It leans forward, farther and farther.  Without the persistence of this hope, songs would not exist.  Songs lean forward.”

So lean forward and listen.  It’s a new year.  There is hope.  If we change.

*

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/

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Only Cassandra was good at predicting future events. I dislike predictions, but here goes.

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.

Thousands of ISIS fighters deployed to Afghanistan by the Pentagon assure no end to conflict in the country, maybe for another 16 years or longer.

US hostility toward North Korea is so extreme, unthinkable nuclear war could happen, maybe before 2018 ends.

If launched, more than the peninsula will be affected. Japan and US regional bases within range of DPRK missiles would likely be targeted.

Millions could perish, maybe more than during the 1950s war and Southeast Asian one combined, more than any previous time in the region since imperial Japan raped China.

Iran is a prime US target. Trump’s pathological hostility toward the Islamic Republic is cause for great concern.

US and Israeli officials reached agreement on confronting the Islamic Republic, their intended tactics yet to unfold.

Their strategy has nothing to do with blocking Iran’s path to nuclear weapons it doesn’t want or seek, everything to do with undermining its government, its ballistic missile program, its regional strength and influence, as well as its effectiveness in combatting US/Israeli-supported terrorists together with Russia, Syria and Hezbollah.

What US and Israeli Ziofascists likely intend means trouble, Trump co-opted to go along, maybe foolhardy enough to go for regime change against Iran either by war or color revolution.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi slammed him and other US officials, saying:

“The great Iranian nation regards the opportunist and duplicitous support of the American officials for certain gatherings over the recent days in some Iranian cities as nothing but deceit and hypocrisy of the US administration,” adding:

“The Iranian people attach no value to the opportunistic remarks by American officials and Trump himself,” including his disgraceful tweet supporting protests in some Iranian cities, perhaps US instigated, accusing Tehran of “fund(ing) terrorism abroad” – a US specialty along with its rogue partners.

For nearly 70 years, Washington meddled in Iran’s internal affairs aggressively, replacing its democratically elected government in 1953 with a fascist dictatorship it supported, perhaps intending something similar ahead.

On Friday, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert made worrisome comments, falsely accusing Iran of “export(ing) violence, bloodshed, and chaos,” Washington’s geopolitical agenda, not Tehran’s.

She quoted Tillerson earlier saying he (meaning the Trump administration) supports “elements (in) Iran” able to lead efforts for “transition of government” backed by Washington.

Will Trump and Netanyahu try toppling its government next year – by naked aggression, color revolution or other sinister means?

An uninformed, indifferent, mind-manipulated US public facilitates Washington’s imperial agenda by failing to confront it the way protesters rallied nationwide against America’s Southeast Asia aggression.

Nor have Russia and China, the only two nations powerful enough to do it.

Instead, Russian ambassador to Washington Anatoly Antonov said Moscow is ready to “build bridges” with America, despite its hostile agenda, calling Russia its top adversary, wanting its government toppled, adamant against improving relations.

Trump aside, Washington’s entire political establishment is hostile to Moscow. He’s forced to go along or risk impeachment and removal from office.

Chances are far greater for confrontation, possible nuclear war, than improved relations.

The only language Washington understands is force. Unless confronted responsibly, it’s free to pursue its imperial agenda unimpeded.

It wants all sovereign independent governments replaced by pro-Western puppet ones – especially in Russia and China.

Moscow’s readiness to improve ties with Washington is seen as weakness by dark forces in charge.

They’ll use every dirty trick in the book to gain an advantage and exploit it.

The prospect for better bilateral relations is nil, not as long as bipartisan neocons infest Congress and the executive branch – dark forces controlling them.

Darker times than already are likely ahead. A modern-day Cassandra would probably agree.

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

Trumpwashing—defined as whitewashing, obscuring or rewriting the broader US record by presenting Donald Trump as an aberration (FAIR.org, 6/3/16)—was on full display Thursday in a nominally straight news report from the New York Times’ Mark Landler (12/28/17) on how Trump has reshaped US foreign policy. Buried in the otherwise banal analysis was this gem of US imperial agitprop:

Above all, Mr. Trump has transformed the world’s view of the United States from a reliable anchor of the liberal, rules-based international order into something more inward-looking and unpredictable. That is a seminal change from the role the country has played for 70 years, under presidents from both parties, and it has lasting implications for how other countries chart their futures.

There’s lots of ideology to unpack here, but let’s start with the empirically false assertion that the “world” viewed the United States as a “reliable anchor of the liberal, rules-based international order.” Poll (Guardian, 6/15/06) after poll (Pew, 3/14/07) after poll (PRI, 1/3/14) throughout the years has shown that much of the world views the United States as threat to peace, often taking the top spot as the single greatest threat. What evidence Landler has for the world viewing the US as a sort of good-natured global babysitter is unclear, as he cites nothing to support this hugely important claim (since if Trump’s cynical disregard for “human rights” is nothing new, then there’s no real story here). It’s just thrown out with the assumption the Times readership is sufficiently nationalistic and/or amnesiac to either not notice or not care. It’s designed to flatter, not to elucidate.

The New York Times reports that Donald Trump “holds a radically different view of the United States’ role in the world than most of his predecessors,” citing his lack of interest in “the rules-based postwar international order.”

The second dubious assertion is the idea that the US is “viewed” as being (or, by implication, objectively is) concerned with “liberal, rules-based international order.” Perhaps Landler missed the part where the US runs offshore penal colonies for untried political prisoners, and a decade-long drone war that’s killed thousands—both entirely outside the scope of international law. Or the time the US invaded and destroyed Iraq without any international authorization, killing hundreds of thousands. Or perhaps he missed the part where the United States refuses to sign “liberal, rules-based international order” treaties such as the International Criminal Court or the ban on bombs and or a prohibition on nuclear weapons. Or the part where the US not only doesn’t recognize the International Criminal Court, but has a law on its books (dubbed “the Hague Invasion Act,” passed in 2002) that if an American is ever held by the ICC for committing war crimes, the US is obligated to literally invade the Hague and free them.

And this is just in the past 15 years. Landler, even more laughably, starts the clock in 1947, which would include dozens of non-“liberal,” non-“rules-based” coups, invasions, bombing campaigns, assassinations, extrajudicial murders and so forth. The number of actions carried out by the US not sanctioned by even the thinnest pretext of “international order” is too long to list.

What exactly is this “liberal, rules-based international order,” and when did “the world” view the United States as its most reliable anchor? Landler doesn’t say, he simply asserts this highly contestable and ideological claim, and moves on to pearl-clutch about Trump ruining the US’s hard-won moral authority. He has some 100 percent uncut pro-US ideology to push under the guise of criticizing Trump, and no amount of basic historical facts will get in his way.

Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org.

The Trump administration sent its U.S. Vice President Mike Pence to Kabul, Afghanistan in what was described as a surprise visit and warned Pakistan that they are “on notice” for being a “safe haven” for the Taliban and other terrorist organizations. It seems that the Trump administration is putting any nation on notice who defies the U.S. like they did last February when former National Security adviser Michael Flynn put Iran on notice because of its ballistic missile launch. Washington claimed that Iran violated the U.N.’s resolution forbidding the development of its nuclear program. The Pakistan-based daily newspaper ‘Dawn’ published a report ‘Trump has put Pakistan on notice,’ US VP Pence warns in surprise Kabul visit’ on what U.S. Vice President Mike Pence had said during his time in Kabul:

United States (US) Vice President Mike Pence during a surprise visit to Afghanistan on Friday issued a warning to Pakistan that it has allegedly provided safe haven to terrorists for too long but those days are over now, as President Donald Trump has now “put Pakistan on notice.” This is so far the harshest US warning to Pakistan since the beginning of the Afghan war more than 16 years ago and follows several recent statements, indicating US indignation with Islamabad

The report stated Pence’s claims that Pakistan provides a safe haven for terrorists including the Taliban:

“For too long has Pakistan provided safe haven to the Taliban and many terrorist organisations, but those days are over,” Pence told the troops. He reiterated word for word President Donald Trump’s warning that Pakistan must stop offering cross-border safe havens to Taliban factions and armed militant groups fighting US troops and their Afghan allies.

“President Trump has put Pakistan on notice. As the President said, so I say now: Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with the United States, and Pakistan has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists,” the US VP added

Washington and the Military-Industrial Complex along with several intelligence agencies including the CIA have been blaming the Afghan insurgency on Pakistan’s failure to defeat various factions of the Taliban including the Haqqani Network. The resurgence of the Taliban resistance has more to do with Washington and its NATO allies waging a brutal 16-year war of occupation including continuous drone strikes.

Despite the fact that the U.S. has spent more than a trillion dollars adding the deaths of more than 2,300 American troops, the Taliban remains a serious problem for US and NATO forces. Pakistani officials reject Pence’s comments according to an article by ‘Dawn’ titled ‘Allies do not put each other on notice’: FO lashes out at US after Pence’s scathing remarks’:

The Foreign Office (FO) on Friday lashed out at the United States (US) hours after Vice President Mike Pence’s warning that the Trump administration has “put Pakistan on notice”, claiming that the statements diverged from recent conversations between both countries’ officials. “Allies do not put each other on notice,” the FO statement said, noting that Pence’s scathing remarks were “at variance with the extensive conversations we [Islamabad] have had with the US administration”.|

The FO statement stressed the need for the US to create peace and reconciliation mechanisms instead of shifting blame onto Pakistan for its failures in Afghanistan. “Externalising blame should be put on notice,” the FO said, in addition to a host of “factors responsible for exponential increase in drug production, expansion of ungoverned spaces, industrial scale corruption, breakdown of governance, and letting Daesh gain a foothold in Afghanistan”

Washington is blaming Pakistan, not its 16-year occupation for the resurgence of the Taliban and now ISIS (another U.S. creation) who is also gaining a foothold in Afghanistan. The U.S. government might also blame Pakistan for the massive opium production that has only increased under the U.S. occupation that provides enough heroin for the entire planet.

The U.S. has lost the War in Afghanistan yet the Trump Administration has a plan to win the war according to its National Security Strategy (NSS) report where Trump said that the U.S. faces unprecedented threats:

The United States faces an extraordinarily dangerous world, filled with a wide range of threats that have intensified in recent years. When I came into office, rogue regimes were developing nuclear weapons and missiles to threaten the entire planet. Radical Islamist terror groups were flourishing. Terrorists had taken control of vast swaths of the Middle East. Rival powers were aggressively undermining American interests around the globe

Interestingly, where the Trump Administration mentions Pakistan in the NSS report when it says that “We seek a Pakistan that is not engaged in destabilizing behavior and a stable and self-reliant Afghanistan. And we seek Central Asian states that are resilient against domination by rival powers” obviously talking about China and Russia. According to the NSS report “We will help South Asian nations maintain their sovereign as China increases its influence in the region.”

It is a coincidence that Pence’s warning comes at a time when Pakistan is considering a move away from the U.S dollar to the Chinese yuan for bilateral trade with China. Is the U.S. trying to prevent Pakistan from bypassing the U.S. dollar and joining China’s One Belt One Road Initiative (OBOR) also known as the New Silk Road?

The Emerging Currency War Takes Hold in Central Asia

A few days before Pence’s visit to Afghanistan, on December 19th to be exact, Reuters published a rather interesting report titled ‘Pakistan considering plan to use Yuan in trade with China’ on Pakistan’s growing interest in using the Chinese yuan for trade with China which does concern Washington:

Pakistan is considering a proposal to replace the U.S. dollar with the Chinese yuan for bilateral trade between Pakistan and China, the English-language daily newspaper Dawn reported on Tuesday

Reuters also mentioned the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which leads to the Silk Road Economic Belt(SREB), an economic system based on land along with the Maritime Silk Road (MSR) which is based on maritime trade routes also known as the One Belt One Road Initiative (OBOR) introduced by China to the world in 2013. OBOR is a strategy based on China’s ambition to have a major role in global economic affairs:

Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal, who has been central to the planning and implementation of China-Pakistan economic ties, was reported discussing the proposal after unveiling a long-term economic development cooperation plan for the two countries. Iqbal said Pakistan would continue to use the rupee domestically.

The long-term plan highlighted key cooperation areas between the neighboring states including road and rail connections, information network infrastructure, energy, trade and industrial parks, agriculture, poverty alleviation and tourism. The plan marks the first time the two countries have said how long they plan to work together on the project, known as the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC,)taking the economic partnership to at least 2030. China has already committed to investing $57 billion in Pakistan to finance CPEC as part of Beijing’s “Belt and Road” initiative to build a new Silk Road of land and maritime trade routes across more than 60 countries in Asia, Europe and Africa

China’s rising economic power is a challenge to the U.S. as the world’s economy is pivoting east. The long-term economic plan between Pakistan and China involves information network infrastructure, energy, agriculture, tourism and other areas of trade and commerce. Back in August, Reuters’ had reported what the U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had said about Pakistan’s “reluctance” to act against the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network terrorists:

U.S. officials are frustrated by what they see as Pakistan’s reluctance to act against groups such as the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network that they believe exploit safe haven on Pakistani soil to launch attacks on neighboring Afghanistan. Pakistan denies it harbors militants fighting U.S. and Afghan government forces in Afghanistan.

Tillerson said the United States could consider withdrawing Pakistan’s status as a major non-NATO ally, which provides limited benefits such as giving Pakistan faster access to surplus U.S. military hardware, if cooperation did not improve. “We have some leverage that’s been discussed in terms of the amount of aid and military assistance we give them, their status as non-NATO alliance partner – all of that can be put on the table,” he said

At this point in time, Pakistan seems more inclined to pivot towards the east than to continue being a puppet state controlled by Washington which is very unpopular among the Pakistani population. The last poll conducted by Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes and Trends from 2015 showed that Pakistan only had a 22% favorable rating towards the U.S. compared to a 62% unfavorable rating. The polls should not surprise anyone with the U.S. occupation of its neighbor, Afghanistan with relentless drone strikes since 2001 that has killed more civilians that actual terrorists in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Various think tanks and human rights organizations reported that at least 70 percent of people killed by drones strikes were unarmed civilians. Since 2004, more than 3,450 Pakistanis have been killed with more than 400 drone strikes approved by Washington. By 2014, Washington stopped its drone program but Pakistani army (armed and funded by the U.S.) resumed operations by June of that year against Taliban fighters in Northern Waziristan that resulted in more than several hundred thousand people fleeing the region after the Pakistani army said anyone who stayed behind would be considered terrorists and can be targeted by drone strikes.

The Pakistani government has been a U.S. puppet state for quite some time. With that said, Pakistan has problems of its own especially with India. Historically and politically speaking, Pakistan and India has a complicated and uneasy relationship. However, the U.S. government has trained and armed the Pakistani military and helped establish a close relationship between the CIA and Pakistani intelligence services known as the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Pakistan has no power when it comes to Washington’s decisions especially when fighting the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and others because Pakistan is controlled by Washington. The Pakistani government has another big problem on their hands and that is the Pakistani population who are in opposition to U.S. war operations taking place in their country thus creating an uneasy alliance between Washington and Islamabad. Both the U.S. and Pakistan are finding it more difficult to maintain an alliance with a angry Pakistani population who despises their government for having close ties to the U.S. government. Maybe the Pakistani government is finally looking for a way out of Washington’s control.

Pakistan’s Foreign Office declared that the US should create “peace and reconciliation mechanisms” in Afghanistan although there is a serious problem with opium production, rampant corruption and the spread of terrorist organization as a result from the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. The Trump administration is blaming Pakistan for the major problems the U.S. occupation itself has caused in Afghanistan.

Pakistan also made it to the list of nations who rejected the Trump administration’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Trump did say that he would cut U.S. funding to countries that were opposed to the idea, so it is most likely that the Trump administration would cut foreign aid to Pakistan.

The U.S. is using the Taliban and other terrorist organizations as an excuse to intimidate the Pakistani government from using the Chinese yuan instead of the U.S. dollar. Without the U.S. dollar dominating the economic landscape in Central Asia, Washington cannot dictate its policies upon Pakistan. Is Pakistan planning to bypass the U.S. dollar in favor of the Chinese yuan? Yes, it will eventually happen.  Perhaps Pakistan joining China’s New Silk Road initiative can be the answer to get rid of government’s corruption, regain its sovereignty, make peace with India and respect the will of the Pakistani people.

This article was originally published by Silent Crow News.

Featured image is from the author.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

A same day article discussed worrisome signs, perhaps steps to destabilize the country and/or initiate joint US/Israeli military operations to replace its government with pro-Western puppet rule.

Washington and Israel have long sought regime change. In 2009, a CIA-orchestrated color revolution failed.

After Iran’s June presidential election that year, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad winning overwhelmingly, Western media falsely claimed electoral fraud.

Months before things erupted, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said

“Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources,” adding:

“These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and (were) designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.”

Iranian dissidents were supported. Bush’s Finding “focused on…trying to undermine (Iran’s) government (by) working with (and funding) opposition groups,” Hersh explained.

Iranian news agencies, its Foreign Affairs Ministry, National Police, and Ministries of Interior and Justice were attacked.

Henry Kissinger said if color revolution fails, “regime change (must be) worked for from the outside,” implying a military option.

Obama continued Bush administration destabilization policies. Months of US efforts to destabilize Iran and oust its government failed – ahead of working on and consummating the JCPOA nuclear deal.

Is Trump in cahoots with Netanyahu initiating another regime change attempt, perhaps a more aggressive one?

Were days of street protests orchestrated in Washington? Most Iranians support their government, deploring the idea of replacing it with repressive rule like under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran’s last shah, a US/UK-installed puppet.

Israel terror-bombed Gaza on Friday and Saturday, defense minister Avigdor Lieberman falsely claiming projectiles fired from the Strip at Israeli territory were supplied by Iran.

They’re homemade. Blockade prevents weapons entering Gaza by land, sea or air.

The IDF turned truth on its head, saying

Iran “risk(s) the safety of the residents of the Gaza Strip and puts them in grave danger…wreak(ing) havoc and destruction (wherever it) operates” – falsely claiming Tehran fomented Israeli/Palestinian conflict by supporting “rogue and extremist terrorist groups.”

Netanyahu and other Israeli officials lied, saying Iran wants to use Syria as a platform to attack Israel.

Trump expressed support for Iranian protesters, warning Tehran, saying “(t)he world is watching,” ignoring large pro-government supporters countering dissidents.

In June congressional testimony, Rex Tillerson expressed “support (for) elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government” – regime change Washington seeks.

Separately, anti-government extremists in Iran attacked an oil pipeline in Khuzestan province.

A group called Ansar al-Furqan Ahwaz Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility, saying

“(t)his operation was conducted to inflict losses on the economy…”

Comprised of Salafist militants, it’s reportedly linked to US-supported al-Nusra. Timing of the attack is suspicious, coming during days of street protests in Tehran and elsewhere in the country.

Some reports suggest Trump may pull America out of the Iran nuclear deal in January, along with imposing new sanctions on the country, explicitly breaching terms of the agreement.

Last October, he said

“if we are not able to reach a solution working with Congress and our allies (in the next 90 days), then the agreement will be terminated.”

No deal was reached. Congress is focused on other issues. Other P5+1 countries reject altering the agreement requiring years to complete.

No later than January 11, Trump must again certify if Tehran is complying with JCPOA terms. IAEA inspectors confirmed it repeatedly.

No evidence suggests otherwise. Trump refused to certify Iranian compliance last October. It triggered a 60-day window for Congress to restore sanctions withdrawn when the deal was consummated by a simple majority.

If Trump pulls out, it might be part of a destabilization plot, perhaps with military action on the country to follow at a later time.

The signs are worrisome. Heading into 2018, greater fire and fury than already may be coming.

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

Kameron Prescott is dead — the latest in a horrific string of children killed by America’s fearful and quick-to-shoot law enforcement professionals.

Six-year-old Kameron, who was shot in Bexar County outside San Antonio, Texas, wasn’t killed like Tamir Rice in Cleveland, who was mowed down by a police officer within seconds of his arrival on the scene as the boy sat peacefully on a bench in a park pavilion holding a toy gun. Kameron wasn’t deliberately shot. He was just “collateral damage” in America’s militarized police war on the public — killed inadvertently by a deputy’s bullet which had missed its intended target (an unarmed woman), instead penetrating the flimsy wall of the trailer and the soft abdomen of the little kid who was playing peacefully by himself inside.

The reason Kameron had his all too short life cut brutally short was because some deputy “feared for his life.”  What the shooter feared was 30-year-old Amanda Jones, whom he had been reportedly chasing for two hours through the woods and a deep stream after having interrupted her allegedly trying to break into a car. According to news reports, halfway through the long pursuit, Jones had been found by police hiding in a closet in a mobile home she had broken into to. They claimed she had “brandished a gun,” though inexplicably, she had managed to escape them and run off again.

When the Bexar County sheriff’s deputies — four of them by then — finally caught up with her, Jones was standing on the porch of young Kameron’s trailer. At that point, whether she in fact had ever actually had a gun at all, there is no indication that she had a gun in her hand. But no matter, the four deputies on the scene all reportedly opened up on her with their service revolvers and also with a rifle. They managed, among them, to kill her, but they also missed her in their panicky fusillade, and one of those errant bullets pierced the trailer and killed the little boy inside. No gun was found on the scene, which raises the question: Why did they shoot the woman?  We’re to believe that four burly sheriff’s deputies — no doubt wearing body armor — couldn’t subdue an unarmed young woman?

There were reportedly two adults — grandparents according to one report, unrelated to Jones — also inside the trailer who had better luck than little Kameron. They were not hit by any stray bullets, but I’m sure their hearts were broken.

Sheriff Javier Salazar told reporters somberly at a press conference that “any one of my us” in the department would “gladly have traded places with that boy.” Nice sentiment, sheriff, but I really doubt any of them would have actually taken Kameron’s bullet for him. The reason the police unloaded their weapons at Jones was precisely because they are so afraid of being shot they’d kill an unarmed woman without hesitation, and not worry about innocent bystanders either.

The point is, cops and sheriff’s deputies should know that a trailer doesn’t offer much protection against a bullet. A standard-issue police .45-calibre projectile will tear right through the light tin of such a structure and thus pose a grave risk to anyone who might be inside.

The deputies should have assumed immediately that it was possible there might be people inside. That is or should be a key part — actually the key part — of their job: Protecting the public. They failed miserably at that.

They just blew the perp away, and they blew away an innocent six-year-old child along with her.

Sheriff Salazar placed the four deputies who killed Jones and little Kameron on five days’ suspension, but he also told reporters,

“In my opinion it’s a tragic accident that led to the death of this young man (sic). We are looking into all of it. Internal Affairs is still investigating it. But again preliminarily it appears that policies and procedures [on use of deadly force] were complied with.”

First of all let’s get one thing straight, Sheriff Salazar, Kameron is not, and now never will be a “young man.” He was a six-year-old little boy, and that’s the way he should be described as we examine at what happened.

Secondly, if this sorry chase and slaughter was done by the book, as you say, with all Sheriff’s Department policies “complied with,” then those policies you have in your department on use of force need to be scrapped and completely redrawn.

I am sick to death of reading about innocent people, and especially young kids, dying because some “brave hero” cop “feared for his life” or thought someone “might” have a gun. Then the story is always the same: the cops fight to keep their jobs, and the investigation ends up clearing them. (When have we seen a cop who kills an innocent person, especially a child, through carelessness or cowardice come forward and say he or she is quitting the force because of doing something awful?)

The primary goal of a police office should be protecting human life. You can’t do that if you’re shooting up a trailer without knowing for sure that it’s empty — especially if the person you’re shooting at doesn’t even have a gun to threaten you with.

But I’d go further. If the four deputies who had cornered the late Amanda Jones hadn’t been so quick on the trigger, they could have stayed back at a safe distance, spread out to prevent her from running again, and tried to talk her down, meanwhile getting a chance to check out exactly how threatening she might be. That would have also enabled at least one of the officers to get to an angle where, if she did somehow manage to pull that nonexistent gun out of her waistband, he’d have been able to get a shot off at her from an angle that wouldn’t have put people inside the trailer at risk (and maybe taking the time to try and wound instead of kill her). Either way little Kameron would at least still have a chance to grow into a young man.

Some people, I know, are going to argue that you cannot second guess a cop in situation like this, but I disagree. The problem is that cops are given a blank check to fire their weapons if they “feel threatened.” That’s not the standard we should be using.

Too many innocents, including children, are dying on the basis of it.

Police should stick with “protect and serve.” Their guns should only be used as a last, not first resort, and then only if there is no risk posed to innocents. If someone cannot operate under those conditions, he or she should look for a different career.

Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

Featured image is from Matty Ring | CC BY 2.0.

This is a classic example of flip-flop policy. In November, the US promised Turkey to stop arming Kurdish militias in Syria after the Islamic State was routed. Brett McGurk, the US Special Presidential Envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat Islamic State, explained that after the urban fighting in Raqqa was over “adjustments in the level of military support” would be made. “We had to give some equipment – and it’s limited, extremely limited – all of which was very transparent to our NATO ally, Turkey,” he said during a special briefing on December 21. In June, the US told Turkey it would take back weapons supplied to the Kurdish the People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia in northern Syria after the defeat of Islamic State.

But sophisticated weapons will continue to be sent to Syria in 2018, including thousands of anti-tank rocket launchers, heat seeking missiles and rocket launchers. The list of weaponry and equipment was prepared by US Department of Defense as part of the 2018 defense budget and signed by Trump of Dec. 12. It includes more than 300 non-tactical vehicles, 60 nonstandard vehicles, and 30 earth-moving vehicles to assist with the construction of outposts or operations staging areas. The US defense spending bill for 2018 (“Justification for FY 2018 Overseas Contingency Operations / Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Fund”) includes providing weapons worth $393 million to US partners in Syria. Overall, $500 million, roughly $70 million more than last year, are to be spent on Syria Train and Equip requirements. The partners are the Kurds-dominated Syria Democratic Forces (SDF). The YPG – the group that is a major concern of Turkey – is the backbone of this force.

The budget does not refer to Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) but instead says “Vetted Syrian Opposition”. According to the budget list, there are 25,000 opposition forces supported as a part of the train and equip program in Syria. That number is planned to be increased to 30,000 in 2018. The arming of Kurdish militants with anti-tank rockets is a sensitive topic because of Turkey’s reliance on its armored Leopard tanks in northern Syria.

Talal Sillo, a former high-ranking commander and spokesperson of the US-backed SDF, who defected from the group last month to go to Turkey, divulged details of the US arming the Kurdish group.

The list does not detail which vetted Syrian groups will receive certain pieces of equipment. In northern Syria, there is the SDF, including the YPG, and the Syria Arab Coalition — a group of Arab fighters incorporated into the SDF. The Maghawir al-Thawra and Shohada al-Quartayn groups are operating in the southeastern part of Syria. They are being trained by US and British instructors at the al-Tanf border crossing between Syria and Iraq.

Besides the SDF and the groups trained at al-Tanf, the US is in the process of creating the New Syria Army to fight the Syrian government forces. The training is taking place at the Syrian Hasakah refugee camp located 70 kilometers from the border of Turkey and 50 kilometers from the border of Iraq.

Around 40 Syria opposition groups on Dec. 25 rejected to attend the planned Sochi conference on Syria scheduled to take place in January. They said Moscow, which organizes the conference, was seeking to bypass the UN-based Geneva peace process, despite the fact that UN Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura said that Russia’s plan to convene the congress should be assessed by its ability to contribute to and support the UN-led Geneva talks on ending the war in Syria. If fighting starts, these groups are likely to join the formations created by the US.

So, the United States not only maintains its illegal military presence in Syria and creates new forces to fight against the Syrian government, it appears to be preparing for a new war to follow the Islamic State’s defeat. The continuation of arming and training Kurdish militias will hardly improve Washington’s relations with Ankara, while saying one thing and doing another undermines the credibility of the United States as a partner.

Featured image is from the author.

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.”

Neo-cons in the American media and the U.S. President are all demanding that Americans stand with the “Iranian people” and the “protesters” in their “fight for freedom.”

The reason this sight is familiar is because we have seen it in Egypt, Libya, and Syria in the past as well as in Iran itself in the late 2000s. Protests that turn violent, a subsequent crackdown that either is violent or is reported as such, and the weight of American propaganda against the target government are all “Arab Spring” repeats that are themselves nothing more than the color revolution/destabilization apparatus that has been used by the West in countries all across the world for decades, particularly in the last twenty years.

What Do The Protesters Want?

The alleged demands of the protesters seem reasonable and legitimate enough. The Western media has, up until this point, been reporting that the main argument being made by the demonstrators center around economic concerns, i.e. falling living standards, unemployment, and rising food prices. However, as the third day of protests took place, the Western media began reporting that the protesters are demanding an end to religious dictatorship and policies of both the Ayatollah Khamenei and President Rouhani. According to some reports, female protesters have gone so far as to shout “death to Khamenei” and shed their hijabs in order to construct makeshift flags. Others say the protesters are focused on government corruption.

However, there is much question about these protests. The first question is “Are they organic Iranian protests?” This question has yet to be answered fully. Iran is most certainly a religious dictatorship and many Iranians want freedom from religious rule. However, it should be remembered that the United States and Israel have openly stated a desire to see Iranian influence broken and as recently as 2009, the United States attempted to engineer a color revolution in the country. The first three days of the Green Movement in Iran looked very much like the first three days of this current movement.

Clearly, economic concerns are a major issue in Iran, a country whose economy has been suffering for years under Western sanctions and whose own inability to capitalize on a state-owned National Bank. Official unemployment in Iran is around 12% and it is likely that the real rate is much higher. Despite lifting of some sanctions, there is hardly economic growth in the country, another result of neo-liberal economic and trade policies. Yet, it is also worth noting that Khamenei has also been critical of the poor economy and the handling of economic issues by the government yet Khamenei is being insulted at the protests.

These demands are not unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination. However, the religious protests come at a very odd time. Iran recently liberalized its laws regarding women’s forced head coverings, so why protest now over religious laws?

In addition, special attention must be paid to the concept of “government corruption,” a hallmark of color revolutions since government corruption is often more of a conceptual issue than anything concrete. A step down from power from a few key people, wrist slaps, and token reform can all achieve an “end” to corruption while more concrete demands need concrete applications and thus present a minor loss to those who will taking over the rains of power after the demonstrations have ceased.

There are also more concerning demands that can be found in the slogans being chanted by the demonstrators. First, in case it could be missed, the demonstrators are calling for the Ayatollah and the President to step down. In other words, they are calling for regime change. This is precisely what the United States, GCC, NATO, and Israel also want to see happen.

Second, numerous demonstrators are chanting “Let go of Palestine,” and “Not for Gaza, Not for Lebanon, I’d give my life (only) for Iran.” Again, protesters are now chanting foreign policy demands identical to that desired by the United States, NATO, GCC, and Israel. All this in a protest that is supposed to be about economic concerns.

Moon of Alabama, in its article entitled “Iran – Regime Change Agents Hijack Economic Protests,” reveals a number of important reports regarding the beginning of the protests and where they stand currently. MOA writes,

Protests against the (neo-)liberal economic policies of the Rohani government in Iran are justified. Official unemployment in Iran is above 12% and there is hardly any economic growth. The people in the streets are not the only ones who are dissatisfied with this:

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has repeatedly criticized the government’s economic record, said on Wednesday that the nation was struggling with “high prices, inflation and recession”, and asked officials to resolve the problems with determination.

On Thursday and today the slogans of some protesters turned the call for economic relief into a call for regime change.

. . . . .

Today, Friday and the weekly day off in Iran, several more protest took place in other cities. A Reuters report from today:

About 300 demonstrators gathered in Kermanshah after what Fars called a “call by the anti-revolution” and shouted “Political prisoners should be freed” and “Freedom or death”, while destroying some public property. Fars did not name any opposition groups.

…

Footage, which could not be verified, showed protests in other cities including Sari and Rasht in the north, Qom south of Tehran, and Hamadan in the west.

Mohsen Nasj Hamadani, deputy security chief in Tehran province, said about 50 people had rallied in a Tehran square and most left after being asked by police, but a few who refused were “temporarily detained”, the ILNA news agency reported.

Some of these protests have genuine economic reasons but get hijacked by other interests:

In the central city of Isfahan, a resident said protesters joined a rally held by factory workers demanding back wages.

“The slogans quickly changed from the economy to those against (President Hassan) Rouhani and the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei),” the resident said by telephone.

…

Purely political protests are rare in Iran […] but demonstrations are often held by workers over layoffs or non-payment of salaries and people who hold deposits in non-regulated, bankrupt financial institutions.

…

Alamolhoda, the representative of Ayatollah Khamenei in northeastern Mashhad, said a few people had taken advantage of Thursday’s protests against rising prices to chant slogans against Iran’s role in regional conflicts.

…

“Some people had came to express their demands, but suddenly, in a crowd of hundreds, a small group that did not exceed 50 shouted deviant and horrendous slogans such as ‘Let go of Palestine’, ‘Not Gaza, not Lebanon, I’d give my life (only) for Iran’,” Alamolhoda said.

Media and Neo-Con Support

While it is to be expected from a virulently anti-Iran administration and mainstream press in the United States, it is interesting how the U.S. President immediately has latched on the protests, encouraging Americans to stand with the protesters and their demands. This is coming from a man who rarely sees a protest that isn’t directed at him. Meanwhile, Neo-Con organs like FOX News are also repeating calls for Americans to support the brave “freedom fighters” in Iran. It is seldom, if ever, true that evil does good in the world so when Neo-Cons call for support to protests, eyebrows should be raised in skepticism.

It is also important to question just how popular these protests are. While mainstream western media and various terrorist organizations also conveniently supporting them paint them as involving tens of thousands at each demonstration, video and pictures tend to show only dozens to hundreds at the most while others wander about around them.

“A video of that protest in Mashad showed some 50 people chanting slogans with more bystander just milling around,” writes MOA. . . . . “Two videos posted by BBC Persian and others I have seen show only small active protest groups with a dozen or so people while many more are just standing by or film the people who are chanting slogans.”

Trump Administration/Israel Agreement

The protests taking place in Iran are taking place only a month after the White House and Tel Aviv met to discuss a strategy on Iran.

“A delegation led by Israel’s National Security Adviser met with senior American officials in the White House earlier this month for a joint discussion on strategy to counter Iran’s aggression in the Middle East, a senior U.S. official confirmed to Haaretz,” wrote Haaretz agency. (Israeli Delegation Met U.S. Officials to Discuss ‘Iran Strategy,’ Syria)

AXIOS provides a quote from the meeting:

[T]he U.S. and Israel see eye to eye the different developments in the region and especially those that are connected to Iran. We reached at understandings regarding the strategy and the policy needed to counter Iran. Our understandings deal with the overall strategy but also with concrete goals, way of action and the means which need to be used to get obtain those goals.

Could this apparent color revolution be the result of that US/Israeli meeting?

Color Revolution In Iran

The idea that a color revolution could be attempted in Iran is no fantasy. It would be a repeat of history. Remember, in 2009, an attempt at a color revolution deemed the “Green Revolution” was launched but was quickly put down by the iron fist of the Iranian government.

The Path To Persia

The plan for a Western or a Western/Israeli attack on Iran, along with the theatre of alleged US-Israeli tensions leading up to a strike and outright war, has been in the works for some time. For instance, in 2009, the Brookings Institution, a major banking, corporate, and military-industrial firm, released a report entitled “Which Path To Persia? Options For A New American Strategy For Iran,” in which the authors mapped out a plan which leaves no doubt as to the ultimate desire from the Western financier, corporate, and governing classes.

Screenshot from Brookings report: “Which Path To Persia? Options For A New American Strategy For Iran,”

The plan involves the description of a number of ways the Western oligarchy would be able to destroy Iran including outright military invasion and occupation (see table of contents above). However, the report attempts to outline a number of methods that might possibly be implemented before direct military invasion would be necessary. The plan included attempting to foment destabilization inside Iran via the color revolution apparatus, violent unrest, proxy terrorism, and “limited airstrikes” conducted by the US, Israel or both.

The report states,

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?

Moreover, Iran’s own history would seem to suggest that such an event is plausible. During the 1906 Constitutional Movement, during the late 1930s, arguably during the 1950s, and again during the 1978 Iranian Revolution, coalitions of intellectuals, students, peasants, bazaari merchants, Marxists, constitutionalists, and clerics mobilized against an unpopular regime. In both 1906 and 1978, the revolutionaries secured the support of much of the populace and, in so doing, prevailed. There is evidence that the Islamic regime has antagonized many (perhaps all) of these same factions to the point where they again might be willing to support a change if they feel that it could succeed. This is the foundational belief of those Americans who support regime change, and their hope is that the United States can provide whatever the Iranian people need to believe that another revolution is feasible.

Of course, popular revolutions are incredibly complex and rare events. There is little scholarly consensus on what causes a popular revolution, or even the conditions that facilitate them. Even factors often associated with revolutions, such as military defeat, neglect of the military, economic crises, and splits within the elite have all been regular events across the world and throughout history, but only a very few have resulted in a popular revolution. Consequently, all of the literature on how best to promote a popular revolution— in Iran or anywhere else—is highly speculative. Nevertheless, it is the one policy option that holds out the prospect that the United States might eliminate all of the problems it faces from Iran, do so at a bearable cost, and do so in a manner that is acceptable to the Iranian people and most of the rest of the world.

Conclusion

While the situation in Iran continues to develop, it appears that another color revolution is underway. While many of the demands are legitimate, all signs are pointing toward Western treachery in an attempt to break Iran in the final domino to fall in the Middle East before an even bigger confrontation is ignited. Destroying Iran would also destroy Hezbollah, weaken Syria and Russia, and threaten Israel. Whether or not it will succeed will depend on the level of subversion that has been possible by the United States intelligence apparatus since 2009 and the ability of Iran to squash the revolt. If anything can be learned from the 2009 revolution, Iran will move quickly and will smash the protests with an iron fist. However, if the protests taking place in Iran today are indeed a color revolution and if the West is committed, the Path to Persia will likely see an escalation in activity, violence, and ultimately directly military confrontation by proxy and even by the U.S. military itself.

We will be following these protests in detail over the coming days.

Brandon Turbeville writes for Activist Post – article archive here – He is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

The Trump administration is rescinding Obama-era rules designed to increase the safety of fracking.

“We believe it imposes administrative burdens and compliance costs that are not justified,” the Interior Department‘s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wrote in a notice published Friday in the Federal Register.

The 2015 rule required companies drilling for natural gas and oil on public lands to comply with federal safety standards in the construction of fracking wells, to disclose the chemicals used during the fracking process, and required companies to cover surface ponds that store fracking wastewater.

The regulation, however, never took effect after a Wyoming federal judge struck it down last year.

Fossil fuel groups, which sued to block the Obama regulation, unsurprisingly cheered the decision.

“Western Energy Alliance appreciates that BLM under Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke understands this rule was duplicative and has rescinded it,” Western Energy Alliance President Kathleen Sgamma said in a release. “States have an exemplary safety record regulating fracking, and that environmental protection will continue as before.”

But environmentalists and public health advocates have long warned that fracking—which involves pumping large volumes of water, sand and chemicals underground to extract oil and gas—causes groundwater contamination, puts human health at risk and releases the potent greenhouse gas methane.

“The Trump administration is endangering public health and wildlife by allowing the fracking industry to run roughshod over public lands,” Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said. “Fracking is a toxic business, and that’s why states and countries have banned it. Trump’s reckless decision to repeal these common-sense protections will have serious consequences.”

Maryland, New York and Vermont have banned fracking. Ireland, France, Germany and Bulgaria have also banned the practice on land.

Here are some major findings of a 2016 study by Environment America Research & Policy Center on the impact of fracking on our environment:

• During well completion alone, fracking released 5.3 billion pounds of methane in 2014, a pollutant 86 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over the course of 20 years.

• Fracking wells produced at least 14 billion gallons of wastewater in 2014. Fracking wastewater has leaked from retention ponds, been dumped into streams and escaped from faulty disposal wells, putting drinking water at risk. Wastewater from fracked wells includes not only the toxic chemicals injected into the well but also naturally occurring radioactive materials that can rise to the surface.

• Between 2005 and 2015, fracking used at least 23 billion pounds of toxic chemicals. Fracking uses of vast quantities of chemicals known to harm human health. People living or working nearby can be exposed to these chemicals if they enter drinking water after a spill or if they become airborne.

• At least 239 billion gallons of water have been used in fracking since 2005, an average of 3 million gallons per well. Fracking requires huge volumes of water for each well—water that is often needed for other uses or to maintain healthy aquatic ecosystems.

• Infrastructure to support fracking has directly damaged at least 675,000 acres of land since 2005, an area only slightly smaller than Yosemite National Park. Well pads, new access roads, pipelines and other infrastructure built for fracking turn forests and rural landscapes into industrial zones.

When Donald Trump ran for the U.S. Presidency, his biggest foreign-affairs promise (which he copied from Ted Cruz) was to defeat “radical Islamic terrorism”; but, on December 27th, the Russian Government publicly accused Trump’s military of backing ISIS terrorists to fight against Syria’s Government (which is allied with Russia). Russia’s RT international television network headlined “US lets militants train, mount attacks from its Syrian bases – chief of Russian General Staff”, and opened:

The US is hosting training camps for militant groups in Syria, including former ISIS fighters who fled from Raqqa, said the head of Russia’s General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, citing data obtained by aerial surveillance.

The US forces have effectively turned their military base near the town of al-Tanf in southeastern Syria into a terrorists’ training camp, Gerasimov said in an interview to Russia’s Komsomolskaya Pravda daily on Wednesday.

“According to satellite and other surveillance data, terrorist squads are stationed there. They are effectively training there,” Gerasimov said. …

Barely over a month earlier, the BBC had headlined on November 13th, “Raqqa’s Dirty Secret: The BBC has uncovered details of a secret deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa, under the gaze of the US and British-led coalition and Kurdish-led forces who control the city.” One lorry driver told BBC, “We took out around 4,000 people including women and children — our vehicle and their vehicles combined. When we entered Raqqa, we thought there were 200 people to collect. In my vehicle alone, I took 112 people.” The reporter noted, “Another driver says the convoy was six to seven kilometres long.” Furthermore: “IS fighters took everything they could carry. Ten trucks were loaded with weapons and ammunition. The drivers point to a white truck being worked on in the corner of the yard. ‘Its axle was broken because of the weight of the ammo,’ says Abu Fawzi [a lorry driver].”

So: America’s ISIS training camps might have thousands of extremely well-armed fighters to pay (by the Sauds) and train (by the Americans) to fight against Bashar al-Assad’s forces — prolonging the war against Syria, continuing the Syrian carnage.

One can’t understand this U.S. support of ISIS, unless one recognizes the key fact: that, during the prior, Obama, U.S. Presidency, the U.S. Government was relying principally upon Al Qaeda in Syria to train and lead the various imported-into-Syria Saudi-paid international fundamentalist-Sunni mercenaries (committed jihadists, but all soldiers need to be paid and trained and fed and armed) who served as America’s proxy boots-on-the-ground in Syria to overthrow and replace Syria’s non-sectarian Baathist socialist Government. Furthermore, on 17 September 2016, Obama’s air force bombed Syrian Government troops in Deir Ezzor (or Der Zor) the capital of Syria’s oil-producing region; and the surrounding ISIS forces then rushed in to grab that city to take it over, for the U.S.-Saudi side in the Syrian war. So: Obama sometimes even provided crucial support to ISIS (and not only depended heavily upon Al Qaeda). The U.S. Government, under Obama, even honored internationally the White Helmets wing of Al Qaeda in Syria, at the same time as refusing to allow its leader into the U.S. to receive a ‘humanitarian’ award, because he was on the U.S. terrorism watch-list.

The January 2016 issue of Harper’s featured a landmark article by Andrew Cockburn, “A Special Relationship: The United States is teaming up with Al Qaeda, again”, which included such rare (practically unique in the U.S. press) gems as this:

The Saudis, of course, had been an integral part of the anti-Soviet campaign from the beginning. According to one former CIA official closely involved in the Afghanistan operation, Saudi Arabia supplied 40 percent of the budget for the rebels. The official said that William Casey, who ran the CIA under Ronald Reagan, “would fly to Riyadh every year for what he called his ‘annual hajj’ to ask for the money. Eventually, after a lot of talk, the king would say okay, but then we would have to sit and listen politely to all their incredibly stupid ideas about how to fight the war.”

Despite such comments, it would seem that the U.S. and Saudi strategies did not differ all that much, especially when it came to routing money to the most extreme fundamentalist factions. Fighting the Soviets was only part of the ultimate goal. The Egyptian preacher Abu Hamza, now serving a life sentence on terrorism charges, visited Saudi Arabia in 1986, and later recalled the constant public injunctions to join the jihad: “You have to go, you have to join, leave your schools, leave your family.” The whole Afghanistan enterprise, he explained, “was meant to actually divert people from the problems in their own country.” It was “like a pressure-cooker vent. If you keep [the cooker] all sealed up, it will blow up in your face, so you have to design a vent, and this Afghan jihad was the vent.”

Soufan agreed with this analysis. “I think it’s not fair to only blame the CIA,” he told me. “Egypt was happy to get rid of a lot of these guys and have them go to Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia was very happy to do that, too.” As he pointed out, Islamic fundamentalists were already striking these regimes at home: in November 1979, for example, Wahhabi extremists had stormed the Grand Mosque in Mecca. The subsequent siege left hundreds dead.

Within a few short years, however, the sponsoring governments began to recognize a flaw in the scheme: the vent was two-way. I heard this point most vividly expressed in 1994, at a dinner party on a yacht cruising down the Nile. The wealthy host had deemed it safer to be waterborne owing to a vigorous terror campaign by Egyptian jihadists. At the party, this defensive tactic elicited a vehement comment from Osama El-Baz, a senior security adviser to Hosni Mubarak. “It’s all the fault of those stupid bastards at the CIA,” he said, as the lights of Cairo drifted by. “They trained these people, kept them in being after the Russians left, and now we get this.”

The CIA, and the entire U.S. federal government, is presented there as servicing the aristocrats (the billionaires) not only in the U.S., but in the countries that are allied with the U.S., America’s vassal nations. America’s taxpayers are funding the protection of foreign billionaires — the individuals who control those vassal governments — in addition to funding foreign land-clearance operations to benefit America’s billionaires. Normally, this fact is simply unpublishable inside the United States, but it’s essential for any American voter to understand in order to be able to vote in an accurately informed (instead of deceived) way; and Harpers should therefore receive an award for having had the guts to publish this customarily unpublishable information. Unfortunately, it’s not the type of article the Pulitzers etc., grant awards to.

That’s how the American Government and its media have so successfully kept such crucial information a secret. Thus, for example, Pew was able to headline on 15 December 2014, “About Half See CIA Interrogation Methods as Justified”, and they reported that: “51% of the public says they think the CIA methods were justified, compared with just 29% who say they were not justified; 20% do not express an opinion. The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Dec. 11-14 among 1,001 adults, finds that amid competing claims over the effectiveness of CIA interrogation methods, 56% believe they provided intelligence that helped prevent terrorist attacks, while just half as many (28%) say they did not provide this type of intelligence.” But, in fact, the reason for the waterboarding and other tortures wasn’t to find truths (such as those 51% had been deceived to think why tortures were used), but instead to ‘find’ (i.e., to provide fake ‘evidence’ for) lies, which they could then use to convince the public to believe America’s case that Iraq needed to be invaded — and invaded urgently, not to wait for the U.N.’s weapons-inspectors to finish their job.

Bush and Cheney demanded the CIA to extract confessions and other testimonies saying that Saddam Hussein was to blame for 9/11, and only few of the captured suspects in 9/11 even knew enough about Hussein to be able to concoct sufficiently credible accusations against him to be used in America’s propaganda-media; so, Bush-Cheney’s CIA would then turn the interrogation screws even harder against a given suspect, and the waterboard was part of that. Pew found that Republicans were overwhelmingly more likely than Democrats to say that waterboarding and other tortures were ‘justified’. Perhaps a reason for this finding was Bush-Cheney’s having been Republicans, mere partisanship; but, for at least the past hundred years, Republicans have almost always been more effusive supporters of dictatorship in America than Democrats have been. (However, the KKK prior to 1960 was virtually a branch of the Democratic Party in the South, and today’s Democrats remain proudly supportive of the vile Obama, and even of Hillary Clinton.)

Without doubt, the Republican Party has generally stood for “authoritarianism” (a.k.a., dictatorship) in America, more than has the Democratic Party (at least until recently); but the anti-FDR, pro-fascist, Clinton-Obama pro-aristocratic Democratic Party might be dominant for long into the foreseeable future, so that the two Parties could become more obviously just branches of each other, both representing the U.S. aristocracy equally.

One of the current U.S. regime’s (Trump’s) main challenges in servicing these billionaires is continuance of hiding the real reason those tortures had actually been ordered.

On 27 December 2017, NPR’s David Welna was among the first journalists ever to interview defense lawyers for inmates at the super-secret “Camp 7” in America’s notorious Guantanamo prison in Cuba, and he reported:

WELNA: James Connell also visited Camp 7. He is the lead attorney for Ammar al-Baluchi, another 9/11 defendant and high-value detainee. Connell thinks the real reason for all the secrecy is because those locked up there can reveal what the CIA did to them.

CONNELL: The high value in the high-value detainee does not refer to either any information that they had prior to their abduction or to their role in any act of terrorism. The high value refers to their possession of information about the CIA torture program. 

WELNA: … Camp 7’s location remains a state secret. When I asked the Pentagon to visit the lockup, the answer was no.

In other words: The reason why these men have been hidden from the public for 16 years is probably that our Government doesn’t want the American voting public to know that the whole U.S. torturing program was designed so as to obtain false testimony from these men in order to implicate Saddam Hussein in having caused 9/11, which could be used to ‘justify’ our invading and destroying Iraq as retaliation for 9/11. Although such ‘information’ was not forthcoming, the U.S. Government and its ‘news’ media managed to be able to do it anyway — and most Americans are still successfully conned by this operation, even decades later. It continues unabated.

That’s what passes for ‘democracy’ in today’s America (hiding the truth from the public, and constantly lying, does the job). And yet, this country condemns Iran, Syria, Russia, and China, as being ‘dictatorships’, and imposes sanctions against them, on concocted charges, which, however, are far less evil (even if they were true) than the reality of the U.S. Government’s ceaseless string of international crimes (such as destroying Iraq in 2003, destroying Libya in 2011, destroying Syria since 2012, and destroying Ukraine in 2014).

Terrorism is, above all, America’s foreign-policy tool. The U.S. Government (and its allies, such as NATO, and the Gulf Cooperation Council) are the supreme masters of the craft. In retrospect — and at the deepest level — maybe Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito, actually won World War II’s aftermath.

A global repudiation of fascism is thus now essential. At the U.N., America is, every year, among only two or three nations standing up to defend fascism. (Here is Obama doing it in 2014; here is Trump doing it in 2017.) If you didn’t learn about it in the press or on TV, that’s because each year, this news (now become history) is hidden from the public. (For example, even today, the Western press never calls the bloody overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected President in 2014 a “coup” — which was perpetrated by the U.S. — but instead they call it a “revolution,” or even a “democratic revolution,” though it actually ended Ukraine’s democracy, and installed a racist-fascist U.S.-allied regime.) Of course, one would expect dictatorships, such as America, to hide the essential facts. But, there is no excuse for hiding this information; it’s hidden only so that the American public won’t be aware of how deep this country’s dictatorship has already become. It’s very deep.

And that’s why (as Welna said),

“When I asked the Pentagon to visit the lockup, the answer was no.”

Of course, the Government shouldn’t even have the power to say no to such a request; but the U.S. Government functions as a dictatorship, no actual democracy — and it invades other countries, alleging them to be dictatorships.

So: though the U.S. Government never publicly supports, and uses, Islamic terrorists, the U.S. Government often supports (and uses) them secretly (and far more meaningfully). The aristocracy has its own demands, separate from those of the American public; and the U.S. Government serves those demands, not the public. 

On 8 November 2016 when Trump was elected, there was “regime change” in Washington about domestic policies, such as about privatizing schools, and about whether America’s poor should be treated even worse than they already are (as Trump’s Administration is doing), but there is not, as yet, any basic change regarding international policies.

Trump fulfilled on Bush’s and Obama’s and Clinton’s promises to relocate the Tel Aviv Embassy to Jerusalem, and his announcement of that long-promised policy is considered by some in Washington to indicate regime-change — a fundamental change in policy in Washington — but it’s not. There has actually been no U.S. regime-change yet, regarding foreign policies — the U.S. Government is the same regime of lies, as it has been (and such as it was, for example, on 7 September 2002, when U.S. President George W. Bush lied that the IAEA had then come out with some ‘new report’ saying that Saddam Hussein was only six months away from having a nuclear weapon), but the language Trump employs is generally more crude than the super-slick liar Obama so skillfully displayed, and this increased crudity constitutes a regime-change of style, but that’s about all, as far as foreign policies are concerned.

Furthermore, in mid-October of 2016, the Governments of U.S., Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, agreed to provide, for ISIS jihadists who were fleeing from America’s bombing campaign in Mosul Iraq, safe passage to Deir Ezzor in Syria, so as to enable ISIS to reinforce and solidify its grip on that key Syrian city; so that, for example, on 1 May 2017, Al Masdar News bannered “Syrian Army tank takes direct hit from ISIS guided missile in Deir Ezzor.” The Turkish Government’s 15 October 2016 “‘Sensitive’ Operation Plan for Mosul”even stated, “An escape corridor into Syria will be left for Daesh [ISIS] so they can vacate Mosul.” America’s bombing campaign against ISIS in Iraq was, thus, not only a campaign against ISIS in Iraq, but, it was, also, a campaign to assist ISIS in Syria — to strengthen ISIS at Der Zor (which city stands at the exact opposite end from Mosul, along that “escape corridor” — it’s where the U.S. and its allies were wanting those jihadists to go). 

In other words: the U.S. coalition has fed ISIS terrorists from Iraq into Syria, and has fed ISIS terrorists from Raqqa into U.S.-allied training camps elsewhere in Syria.

So: the reason why Trump’s troops are training ISIS terrorists in Syria is simply in order to conquer some land in Syria. ISIS have been among America’s many proxy boots-on-the-ground fighting to take down and replace Syria’s Government. According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. has been trying to conquer Syria ever since the CIA was created, and a CIA coup-attempt there failed in 1949. Kennedy informatively titled his article, “Syria: Another Pipeline War”, which is a good summary of the reason why the U.S. aristocracy want to control at least enough of a corridor through Syria so as to enable construction there of U.S. oil and gas pipelines from America’s allies — Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE — into the world’s largest energy-market, the EU, so as to displace Russia’s oil and gas in Europe. Furthermore, most of Russia’s oil and gas has been pipelined into the EU through Ukraine, which is a reason why Obama took Ukraine in a coup in 2014 — thus squeezing Russia out of its main pipelines into the EU, at the same time as (yet again) trying to open up (through Syria) U.S. pipelines for America’s allies to replace Russia as being Europe’s main energy-suppliers.

The “aristocracy”, in any country, don’t want the public to understand international relations, and why their government is doing what they are doing, because, if the public knew, the aristocrats (and their government) would be in a very dangerous situation. And that’s also a reason why billionaires build and buy all of the major newsmedia, so that the public won’t understand these things.

And, of course, no major brand of any product or service will be likely to advertise in any news-medium that violates the collective interests of all of the owners — the billionaires and centi-millionaires who own controlling interests in America’s international corporations. Though some are Republicans and others are Democrats, they all are in this boat together, and so the two sides of the Establishment share crucial things in common, even though they try to present to the public the opposite side of the aristocracy as being either stupid or evil.  What the contending aristocrats cannot accuse the other side of, however, is what both sides share in common with one-another, against the public-at-large. And, so, nobody talks about America’s ongoing support for terrorism. It’s not published (with rare exceptions, such as that Harper’s article). 

In fact, America’s CIA is actually the world’s senior master at terrorism, not only in places such as Afghanistan, and Syria, but also in Europe. It’s what Americans are increasingly buying with our tax-dollars. But, billionaires are the people who benefit from it — the publics (even in America itself) lose from it, in both money and blood. For the billionaires, it’s just a big blast (especially if their foreign competitors — such as in Russia or China — end up being among the people who get blasted by these U.S.-taxpayer-funded operations). 

In any chess game, pawns give up their lives for their respective royals. That’s what pawns are for. Billionaires have almost all of the pieces. Pawns are the least of these. But, being a pawn is the only real job that many people will ever have. Not many make it all the way to the final row and becoming crowned as the most powerful type of piece on the board (a queen). But the myth that “I’ll win that crown” keeps every pawn working to rise, from oppressed, to oppressor, in the system of exploitation, the hierarchy, which is the essence of fascism. After all: it’s not just the American way. And nowhere is it justice. It’s unlimited greed, that’s been placed onto a greed-is-good pedestal, as the given nation’s ideology, which in today’s United States is branded and sold as being the very essence of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. It’s freedom for the billionaires; serfdom for everyone else.

On 27 September 2015, Donald Trump told Scott Pelley on CBS “60 Minutes”:

Why aren’t we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants? Why are we doing this? We’re fighting ISIS and Assad has to be saying to himself, “They have the nicest or dumbest people that I’ve ever imagined.”

Scott Pelley: Let me get this right, so we lay off ISIS for now?

Donald Trump: Excuse me, let —

Scott Pelley: Lay off in Syria, let them destroy Assad. And then we go in behind that?

Donald Trump: — that’s what I would say. Yes, that’s what I would say. 

And, so, this is why Trump’s troops are training ISIS terrorists.

Protecting the American (or any other) public is only an excuse that the U.S. ruling class — the richest 0.01% — use; the super-rich are vastly more interested in conquering Russia and its international allies (such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, and Viktor Yanukovych), and in boosting the stock-value of American ‘defense’ (aggression) contractors, which they control, such as Lockheed Martin, than in the safety of the American (or any other) people. It’s all merely a con, to fool and control the gulls, so as to conquer foreign lands, on the cheap. Proxy foreign mercenaries cost far less than U.S. troops do.

That’s what the evidence says. However, this is not what America’s government and their newsmedia say. It’s an entirely different world. This is the real world — not the lies.

“… let them destroy Assad. And then we go in behind that?

Donald Trump: — that’s what I would say.”

By contrast, Obama was skillful enough a liar to deceive the public to take seriously what he said.

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

This article was originally published by Strategic Culture Foundation.

Translation by Anoosha Boralessa

2017 presented the world with a number of crises, among which were the continued wars in the Middle Ease and the spread of terrorism, the humanitarian crises in Africa and Asia, the rising military tensions over North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs, and the militarization of both the South China Sea and eastern Europe. Throughout the past year regional and global powers have repeatedly been on the verge of open military conflict, any of which may yet still lead to large regional wars.

In the Middle East the war on ISIS, the Iran nuclear deal, the crisis in Lebanon, and Israeli-Arab tensions took center stage.

By the end of the year, the self-proclaimed caliphate of ISIS had fully collapsed in both Syria and Iraq. Thanks to the efforts of the alliance between Syria, Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah, along with the Iraqi forces and the US-led coalition, this group was driven out from almost all of the areas it had held in the two countries.  ISIS has lost control of such strategic locations as Mosul, al-Qaim, Raqqah, al-Tabqah, Deir Ezzor, al-Mayadin, al-Bukamal, as-Sukhna, Deir Hafer, Maskanah, and al-Resafa.

ISIS, in form of a terrorist state, does not exist more. However, this does not mean that Syria and Iraq will face calm soon. There are still lots of ISIS sleeper cells and former ISIS supporters in these countries, a Syrian al-Qaeda branch (now known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) controls Idlib, and the Kurdish-Arab tensions are smoldering in northern Syria and Iraq. These issues cannot be ignored and will become an important part of the post-ISIS standoff in the region.

Now, Russia, the US, Turkey, Iran and Syria are increasing their diplomatic activity in order to find a way, which could allow work to start on developing a final political settlement of the crisis. They all have objective limits to their influence on the ground and some contradictory goals. This complicates the situation, especially amid a lack of strategic vision from the US which, according even to American experts, has no long-term strategy for Syria. The US elites and their Israeli and Saudi counterparts are especially dissatisfied with the strengthened position of Hezbollah and Iran.

Following the defeat of ISIS, the US-led bloc began attempting to use those areas of Syria held by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces to limit the influence of the Damascus government and its Iranian and Russian allies.

Another flash point in this conflict lies within the province of Idlib, now mostly controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Within the framework of the agreements reached by Syria, Iran, Russia, and Turkey in the Astana format, a de-escalation zone should now have been established in this area. However, this is hardly possible while Hayat Tahrir al-Sham remains the main powerbroker in this location.

Despite the defeat of ISIS and the partial withdrawal of Russian forces, Syria will remain a battleground in this regional military and geo-political standoff in 2018. Militarily, the Iranian-Russian-Syrian alliance will continue to focus its efforts on reducing the influence of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in the province of Iblib.  These efforts will include launching a series of limited military operations against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and further developing counter-insurgency efforts against ISIS. On the diplomatic stage, the different sides will continue to work on developing a political solution to the crisis.

Meanwhile, the United States finds itself in a complicated situation: on the one hand, it cannot officially accept Assad’s government as a participant in the negotiations, while on the other hand the US has scant leverage to influence the situation. Thus, the White House will try to increase its efforts to divide Syria through supporting the separatist intentions of the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), as well as the armed ‘opposition’ groups in the region.

The goal of such a strategy is to build a ‘de-facto’ independent entity within Syria. Additionally, the US could make either direct or proxy attempts to assassinate Assad and his inner circle.

Iran will likely further strengthen its influence within Iraq after establishing a land route linking Teheran, Baghdad, Damascus, and Beirut. This so-called ‘Shia Crescent’ will become reality despite stiff opposition from both Israel and its allies. Watch for Washington to play the Kurdish card to counter Iran’s growing influence in both Iraq and Syria.

Ahmed al-Asadi

In addition, the US could also attempt to split the ranks of the Popular Mobilization Units by separating individual groups from the larger organization. Such an action could be done with the use of mass bribes, as was done with some generals of the Iraqi Armed Forces during the Iraq War.

The military victory over ISIS in Syria dramatically escalated tensions between Israel and the Iranian-backed forces of Hezbollah.

At present time, Israel’s top political leadership is in the state of outright hysteria regarding the Lebanese movement.  Senior Israeli officials have repeatedly claimed that Israel will not allow Hezbollah and Iran to concentrate its forces in border areas and to expand their influence in the region, particularly in Syria and Lebanon.

The already difficult situation in southern Lebanon and Syria was further complicated by the series of events, which contributed to the growing tensions in the region in November and early December. It started with a resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri announced from Saudi Arabia on November 7, continued with Saudi accusations of military aggression through missile supplies to Yemen against Iran and rose to a new level on December 6 when US President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital sparking further escalation. Some experts also said Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US are conspiring to start a new war in the region. In this light, a series of military exercises, including the biggest one “The Light of Dagan”, was described as a part of the preparations for armed aggression against Lebanon.

The recent developments in the Middle East, including the nearing end of the conflict in Syria and the growing influence and military capabilities of Hezbollah, have changed the political situation in Lebanon. Hezbollah units de-facto fulfil functions of the presidential guard. Lebanese special services and the special services of Hezbollah are deeply integrated. Hezbollah’s victories in Syria and humanitarian activities in Lebanon increased the movement’s popularity among people.

Tel Aviv believes that the growing influence of Hezbollah and Iran in the Middle East, particularly in Syria and Lebanon, is a critical challenge to its national security. The key issue is that Israeli military analysts understand that Hezbollah is now much more powerful than it was in 2006. Now, Hezbollah is a strong, experienced, military organization, tens of thousands troops strong, which has the needed forces and facilities to oppose a possible Israeli ground invasion in Lebanon.

Iran has also strengthened its positions in the region over the last ten years. It has reinforced its air defense with the Russian-made S-300 systems, strengthened its armed forces and got combat experience in Syria and other local conflicts. Tehran also strengthened its ideological positions among the Shia and even Sunni population which lives in the region.

Considering these circumstances, initial expert opinions indicate that Israel would decide to participate in a large-scale conflict in Lebanon only in the case of some extraordinary event. However, the growing Arab-Israeli tensions and the tense Israeli-Hezbollah relationship are moving this extraordinary event ever closer.

Nonetheless, Israel will continue local acts of aggression conducting artillery and air strike on positions and infrastructure of Hezbollah in Syria and maybe in Lebanon. Israeli special forces will conduct operations aimed at eliminating top Hezbollah members and destroying the movement’s infrastructure in Lebanon and Syria. Saudi Arabia will likely support these Israeli actions. It is widely known that Riyadh would rather use a proxy and engage in clandestine warfare.

All these took place amid the developing crisis in Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had launched a large-scale purge among the top officials, influential businesspersons and princes under the pretext of combating corruption. According to the experts, the move is aimed at consolidating the power of the crown prince and his father, King Salman. In general, the kingdom is seeking to shift its vector of development and to become a more secular state. In 5-10 years, it can even abandon Wahhabism as the official ideology. At the same time, Saudi Arabia is involved in an unsuccessful conflict in Yemen and a diplomatic crisis with Qatar. This situation fuels tensions and a competition for resources among the Saudi clans. As a result, the Saudi regime and the Saudi state in general, are now, in a weak position.

These are the key reasons why Saudi Arabia prefers to avoid an open participation in new conflicts. Additionally, there is always a chance, that for example of conflict in Lebanon, the main combat actions could be moved to the Saudi territory.

Russia and Iran are also not interested in this “big new war” as well because such a conflict in the Middle East will pose a direct threat to their national security.

During the coming year we can expect to see both Israel and Saudi Arabia continuing their diplomatic and military efforts to deter Iran and Hezbollah.

Riyadh will continue its efforts to turn Yemen into a puppet state, but is unlike to achieve any notable successes, leaving the Houthis and their missile arsenal as a constant threat to Saudi Arabia.

Israel and Saudi Arabia will also continue their building of a broad anti-Iranian coalition, with the support of the Trump administration, while Israeli forces will continue conducting their limited military operations against Hezbollah targets in Syria and Lebanon. In general, the chances of a new regional conflict will remain high.

In this already unstable environment, the current US policy remains as one of the key destabilizing factors in the region. The recent US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, as well as the hostility towards the Iranian nuclear deal continue to fuel tensions between the Israeli-Saudi and the Iranian-Hezbollah blocs.

The current US administration continues with America’s consistent pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian policies in the region, inspiring both Israel and Saudi Arabia to embrace more active policies as well.

As a result of this growing US support, the Israeli military stands ready to implement active military responses to any action taken by Hamas, Hezbollah, or any of the other regional players whom Israel considers a threat to its wide range of national interests.

While the odds are low of the Trump administration being able to abort the Iranian nuclear deal, the mere fact that such attempts continue does little to contribute to peace in the region. The fact remains that Washington fuels the new cold war and perhaps even a potential hot war in the Middle East.

We may expect that during the coming year Iran will continue to increase its influence in the region by using the war in Yemen, and its strengthened positions in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon to counter its opponents. In addition to its military efforts on the ground, Teheran’s main strategic focus will likely be the development of military and economic relations with both China and Russia. During 2018 we may also expect that Iran will pay special attention to the modernization and reformation of its armed forces.

In Egypt, the security situation remains complicated, especially in the North Sinai. Following the defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, remnants of the terrorist group have spread across the region with a number of them arriving in the peninsula. While the Egyptian Army and security forces have conducted a number of operations to eradicate terrorist cells in the area, militant activity remains high there, fueled in part by trafficking to Gaza.

In addition to the remnants of ISIS in the North Sinai, Egypt faces continuing challenges along its border with Libya. Following the NATO intervention in that country in 2011, the Libyan government and social structure have been all but destroyed, with multiple factions battling each other for control over both the trafficking and oil business.

The rapidly developing relations between Russia and Egypt have been overshadowed by the more prominent relationships between Russia and Syria, as well as Russia and Iran. Nevertheless, the Russia-Egypt relationship deserves closer scrutiny because, unlike the country’s relations with the other two Middle Eastern powers, it concerns a country that until recently appeared to be  firmly in Western orbit. The abrupt shift of its geopolitical vector toward Eurasia therefore represents a far bigger change for the region than Russia’s successful support of the legitimate Syrian government, or the close relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran, both of which have been on the Western “enemies list” for decades. The reasons for this shift are twofold, and have to do with the way Western powers interact with Middle Eastern powers in the context of a systemic economic crisis, as well as with Russia’s demonstrated attractiveness as an ally.

These events have led to strengthening economic ties and military cooperation between both sides. Recent negotiations to build Egypt’s first nuclear plant, as well as those allowing Russian and Egypt joint use of each other’s air space and military bases are perhaps the most noticeable examples of this cooperation.

With recent rumors of Russia establishing a military base on the coast of the Red Sea, in Sudan, it is easy to conclude that Moscow has become an influential power in the region, with some countries now viewing Russia as an attractive alternative to the US. With its rejection of direct cooperation with Moscow, Washington has weakened its own position in the region.

In the coming year Egypt and other regional powers will move further towards a diversification of their foreign policy partners, with regional elites recognizing that the world has become more multipolar and threats and challenges have taken new forms and greater complexity.

Due to the rapidly developing situation in the region and the failed military coup attempt in July, Erdogan’s Turkey has become a reluctant ally of the Syrian-Russian-Iranian alliance in the Syrian war. Examples of this, such as the success of the Astana talks on Syria, the Russian-Turkish S-400 deal, and the Turkish-Iranian-Iraqi cooperation to counter the formation of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq by the Kurdistan Regional Government showcase this changed geo-political landscape.

During 2018, Turkey will remain a key player in the ongoing Syrian crisis, and an ally (if a reluctant one) of the Iranian-Russian-Syrian alliance in the region. Ankara has few options remaining aside from developing its coordination with this bloc.

The current US foreign policy towards northern Syria and Iraq is frankly incoherent, with Turkey (being a NATO member and the most powerful US partner in the Eastern Mediterranean), no longer considering the US as a reliable ally in its strategic planning.

The diplomatic crisis over Qatar, which began in June after Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt severed diplomatic relations and imposed sanctions upon the country is yet another development leading to the current balance of power in the region.

The crisis represents the most severe conflict among Gulf Arab states since the end of the Cold War. While these oil-rich, autocratic OPEC members have historically been at the most allies of convenience united by common fears (USSR, Saddam Hussein, Iran, etc.), their mutual mistrust has arguably never escalated to the point of demanding to what amounts to a complete surrender by one of its members.

However, the recent Saudi-led attempts to force Qatar to obey Saudi interests in the region have pushed Doha into the arms of Turkey, Iran, and Russia.

In 2018, the main goal of Qatar will be to normalize relations with the Saudi-led bloc while simultaneously avoiding being forced into making significant concessions to this bloc’s members. Qatari cooperation with Turkey, Iran, and Russia will be a useful card to play in this case. Qatari elites may also search for opportunities to influence internal relations within the Saudi elites.

Throughout 2017, US-Russian diplomatic relations continued to deteriorate with both sides using increasingly strident rhetoric and imposing various measures against each other. Initial hopes and expectations that the election of Donald Trump to the presidency would lead to a détente between the two powers were quickly dashed.

The Trump administration sacrificed its promises to normalize relations with Moscow, and to cooperate more fully in counter-terrorism actions in an attempt to gain a temporary softening of the pressures imposed by its own domestic political opponents. Unfortunately, this attempt to placate this internal  opposition gained nothing for Trump and his administration, and succeeded only in escalating the continued media and diplomatic standoff with Russia.

This internal opposition, which some may describe as the American Deep State, cares little about the true intentions of Trump and his supporters, and continues to keep playing the so-called ‘Russia Card’ as a means of further limiting the freedom of action of the new US president.

US society has become further polarized by racial, ethnic, and political divisions and opposing sides are unlikely to resolve this conflict through negotiation.

Racial and cultural divisions, always present in American society, were further inflamed by the liberal, Clinton camp’s attempts to create discord by playing the race card and demonizing the leaders of the Confederate States. At the same time, a large part of American society has become disappointed with Trump’s domestic and foreign policies, and has become disillusioned with his seeming inability to overcome the resistance of the Deep State.

In 2018 we can expect to see further deterioration in relations between the US and Russia, with both sides remaining involved in a number of crises around the world. The defeat of ISIS will add to the geo-political standoff in the Middle East, while in Ukraine both nations will support opposing sides, with little chances of finding common ground. Another critical factor that will make its appearance in the coming year is the Russian 2018 presidential election and the strong intention of US elites to intervene in Russian internal policy, with the risk of pushing a new Cold War past the brink.

The Latin American situation remains unstable and complicated, with Venezuela remaining as a center of uncertainty. In 2018, the Venezuelan president will struggle to retain power in the midst of continued turmoil in his country.

Unsettling processes are also evident in Russia, which faces ongoing economic problems caused by the increasing pressure of Western imposed sanctions. Russian power elites, allied with foreign powers, have benefited from this situation, and have strengthened their influence. Generally, the Russian state has shown a relatively low degree of economic effectiveness, only partly compensated by its foreign policy successes. These factors can and will complicate Russia’s internal political situation during the upcoming 2018 presidential election.

Ukraine still remains the key flash point in Europe.  The Kiev government, strongly influenced by various radical groups, is unlikely to abide by the terms of the Minsk agreements, as it views Minsk as surrender. Prominent Ukrainian political figures publically admit that these agreements were a trick, meant only to buy time in order to prepare for a military solution to this crisis in the eastern part of the country.

The leadership of the Donetsk and People’s Republics clearly understand this, and have further strengthened their ties to Russia in order to prevent a future attempt by the Kiev government to re-integrate this territory.

The regime in Kiev remains in a very complicated political and economic situation, having been all but abandoned by its US and EU handlers. In an attempt to retain control over their country, the current Ukrainian government will likely try to escalate the situation in Donbass in an attempt to gain more economic, political, and perhaps even military support from the West.

Meanwhile, Washington and Brussels are considering alternatives to President Poroshenko and his government, one of whom is Mikhail Saakashvili, the disgraced former president of Georgia. At this time, the odds of Saakashvili gaining power in 2018 remain high. If he were to gain power it is likely that he would attempt to improve Ukrainian internal and economic policies to strengthen the state and to obtain additional Western support.

It is doubtful that Saakashvili would be able to pursue this attempt to stabilize the country for any length of time, due to his erratic personality. After he realizes the military and economic potentials still possessed by the nation, he would likely attempt a military operation against the self-proclaimed republics of eastern Ukraine and the Russian military forces in Crimea, much as he did in Georgia in 2008. Such a move would likely lead to a large regional conflict in 2019.

In the European Union, we can observe the continued decline of the institutions of the European bureaucracy. Crises such as those we see in Catalonia, as well as the inability of the European leadership to successfully deal with the migration flow from North Africa and the Middle East are clear signs of this continuing decay. In an attempt to control these problems, the EU has intensified attempts to develop a joint security system and to lay the foundation for the creation of a European army. These efforts, however, could come too late.

If the EU is unable to find a way to consolidate its member states in 2018, we can expect to witness further fragmentation in the future.

In Central and Southeastern Asia, the key security problems continue to be militancy and the spread of terrorism. The US and its NATO partners remain unable to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan – some experts believe that the Taliban is slowly reaching a level of influence in the region which could lead to its recognition as a rightful party in any negotiations involving the US-led bloc. Currently, in some parts of the country, the Taliban even conducts operations against ISIS in order to prevent this group from spreading further.

The historical instability seen on the Pakistani-Indian and the Indian-Chinese borders have long been factors contributing to the general instability in this region. However, all sides have been successful, so far, in avoiding open military conflicts.

In the Philippines, an attempt by ISIS to establish its rule on the island of Mindanao was defeated by the government, who also purged militants who had seized control in the city of Marawi. The ISIS threat has been successfully countered in this nation, at least for the time being.

In 2018, terrorism will remain the key threat for Central and Southeastern Asia. Expect the Taliban to expand its influence further in Afghanistan, as ISIS continues its attempts to establish a larger foothold in the region. Pakistani-Indian and Chinese-Indian tensions will likely remain within the spheres of diplomatic and economic competition, barring any extraordinary and destabilizing events. An additional and notable threat to the stability of the region is the continued flight of ISIS members from Syria and Iraq into Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.

China has continued its expansion in the Asian Pacific by turning the South China Sea into an anti-access and area-denial zone controlled by the Chinese military through a network of artificial islands. In addition, Beijing has also expanded its maritime, airlift, and amphibious capabilities, and is actively working to shift the balance of power in the Pacific, a region which it describes as lying within its sphere of influence, through its naval power dominance in the area.

In diplomatic and economic terms, China continues to follow a finely balanced foreign policy, while providing a slight diplomatic support to Russia. This calibrated approach allows Beijing to contest US dominance in some regions, most obviously in the Middle East, while avoiding an open confrontation with its main economic partner.

In addition to the tensions in the South China Sea, North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs have been the center of attention within the international community. North Korea has recently conducted another nuclear test, and has tested an intercontinental ballistic missile, which it claims has the range to reach any target within the mainland United States. Despite the war-like rhetoric of the Trump administration and the imposition of additional sanctions, no progress has been made toward a peaceful resolution, with North Korea only accelerating its efforts to become a fully-fledged nuclear power. In the near future, this situation may pass a turning point, when the US is left with no military options in its conflict with North Korea, and negotiations remain the only solution. Should this situation come about, it will be a blow to both the image of the US as the self-proclaimed world’s policeman, and to the mechanisms of nuclear non-proliferation.

In 2018, China will continue to strengthen its military and diplomatic positions in the region, and become a regional superpower, and well on its way to global dominance as it competes with the US. North Korea will likely continue developing its nuclear and missile programs, and if the US does not invade, which is unlikely, become a fully-fledged nuclear state.

As 2017 comes to a close, it becomes evident that this year, has been a difficult one, for all of mankind. The world trembled over new threats of large-scale regional conflicts and over potential use of the weapons of mass destruction. The year brought considerable escalations between key global players, which created real risks of direct confrontation.

At the same time, 2017 can be coined as the year, when the threat known as ISIS, a proxy terrorist state, was eliminated. It was the year when global powers were compelled to compromise under the most stringent conditions and amid multiple conflicts. International players, capable of rigorous logic and in-depth analysis, will extricate valuable lessons from 2017, which can help make the world safer.

However, experience shows that emotions, poise and ill-conceived projects often triumph over common sense. The result, is a breakdown of pragmatic and balanced approaches of traditional diplomacy. Rudeness and incivility are becoming more common within the spheres of international organizations and in bilateral relations. Ambitions of small elite-based groups force countries and nations, to adopt models of behavior which clearly contradict their interests.

Unfortunately, all of this precludes a bright prognosis for 2018. The world will not become safer. Relationships between major global powers will remain strained at best. Likely, they will deteriorate. The number of small-scale regional conflicts will not decrease. The use of weapons of mass destruction  will remain a real threat within the framework of regional conflicts. Levels of terrorist activity may rise. One can only hope, that this combination of threats and provocations, will lead to a re-assessment of reality and force de-escalation in the subsequent years.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront, 

“One basis for life and another basis for science is an a-priori lie” – Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, 1845.

Marx’s Base-Superstructure Theory (BST) has long been a major object of controversy. It is deeply embedded in a monumental corpus of system-challenging analysis while secondary interpretations are deeply conflicted and rarely reliable. In general, partial takes and opposed propagandas militate against primary-source understanding. Within the last 35 years, a sea-shift of global culture to anti-foundationalist relativism has uprooted the very idea of a common base or ground. 

The Productive Base as the Ground of Society and History

Marx’s fundamental concept, the productive base of historical societies is more or less forgotten amidst ‘Marxism is dead’ pronouncements. Yet Marx’s principal idea remains intact – that the material conditions of historical societies – opposed to God or human concepts – determine human affairs. This principle is the first onto-axiological step of Marx’s base-superstructure theory (BST). It begins by repudiating the conceptual idealism of philosophy from Plato to Hegel which supposes that disembodied Ideas determine material reality, rather than the other way round.  In his German Ideology (completed in 1846 at 28 years), Marx mercilessly satirizes neo-Hegelians flattering themselves that the “ideas in their heads” determine the real world, quipping that they think drowning occurs because the victim is “possessed by the idea of gravity”.  This unpublished study is also where Marx introduces the foundational first principle of his base -superstructure theory (emphasis added as henceforth): “Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, religion, or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence”.  We see here the primacy for Marx of human reproduction evolving beyond Nature’s available provisions – a continuation of natural evolution into species self-construction increasingly “subjugating Nature to its sway”.  Yet what is not examined is exactly what these forces of production are producing once the industrial revolution of capitalism occurs. Marx originally says “means of life” but these are not defined beyond a primitive list beginning “food, habitation, clothing, and so on”.  Life necessities that productive forces must produce have no criterion. We return to this unexamined first principle of Marx’s base-superstructure theory in depth ahead.

Marx’s work begins with the purpose “to stand philosophy on its feet again” by grounding critical thought where none had before, in “society’s material mode of production”. His then work takes on the revolutionary political edge for which he is most famous – the iconic Manifesto of the Communist Party written with Frederick Engels in 1848. Here Marx’s philosophy of the material base of society and history moves to a sweeping 10-Point social program, much of it instituted within the next century – extension of existing industrial development to state ownership, graduated income tax, free education for all children by public schools, and a national bank.  Marx’s theory has been in this way largely proven in practice against the standard assumption to the contrary. Yet it is not until his 1859 Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (CPE) that Marx sets out an incisively principled account of his base-superstructure theory as “the guiding thread of my studies”. Since this canonical statement carried through in Das Kapital is widely misunderstood as a mechanistic determinism in which all elements of society are uniquely determined by the ruling economic system, it requires our close inspection. “In the social production which men carry on”, Marx begins his paradigm statement of the BST, “they enter into definite relations that are indispensible and independent of their will”.

This is thought to be a statement of hard determinism against free will. But it is, more modestly, a statement of unacknowledged facts in the ‘free society’ capitalism is assumed to be. Wage or salary work must be done by the great majority to stay alive “independent of their will”. Their “definite relations” are materially determined by the employer who must also follow market demand at the lowest costs with ‘no choice in the matter’. Behind this “wage slavery”, Marx emphasises in Capital lies the “great expropriation of the people from the soil, from the means of subsistence, and from the means of labour- – [by] violent  and painful methods”. They must sell their labour into oppressive servitude, or they do not survive. In the beginning, Marx explains in his Capital account, this servitude was enforced by mass hangings, floggings, pillories, and deprivation of children. Today social humiliation, loss of face and destitution as well as starvation again re-enforces this system in capitalist globalization and new ‘freedoms for investors’.

Marx’s ‘economic determinism’ is not, as often charged, a false metaphysics or reductionist mechanism,.  His revolutionary objective of the “self-government of the direct producers” is the opposite. Yet Marx’s BST militantly rejects any kind of voluntarism lor ‘utopian socialism’. The mode of production that produces a society’s means of life, he argues at the most general level, must be developed to a stage where the direct producers are organised in a collective form to historically replace the ruling capitalist system.  This is why he asserts in his definitive CPE “guiding thread of my studies” that production relations must “correspond to a definite stage of development of men’s material powers”. This is “the productive base” that prior philosophers overlooked or ignored on which slave-owning, feudal or capitalist social systems are raised and which ruling cultures assume as “everlasting” or “eternal”. Applied to our present condition, the argument remains forceful. Workers and employers alike are forced to compete to the lowest denominator of conditions, however life destructively in process and consequencee. This is why Marx generically summarizes in the next sentence of this central statement of the BST that the “the totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society [emphases added] – the real foundation [or base] on which the legal and political superstructure arises”.

Marx is opposed to this economic determinism, but organises the facts as they are against ‘ideological illusions’. His base-superstructure theory is the result. A socially self-directing mode of production is his ultimate objective. Most commentators ignore this complex argument and charge that Marx is denying the autonomy of individual consciousness, free choice, and democratic processes. Yet Marx’s master verb for superstructure determination by the economic base here is entsprechen- to correspond to or comply with. This underlying principle applies tas well to the state and legal institutions of a society. They must comply with the  ruling ownership structure society’s forces of production, or be selected out as materially impossible, unviable, or inefficient. Marx’s BST is in this way a theory in unrecognised parallel with Darwin’s Origin of the Species, a work which Marx considered the scientific correlative in evolutionary biology of his account of the social struggle for survival in historical evolution , as he says in Capital seven years later). In both cases, determining factors of life adaptation do not determine specific outcomes in Marx’s or Darwin’s theory, but set the range of material possibility within which life-organizations must develop or die. One reason for the 150-year-old misunderstandings of Marx’s base-superstructure theory is that he does not clearly define this unifying principle or others in his towering and original investigation.

Marx requested Darwin to write a prefatory note for the publication of Capital, but Darwin declined.  The anecdote is well known, but not that Darwin’s refusal occurs in neat accordance with Marx’s lead principle of economic determinism. In its terms, Darwin’s choice space is not denied, but affirmed by Marx’s invitation.  Darwin chose not to accept in line with the strong social selective pressures against endorsing a work laying bare the capitalist class establishment within which Darwin moved and depended for his research. It is an implicit basic principle of Marx’s BST determinism that people normally retreat into the preconceptions of the ruling order and its “forms of social consciousness” in adaptation to their social environment. Here as well, Marx does not define these suggestive ‘forms of social consciousness’ (gesellschaftlichen Bewußtseiformen).He lets the concepts manage on their own in their contexts without criteria.  Yet to attribute mechanical determinism or hard behaviorism with no inner world to Marx BST does not follow, as he makes clear in his Preface to Capital when he writes: “My standpoint”, he says, “can less than other make the individual responsible for relations for whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them”.  That is, individuals are not responsible for the social system of relations which they must function within (an idea that goes back to graduating year of secondary school). Yet Marx insists, as most philosophy does not, that subjectivism is incapable of understanding the real world or changing it. This is why he ridicules Kant’s moral will independent of consequences, Max Stirner’s ‘Omnipotent Ego’, neo-Hegelianism, and all commentary which revolves within a materially impotent “consciousness in itself”. His Theses on Feuerbach is the iconic expression of Marx’s unprecedentedly activist ontology and epistemology.  He says in these notes, Thesis II : “The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a merely scholastic question”.

Marx would be hard on most postmodernism, analytic theory, and academia in general today. Yet his base-superstructure theory is most easily de-mystified and undistorted when reading attends to its material model – a building foundation and a superstructure raised upon it. No superstructure can stand without a foundation, and this could be called an “inexorable law”. But this does not mean the superstructure conforms to the base by ruling out all alternatives within its range of permission.  Nor, conversely, does it mean that the base will change in virtue of those alternatives.  Superstructural phenomena must, in Marx’s BST, comply with the underlying mode of production, or face strong selective pressures against to typical extinction. This is why Marx argues the laws, policies and state in a society must correspond to survive, and why he mocks those who think a legal proclamation will change social realityif there are not the material conditions to enable it to occur. In logical terms, Marx’s straightforward meaning may be summarized without militant mood : all legal, state and ideological phenomena must be consistent with the society’s material reproduction at the established level of society’s productive provision of means of existence, or they will not arise in the first place and normally perish if they do.

Social Being Determines Consciousness

Marx continues his BST ‘guiding thread’ to write that “definite forms of social consciousness correspond to a society’s mode of production”. This has led to many competing interpretations, dogmas and denunciations. Yet to test it, one may ask: Where is there not correspondence in global capitalism between ‘ruling forms of social consciousness’ and ‘the economic structure’?  More specifically, do we find in official society and mainstream media that the dominant meanings of “freedom”, “responsibility”, “productivity”, “and “justice” are do not comply with  the capitalist system? An easy refutation would be any published conception of these anchoring normative concepts which opposes, say, the rightness of private profit. Or rejects the assumption that citizens must sell their services to employers as their duty to society? As Marx’s many examples show, forms of social consciousness regulate like a syntax beneath awareness of them.

Marx continues his explanation with perhaps the most controversial sentence of his work. “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness”.  For this, Marx is held to be declaring a materialist reductionism, or the epiphenomenal nature of human thought, or denial of moral choice, or undialectical simplification, or a soulless doctrine. It is true that Marx repudiates  the opposite of any theory which excludes material foundations from its understanding. Thus received philosophers and press commentary, for example, are ridiculed by Marx and more specifically, religio-moral certitudes reflecting capitalist rule. Yet since all words and languages are social constructions , Marx’s  claim is obviously true in a now accepted way. The most studied philosophers of the twentieth century, Martin Heidegger and Ludwig Wittgenstein, declare language as the “home of Being” and “the limit of thought” respectively, and contemporary etymology presupposes language’s social and historical nature. Marx’s most controversial claim that “social being determines consciousness” is hardly off-base except that Marx’s BST argues that the social is primarily determined by the economic structure that must and will be overthrown. In BST terms, this line of thought is rejected as socially unacceptable. This is how, as Marx provocatively describes it in many different contexts, a realm of illusory cover stories and concepts which blinker out the capitalist system’s oppressions and exploitations while purporting the highest moral motives of its lead agents and promoters. Consider Marx’s most bitingly witty asides in this light: “The Church of England will more readily pardon an attack on its Thirty-Nine Articles than 1/39^th of its income” . This is the same Marx that in The Holy Family talks of religion as the “spirit of spiritless conditions, the heart of a heartless world” ”  –  thus affirming the spirit and the heart that he is said to deny, but castigating the capitalist church investments, rents and hypocrisies grinding the unseen poor. Marx’s insulting but revealing BST analysis also lays bare the institutionalised veils of doctrine masking the cupidity of the Conservative Party and its Lords:  “The high Tory hymns the beauties of the British Constitution, the Crown and the Law until the day of danger snatches from him the confession that he is interested only in – Ground Rent.”

Marx’s base-superstructure method of laying bare private capital gain underneath the moral pomposity and robes of religion, the constitution, and the law still applies to, for example, US politicians’ invocation of “God’s blessing” and “our sacred Constitution”.  Yet establishment ideology is also structured, Marx implies, to vilify and justify elimination of any opposition to capitalist rule – as in anti-communism hated and persecuted as heresy during and since Marx’s work.

Freedom in Marx’s Base Superstructure Theory

Long the primary reason for repudiating Marx’s base-superstructure theory has been its alleged denial of individual freedom. Yet his work from the beginning is devoted to freedom as of ultimate value, preferring Epicurus to Democritus in his doctoral thesis solely because the theory of Epicurus allowed freedom into an arbitrary “swerve” of atoms against the “far more scientific” Democritus who is the first mechanist in history.  The mechanism Marx continues to oppose ever after is the mechanism of capitalism itself: which he argues, in a 40-year through-line of texts, systematically abolishes individuals’ and societies’ self-determination.

While ‘conservative’, ‘liberal democratic’, ‘libertarian’ and ‘neo-liberal’ trends dominant in the contemporary era speak of ‘democratic capitalism’. Marx’s BST contends that visibly competing parties, governments, theories of society, and moralities conform to the ruling economic structure and are disposed to eliminate whatever challenges it. Marx often uses the concept of a “reflex” mechanism here.  In his focus on English capitalism as the central example of base-superstructure understanding, his scope is unprecedentedly global before its time – including not only Britain with its world empire and former colony, the United States, taken into empirical account, but West European countries behind in capitalist development, as well as adversary Russia and vast colony India and East Asia Company, not to mention his anthropological investigations into pre-historical social formations. Threading throughout his BST analysis, he discusses the determination of societies within the limits of their natural resources and mode of production.  After many years of this cross-cultural study, Marx concludes that all societies will be compelled to adapt to the “pitiless laws” of the capitalist system because of its far superior “productive force development”. 150 years of evidence since Marx’s scientific claim generally confirms it despite wide repudiation for its determinism.   Marx’s acceptance of these laws, which are not laws of nature as he supposes(and economic science still does) is the deepest unfreedom of his doctrine.

Technological determinism is the ultimate regulator of Marx’s base-superstructure theory.  Few revolutionaries since seem to understand that this theoretical position  rules out the success of state seizure for socialist revolution without a developed productive base – as history since Marx has significantly borne out as well as refuting his prediction of proletarian revolution in advanced capitalist societies. Yet Marx also predicts social transformation to a “many-sided” working class “ready and able to meet any change of production;” as well as technological replacement of labour to allow “free time “” from the “realm of necessity”. These are unifying themes from Marx’s early EPM to Volume III of Capital (organised and published posthumously).  In spite of his main failed prediction, Marx is rather prescient in anticipating the material possibilities of freedom by technological and worker development, and how they are “fettered” by the capitalist economic structure within which all lower-cost benefits of technological advances (for example, labour-saving machinery) go to capitalists as the working day increases.

Marx’s evolving productive base is also a form of social biology, but in the opposite mode of recent sociobiology’s reduction to gene-set animal repertoires. It is grounded not in genes but in humanity’s distinguishing feature as a natural species and the origin of human freedom: “the capacity to raise a project in the head before it is constructed in reality”. (Capital, “On the Labour Process”). This distinguishing ground of historical materialism is brought into revealing alliance with Darwin’s classical Origin of the Species when Marx connects “nature’s technology” to human society’s “organs of technology” as the ultimate basis of historical development: “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments as of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organization, deserve equal attention?” (Capital, “The Development of Machinery”). In this still under-theorized evolutionary advance Marx identifies: (1) the forces of selection are increasingly social, not natural; (2) organic instruments are evolved by creative cooperative production, not instinctual repertoires; and (3) Marx’s base-superstructure theory is the framework within which this historical as opposed to natural evolution is understood.  Human freedom is enabled by and set within this distinctively human framework of understanding. This Marxian framework fits well to today’s world of electronically organised production and communication systems. It is in such ways that development of society’s ‘technology organs’ for Marx extends the limits of human free will by selecting for the most powerful productive forces to enable growing control of material necessity and the natural world.  Yet Marx’s Capital is unaware, as lead philosophers and economists remain today, of the cumulatively increasing violation of life needs and necessity by exponentially multiplying technological powers. Ever expanding productive forces serving human wants without limiting criterion of life necessity is not recognised by Marx’s base-superstructure theory as an issue.

What Base-Superstructure Analysis Is and Is Not

Marx’s BST argument is ahead of his time in recognising the lead role of technological sciences in society’s reproduction, and claims individual action and social order must correspond to it or not survive – the essence of base-superstructure theory. Yet Marx often overreaches without criteria or mediating steps of argument – as in his fundamentalist BST aphorism in The Poverty of Philosophy: “The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord, the steam engine gives you society with the capitalist”.  These are striking claims of correspondence between the basic variables of the BST, productive force development and the economic anatomy of society, which, Marx argues, determine the state, legal and ideological superstructures. Yet aphorisms can mislead in their acute simplicity, and so the eminent Marxologist G.A. Cohen deploys this arresting slogan into a functional model of the BST in his much referenced Marx’s Theory of History-A Defence (1978). Yet Marx’s BST is not one-to-one functional here or elsewhere, but as contexts usually indicate, the determining factor sets a delimited range of possibility within which the determined phenomena fall. For example, in capitalism there are many ideological phenomena which conflict with each other, and so can hardly be described as all functional for the economic structure determining them when they are mutually incompatible with each other. Many ideas and ideologies compete for belief and market share in capitalism, but the only feature in common among them is that they all conform to it with no required function. The relationship within the material mode of production between productive forces and relations has a similar logic of explanation. The relations of production comprising the economic structure have different possibilities of consistency with the stage of productive development for which they are the integument. Marx loathed capitalism because of its documented mass oppressions  which are beyond necessity in his searing Capital account of its operations. The “Primitive Accumulation” he reports here shows how inhuman the origins of capitalist wealth have been. They cannot be so described if there is no choice space of their agents to a better alternative. Marx is clear that capitalist relations of production were imposed far necessity, “accomplished with merciless Vandalism and under the stimulus of passions the most infamous, the most sordid, the pettiest, the most meanly odious”.

Consistent with these origins of capitalism, the facts have been concealed then and since without any disconfirmation of them. Far less heinous alternatives in developing modern production forces have since occurred in more rapid and efficient transitions from a hand-mill to a machine-run economy.  In this sense, the functionalist account of capitalism succeeding feudalism is an unwitting white-wash. Certainly the full story of the malignantly violent and mendacious torture, murder and robbery of the poor and defenceless is told in painfully documented historical detail not only by Marx, but by the statesman William Cobbett writing before Marx in his A History of the Protestant Reformation in England, Ireland and Wales (1824-27). Against strip-down to known formula, Marx’s base-superstructure theory is in substance inspired by the passion to stop the shockingly vile impositions of capitalist rule, working indefatigably for life-protective state regulation by the Factory Acts and the Ten-Hour Working Day. Marx also recognised the wide range of material possibility beyond functional necessity in various forms of co-operative production in his day – for example, Proudhon’s co-operative banking system in France and Owenite co-operatives providing life security to workers. He scathingly dismissed them, but only in theory-bound certitude of the industrial proletariat’s revolution alone could work in the long run (although in fact Proudhon’s co-operative bank still flourishes in France and co-operative factories with life security for workers have emerged since across continents).

On the other hand, Marx recognises what dogmatic anti-capitalist advocates of revolution do not.  In his Preface to Capital the peaceful possibility of instituted public regulations within even imperial capitalist relations of production is incisively advocated if there are devoted public servants “as competent, as free from partisanship and respect of persons as are the English factory inspectors, her medical reporters on public health, her commissioners of inquiry into the exploitation of women and children, into housing and food” (emphases again added unless indicated Marx’s). As these long-evolving public life protections since Marx are defunded today in totalizing commodification and privatization for profit, we can better see the critical moral choice-space of material possibility for Marx to make transformative life-and-death differences within capitalist society by documented truth and civil commons institutions.

“Dialectical materialism” is also a famed attribution to Marx, although he never used Engels’ term. More deeply, while Marx sought a rigorously scientific theory,  dialectics is not disconfirmable by evidence. Certainly Marx emphasises what dominant positivist methods expel:  ever-changing phenomena and interrelationships, driven by conflicting tendencies viewed in their totality, and issuing in qualitative transformations.  Further, Marx is early on fascinated with the “strange music” of dialectics, and he acknowledges “coquetting” with dialectical expressions – as in “the negation of negation” at the end of Capital. But the brilliant autodidacts Engels and Lenin mistake an invaluable epistemological theory for a naturalist ontological metaphysics. Most relevantly telling here is that Marx’s base-superstructure theory is explicitly defined by permanent historical primacy of one factor, the productive base, while dialectics in principle excludes any such ultimate material base or primacy.

Marx’s base-superstructure theory is also not grounded in class antagonism as such in which solely anti-capitalist standpoints and political-economic class mechanics  are favorite forms. In these and other cases of de-basing Marx, the stage of productive development is dropped from foundational status, although it is for Marx the ultimate driver of historical materialism and workers’ struggle towards a higher social order. Revealingly, the concept of class does not occur in Marx’s own “guiding thread to my studies”:  because it is political and so superstructural in his BST explanatory framework. Class antagonism as an effective factor of social change is certainly crucial in Marx’s BST, but confined to periods of contradiction between productive force “organs” and economic-rule “anatomy”.  Thus Marx directly says in his Preface to Capital “It is not a question of the higher or lower degree of development of class antagonism that results from the laws of capitalist production.  It is a question of these laws or tendencies themselves working with iron necessity towards inevitable crises [Krisen]”. Always for Marx’s BST the anticipated workers’ revolution is by the agency of direct producers in common moving the counter-productive rich and their “ideological prize-fighters” out of office by the force of higher productive capacity of the “associated producers”.

Today’s most famous version of Capital is also worthy of mention here because it   completes the erasure of Marx’s base-superstructure theory, But in this case it is it is in the form of an equally thick volume as Capital with the same title (and bold update subtitle of the twenty-first century). Little noticed in the immense attention to it in Western culture, Thomas Picketty’s now world-renowned CAPITAL (2012) has no productive development base and no economic determiner. All attention is on growing inequality of income distribution, with rising concern for inequality of income.  Little known, Marx himself explained the equality craze in his first chapter of Capital as a capitalist concept derived from abstract labour and commodity payment which has “acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice . . . in which, consequently, the dominant relation between man and man, is that of owners of commodities.”  Yet Picketty’s research does not fit the mould of “bad conscience and evil intent of apologetic in place of genuine scientific research” which Marx saw in the Political Economy of his day. Picketty demonstrates growing income inequality built into the system which post-Marx ‘Economics’ erases. Yet his Capital strips out every substantive category of the original while naming itself after it. No productive forces and relations or equivalent, no economic anatomy or structure, no class rule and subjugation of direct producers are to be found. ‘CAPITAL in the twenty-first century’ instead reports a multitude of marginal income differentials over time – a rising money-metered inequality which statistically confirms capital’s ever more dominant share of wealth. In this exposure, Picketty’s work is a valuable factual refutation of a long official claim of ‘growing equality of opportunity in capitalist democracies’, and a demonstration of what Marx predicted but was long ridiculed for doing so – the law-like trend of capitalist society to ever more wealth to the few and ever less relative wealth to society’s direct producers.

Max Weber’s canonical The Protestant Ethic and the Rise of Capitalism (1926 in English) is still more well-known (at least to scholars), and widely thought to have refuted Marx’s economic determinism. Yet Weber’s paradigm example of Benjamin Franklin rather confirms Marx’s BST and its core General Law of Capital Accumulation, M-C-M^1. .  In fact the young Franklin expresses this self-maximizing value-calculus in translucent affirmation of Marx’s formula and exponential money returns for self (emphases added):  “Remember time is money – – Remember, that money is of the prolific, generating nature. Money can beget money, and its offspring can beget more – – He that murders a crown [by using it], destroys all that it might have produced, even scores of pounds” (pp. 48-9, emphases added). From the start of the private money-capital sequence, whatever does not conform to it is ruled out, including  life itself.  Weber sees this fanaticism in passing, and there can be little doubt that the money worship long ruling the world is here expressed in pure form. Yet Weber further equates this early testament of greed-is-good to Protestantism, although Franklin was like Adam Smith a Deist not strictly a Protestant. And to be fair to Franklin, this credo of avarice should be distinguished from his later refusal to patent his iconic Franklin Stove to keep it in the great civil commons of science he himself benefitted from. As for Franklin’s testament to money-capital growth before life, it had already been instituted generations before by  private joint-corporate-stock investor ships like the venerated ‘Mayflower’ seeking maximum profit in ‘America’ where corporate-charter rights were as quickly as possible turned into multiplying money fortunes for the overseas invaders behind eco-genocide of the first peoples. In contrast to Weber, Marx’s BST argues that Protestant religion is a cover story for the opposite of Weber’s hypothesis. It is not worship of a protestant God that is  the origin of capitalism, but rather the capitalist system worships itself as God.

Closer to home, the Marx-descended movement of ‘Critical Theory’ is true to Marx’s giant intellect, but focuses on erudite ideological critique of capitalist culture. Marx’s productive base more or less disappears into a new school of thought. The next generation of Critical theory led by Jürgen Habermas abandons class analysis altogether and – in line with capitalist ideology – defines the market system as a technical given and relocates action to what Marx called the ‘legal superstructure’. Whereas the elder critical theorist Herbert Marcuse argues from a life base of Freudian Eros and capitalist-system suppression of life by the dead singularity of corporate-state positivism, Habermas strips the “life-world” itself (Lebenswelt) down to background assumptions of social belief which have no life coordinate to them. Base-superstructure theory is effectively erased to confirm it.

Continuing clarification and confirmation of Marx’s BST in subsequent schools of thought, the more globalized “postmodern” movement adopts Marx’s contesting posture, subaltern politics, and abuse of metaphysics, but obliterates all traces of Marx’s productive base and universal message (as, for example, “totalitarian” or “terrorist”), garnering enormous publicity for its groundless alternative.  Again we can see that Marx’s BST core of economic determinism is proved to work in many ways so as to erase its explanatory framework itself. When John-Paul Sartre, world famous for his existentialist master works in philosophy, biography and drama, moves from his radically individualist choice space explorations to deepen Marx’s theory by situating individual consciousness and action within a comprehensive social framework of social determinations of the existential predicament  of “the monstrous construction with no author”, as in his Search for a Method, his work effectively disappears from the academy with only his pre-war Being and Nothingness spoken of. In short, Sartre is written out of philosophy once he adopts base-superstructure theory to existentialize it.

Because Marx’s base-superstructure theory continues to apply to post-Marx capitalist ‘globalization’, Stalinist mechanism becomes its inverting ideological caricature and ‘Marxian’ theory itself delinks from the productive baseBST continues to be confirmed in principle as it is dismissed.

Economic Determinism, Darwinian Selection and Social Revolution

Most commentaries on Marx miss the permutations and combinations of base-superstructure theory. Few comprehend the underlying modus tollens logic that ruling systems are sustained by a dominant normality to eliminate whatever opposes them. In BST terms, legal, political and ideological forms conform to society’s material mode of production, or they do not survive – a logic of explanation parallel to the survival/extinction laws of evolutionary biology. Marx’s implicit principle of economic determination by selection out of what does fit the ruling property order can be understood in this sense as evolutionary biology at the historical level, As Marx says in his Preface to Capital, “the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history”.  In fact, history is not a natural process insofar as its laws are made, not found in nature. Indeed Marx’s own theory implicitly seeks and predicts the social supersession of natural process and its ultimate law of dominance by physical force.  Yet both evolutionary and historical materialist theories recognise selection and extinction of life forms that adapt or not, survive, flourish or die, in the struggle for continued life. Marx, however, is the first to argue for the revolutionary necessity of surpassing the brutality of natural evolution by the unity of the industrial working class against the ruling class system of “hitherto existing society” which always “pumps out surplus labour from the direct producers” to enrich the masters, lords or capitalists” (Capital III, “Genesis of Capitalist Ground-Rent”). Marx’s ultimate goal is liberation from the ruling capitalist class as the last with productive development the material base of doing so.

For Marx’s BST, however, species liberation only becomes historically possible with industrial mass production to organise it. Human survival and extinction, class domination and overthrow are based on technological development which eventually outgrows the old form of control and appropriation of society’s means of production to bring about a higher stage of society led by a new ruling class, the direct producers themselves – the core original idea of the base-superstructure theory.  “Capitalism”, he famously writes, “begets its own negation with the inexorability which governs the metamorphoses of nature”. Darwin’s field of study excludes this possibility a-priori, and so fits far better to capitalism.  Neo-Darwinians, among others, think replacing natural scarcity and the social struggle for a higher form of life are unthinkably against human nature. They argue that only individual genetic modifications and greater numbers of offspring can explain any species’ struggle for survival: which BST explains, in turn, as capitalist ideology positing Nature as the justification of the dominance of the few and their non-productive servant classes.

Marx so repeatedly scorns the ‘human nature’ form of justification of capitalism that many wrongly conclude that Marx has no concept of human nature at all: there is only human plasticity and operant conditioning. In fact, Marx oppositely emphasizes humanity’s ultimate nature as creative, the capacity “to raise a project in the head (der Copf) before erecting it in reality” (typically translated as “imagination”). This is the distinctive human nature which lies behind the historically rising progression of materialist powers of production that Marx grounds in as the determining base of any society or epoch. This productive ground rather than Euro-racism, as some think , drives Marx’s  theory.

Marx’s revolutionary theory is the most controversial element of base-superstructure model, but can be deconstructed into an underlying regulating sequence across history: 1. a social revolution in a society’s law, politics and ideology is propelled by 2. ever more open class struggle to 3. fit to a higher stage of development of the productive base of society 4. than the prior ruling-class economic structure can manage  5. without forfeit of society’s stage of material production.  

In the rare periods of successful social revolution, Marx offers an original causal explanation: Only when productive force development goes beyond the fetters of the established ruling-class relations of production can a social revolution occur.  Marx’s guiding framework is concisely stated by his ‘guiding thread’ as follows (with application to contemporary society in square brackets: “At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production [think of the Internet] come into conflict with the existing relations of production – or – what is but a legal expression for them – with the property relations within which they had been at work before [private -profit copyright, patent and control over published meanings]. From forms of development of productive forces, these relations [of corporate ownership profit] turn into their chains. Then occurs a period of social revolution [the creators of knowledge deciding on commons publication and open access in cumulative transition from the for-profit ‘information economy’ to the ‘knowledge commons’].

The knowledge revolution has already largely occurred with internet commons capacities increasingly surpassing private corporations in expertise and originality.  In BST terms, it has “burst the fetters” of corporate copyright, patent and censorship. The corporate media are ever less able to compete in agile, immediate, video-record reporting of events and depth analysis of them not subjugated to capitalist-media selection against non-conforming facts and understandings. On the other hand, BST analysis can also recognise that the media of public record are still profit-run capitalist commodities, surveillance and interference in communications are widespread, the internet is itself permeated by mindless commercials and trivializing social media chatter, and undercover agents harass lead exposers of the appropriating classes and their war criminal states. Both sides of this revolutionary-versus-capitalist struggle can be laid bare by advanced BST method. There is systematic selection against whatever does not conform to the established order, but new technology and knowledge creators outgrow the fetters.  This contemporary application of Marx’s BST is returned to ahead in contrasting ‘knowledge creators and workers’ today to ‘the physical input class’ of the proletariat in The Productive Agency of Social Transformation 150 Years after Capital.

At the macro level of interface with evolutionary biology, Marx’s BST suggests new technologies as evolutionary organs of human society outgrowing the economic anatomy in transformation of the social body into new form.  To the question of whether a revolutionary process is by cumulative transition or by radical disjuncture, Marx’s implicit answer is that both processes are involved. Society is an “organism always changing” while the “birth-pangs of revolution” presuppose a long process in “the natural laws of its movement” which “can neither clear by bold leaps, nor remove by legal enactments the obstacles involved – – but can shorten the and lessen the birth-pangs”. The underlying common ground of both disjunctive and cumulative-transition understandings of social transformation is that any uprising organisation of material forces must be more efficient and productive than the established system’s mode of production to enable historical success. This is why Marx asserts in his definitive BST explanation: “No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed, and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions have matured in the womb of the old society.”

While Marx’s theory of revolution is disconfirmed in the necessity of proletarian revolution in industrialized societies, it is plausibly confirmed by the capitalist revolution against the feudal system, the paradigm case of his base-superstructure theory. The bourgeoisie overthrows the king-lord control of the social order in compliance with the new capitalist system of dispossessed  labour, mass production and private profit in place of feudal landlords fees and ties of loyalty and labour-military service. In all cases feudal or capitalist, one historical ‘law’ of BST holds: Increasing contradiction between productive forces (determiner) and ruling-class control of them (determined) within the productive base itself, restructures the legal, political and ideological establishments into correspondence with the demands of the higher productive stage advancing beneath these superstructural phenomena “in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out”.

Considered in this light, the question arises: does the BST apply to post-Marx attempts at revolutionary socialism in China, Russia, Indonesia, Vietnam and much of Latin America? It does not apply, unless we focus on the productive force development of these societies after their state revolutions against the tyrannical and productively stunted regimes they overthrow: most clearly in their advancing the educated well-being of the working class and rapid technological development. It is a negative confirmation of Marx’s theory that these revolutions are warred upon continuously by lead capitalist states to undermine their rising productive development, in particular of workers’ collective health, education, welfare and security. These converse confirmations of Marx’s BST principle of social revolution, although nowhere stated, fit with its implicit general law of history that  no society ever forfeits its stage of development of productive forces if it is to survive. The converse is: despoil any society’s rising stage of development and the society will be unable to survive.

This has been inner logic of the last century of history, and applies well to elimination of socialist ideas within the US and allied industrial societies since Marx. Majority-world societies seeking social liberation from inhuman exploitation and oppression invariably suffer multi-levelled assault by dominant capitalist forces of media, finance and sponsored armed attack – frequently more mass-murderous than the Prussia-France immolation of the radically democratic Paris Commune which Marx rivetingly analyses in his Civil War in France 1871. Although Prussia and France were at war, their leaders combined together to bloodily annihilate the Paris Commune as Marx documents, showing how even in wars against each another , modern states are “the executive committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” (as the Communist Manifesto incisively expresses this BST norm). Class war of the capitalist class against the working class is nowhere better proved. .The dots are rarely connected , but the BST converse law of  counter-revolution can be usefully applied to France- US invasions of ‘communist’ Vietnam , US-led Chile social destruction the same year as the US was defeated in Vietnam, continuous war-criminal occupation  of Palestine destroying even their age-old productive olive groves, to the Iraq eco-genocide from 1991 on followed by Syria and Libya, the US-led death squads and financial wars on social reform governments and movements for the poor through most of Latin America over 50 years to today, and so on in demonstration of Marx’s reasons for reviling this epochal system.  Of deep theoretical note, all these cases confirm the converse law of counter-revolution creatively deducible from base-superstructure principles.

Self-Maximizing Growth and Marx’s Aporia of Productive Object 

Marx’s base-superstructure theory implicitly recognises that the ultimate value base and driver of capitalism is the “fully developed shape [of] the money form” in terms of which all decisions of what commodities to produce and how they are produced are made solely to maximize revenue returns to private capital owners in cycles of increasing accumulation: in general formula Money-Commodity-More Money or M-C-M¹ . As Marx also argues, capitalist investors are “personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class relations and class interests”, and so are a-priori indifferent to what life is degraded, exploited and destroyed in multiplying private money profits with no cumulative limit (Marx’s Preface, Chapter I,  and Chapter  XXV of Capital).

This is the meta program of Marx’s BST to which productive forces are subjugated until their capitalist fetters are outgrown by a higher stage of productive-technological development. Until this predicted “period of social revolution”, every moment of production is competitively forced into lock-step sequences of the meta program.   While Marx’s BST is confirmed by capitalist history up to “social revolution”, a deep-structural issue emerges. How can Marx or his followers believe that the results of this totalizing system of life oppression, immiserization and life capital rundown must inevitably result in a completely opposite outcome of “social revolution”, “dictatorship of the proletariat”, and “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”?  How can life-coherent thinking go from an ever more life-despoiling capitalist system with its life-blind program built into its globally multiplying growth to a certain revolt of its system slaves against everything its history has constructed to inevitably triumphant social revolution to final rule of the direct producers to successful ordering of the forces of production to citizens’ life needs and capacities?

There is no clear criterion of any step of this inspiring vision. For a long time, the revolutionary theory was hitched to a Hegelian master-slave dialectic ending in complete reversal, or made a mechanistic science of revolution in which iron political rule decided how all must be determined, or – in a word – to some version or other in which life value itself and its measure are assumed away as an issue (as in all received economic science), and nowhere spelled out to govern decisions over forces of production and their growth (as in Marx’s theory). The BST does not offer a solution to this problem, nor ‘scientific socialism’. Economic science today even less has an answer to the basic question: what is the criterion of a life need that production is for?

Marx focuses rather on the socialist logic he sees built into the competing large scales of capitalist production  – “an ever-expanding scale, the co-operative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour in instruments of labour only usable in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined socialised labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and with all this the international nature of the capitalistic regime” (Chapter XXXII Capital). Marx’s  analysis is breathtaking in scope, but what remains absent is the underlying life base and laws of ever more productive-force development. That this development must be consistent with the universal needs and capacities of humanity, its natural biosphere and fellow creatures does not enter Marx’s (or other) theory is as an issue. The ultimate requirement of human species evolution in any form is, as elsewhere, presupposed away in confidence of productive and technological development as an ultimate base of society’s future, a secular Providence.

In Capital, Marx restricts the parameters to be considered to the technology used and the collective wage labour as historical agency that does it. “The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails”, he writes in his first sentence of Capital presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities”. The commodities of which all wealth consists in capitalist society, Marx observes, are always produced in accordance with the master organising principle of their production and profit, M-C-M¹ . They are the values of the system in whatever form they take, and are defined in the same first page of Capital as material use-values for wants – – – whether they spring from the stomach or fancy makes no difference”. Marx underlines this criterion of commodities by his approving footnote citing Nicholas Barbou’s radically subjectivist principle: “want is the appetite of the mind and as natural as hunger to the body”.  It is these commodities which are the productive force object for Marx, the materializations of all wealth of capitalist society, and constitute all the technology and productive forces making them to be inherited by socialism.  

It does not occur to Marx as a profound problem that these very technologies and productive forces are driven solely by the compulsion to sell anything to moneyed desires for the lowest inputs costs and highest profits over generations – even if their processes and products are in principle indifferent o all depredatory effects on organic and ecological life systems.  That this system is held to be the material ground of productive forces by which revolution against capitalism by is necessitated and socialism/communism inevitably follows is Marx’s core theory of social normality and change. What is not evidently noticed by anyone – because it is also still assumed elsewhere – is that Marx’s Capital definitions have opened the floodgates for life-destructive forces and commodities to presumptively count as “productive forces”, “goods”, and “use-values” in ever more immensity of “commodities”, “growth” and “development” as necessary, productive and good in the long term.

With no life standard or criterion to distinguish life-destructive from life-enabling productive forces and products, how can the cumulative looting and polluting of humanity’s and other species’ life support systems by capitalism which Marx first recognises as systematic, be possibly prevented over generational time? How can ever more life-blind technologies, commodities and consumptions driven by insatiable profit and commodity demand at the same time be regulated, steered and stopped from cumulative life-world destruction masked for centuries as “development” and “growth”?

This is the great aporia of Marx’s base-superstructure theory. He thinks that productive workers’ democracy in control of the vast wealth of capitalist technologies and commodities can solve these capitalist-made problems. His principles of democracy coming from the Paris Commune and enshrined in his Civil War in France as well as his Gotha Program, both after Capital, are impeccably democratic against the standard descriptions of Marx’s determinism. But democracy in itself cannot solve the ultimate problem that is not seen. Marx base -superstructure theory uniquely recognises and seeks to overcome the money-powered construction sapping the world with its vampire grip, and he scientifically proposes a towering Promethean vision of government by the direct producers in its stead. Yet we are still left with the fatal flaw of the epoch – no regulating principles of production to select for human and natural life carrying capacities rather than for their unintended cumulative despoliation by industrial technologies and commodity growth. As this system increasingly threatens human and planetary life organisation, there remains still no life-capital metric to steer ‘economic growth –not even human life necessities – with which productive forces and technology must be consistent for evolved life and society to survive or flourish.

The dominant model of ‘the economy’ from Adam Smith on is life-blind in its categories, but Marx’s revolutionary theory does not solve the problem. Life necessities, organisation and parameters of better and worse have been, and continue to be, excluded at every step of ‘productivity’ and ‘growth’.  Marx’s base-superstructure theory sees deeply into the problem of the dehumanisation of labour, but not of the planetary life host being run down in its collective life capital bases with most extracted masses, energies and commodities made wastes in weeks. Under ‘free trade’ (which Marx supported to hasten revolution), commodities of every kind must be transported with increasing loads and distances of carbon miles on habitat-destroying routes through land and sea through to consumers’ bodies widely addicting and disabling them by non-communicable diseases and toxic throwaways into the soil, water and atmosphere as industrial sinks. Most of these problems of industrial technology and multiplying material powers also existed in earlier form in Marx’s day, but the concepts of ‘increased productivity’, ‘growth’, and ‘development’ were not challenged.

Marx envisions in his Grundrisse notebooks to Capital a future state in which “once the narrow bourgeois form is peeled away”, there can be “the evolution of all human powers as such unmeasured by any previously established yardstick”. But what if the ‘bourgeois form’ cannot be peeled away because it built into the productive forces themselves? The life-base ‘yardsticks’ to prevent loss of universal life necessities on earth in their mutual interdependence, or even to ensure commodities satisfy needs without reducing life capacities of their consumers, do not exist. As in the capitalist system to be overthrown, there is no defining measure of the requirements of the ‘means of subsistence’ that production is for. (Meanwhile evolutionary biology assumes the opposite of an answer – the more a species population multiplies, the more successful it is as a life form.) Marx sees the problem of unlimited growth in the competitive capitalist frenzy to grow private money stocks – “Accumulate! Accumulate! This is Moses and all the prophets” – but the accompanying limitless multiplication of technological forces and commodities is not conceived as the problem, but rather the solution.

Marx’s labour theory of value engages ‘means of subsistence’ in the reproduction of wage-labour, but allows for their unlimited growth in conflation of wants and needs. In Capital Volume II,  Marx is poignantly unaware of the problem (emphases added): “Regardless of whether such a product as tobacco is really a consumer necessity from the physiological point of view, it suffices that it is habitually such”.  We see here how the relativization of life necessity to habitual wants can, in Marx’s conception of the base of society, drive productive forces through the human organism and the biosphere with no BST limit.  It is noteworthy that tobacco products continue to be mass produced with even the Chinese Communist Party government – still teaching Marxism in its schools – investing in mass cigarette production as it cements over the fields and rivers and replaces bicycles with fossil-fuel motors to ‘grow productive forces’, ‘satisfy people’s wants’ and ‘takes its place on the world stage’.  There is no theoretical resource to disqualify such commodities, productive technologies and their continuous growth in Marx or Marxism in general.

As with Marx’s sustained yards-of-cloth example in Capital, what ultimately counts is the living labour and value that goes into the production of the commodity price and capitalist profit, as well as the illusions that conceal the source of surplus labour and value.  But no precautionary measure exists in Marx’s productive force development to prevent or select against the long historical trend to systemic and cumulative life system destruction. Marx’s Grundrisse ,which is masterfully informed on technological and social development, even strikingly observes: “War developed earlier than peace: the way in which certain economic relations such as wage labour, machinery, etc develop earlier – – – – – – The money system completely developed there only in the army [of the Roman Empire]”. In Notebook 4, (italics added) Marx also observes that in the “commune stage” of human evolution, “the difficulties commune encounters can only rise from other communes, which have either previously occupied the land and soil, or which disturb the commune in its own occupation. War is therefore great comprehensive task, the great communal labour  – – ”. How poignant these italicised words are after a century and a half of productive forces and commodities multiplied to ever new organs and heights of human species power.  To sharpen the point of no life ground or criterion in Marx’s BST to select against the ancient interlock of productive and destructive forces, the lead capitalist society’s production system invests $2,000,000,000 of pubic money per day in war preparations, labour and ongoing wars with nothing in base-superstructure theory to prioritize life support systems. Capitalist colonialism in Marx’s era ruled as well by superior kill-and-destroy technological development and slave-labour commodities with no questioning of its ‘productive force development’. The ultimate life-and-death contradiction within capitalist ‘productive forces’ is not recognised.

Re-Setting Base-Superstructure Theory to the Life Ground

Marx’s base-superstructure theory begins with humanity distinguishing itself from other animals by production of the means of life. Yet ‘means of life’ disappears as a category after 1847 in Marx’s corpus, and is replaced on the first page of Capital by commodities serving desires not needs. Marx enters capitalist economic understanding in order to rout it, but shares its first premise of market desires as the driver of production. What happens out of view is that commodities and the productive forces making them are structured only to satisfy subjective desires backed by money demand.  The inner drama of Capital featuring “material use-values” versus “the money form” loses its life footings on page 1 beneath notice. Productive forces mass manufacture commodities which are increasingly disabling and addictive in their consumption.  Marx sees them as values because they embody labour hours. Yet if we take into account the life and life capital effects of industrial commodities from extraction through processing to product through consumer bodies to wastes through the biosphere  – all in motion in Marx’s day – a darker picture than unprecedented ‘productive force development’ and ‘‘immense wealth of commodities’ to ground socialist revolution emerges.

This unseen problem does not disappear if we drop Marx’s labour theory of value – long a controversy in which Marx is predictably dismissed although the theory originated in Smith and Ricardo and is replaced by a purely subjective theory of willingness-to-pay. Nowhere does any measure of life capital or life value enter into theory or measure. True productive value measured by the yardstick of life capacity gained is not yet conceived (although implicit in medical and ecological sciences). Commodities are use-values or goods even if they degrade and disease their life hosts through their consumption and wastes. No generic metric metric of life capacity gains or losses can be found.   A momentous entailment follows. If ‘productive forces’ or ‘technological progress’ are defined as that which produce material use-values in ever higher quantities for acquired wants by lower labour input into their products, then however life and life-carrying capacities are systemically depredated by their processes and products of production, they are still productive forces, development and growth. Tthey may be harmful by replacing life necessities in their production and consumption with junk-foods, weapons, built-in pollutants, eco-degrading machines screened out as disvalues, and life capacity gains and losses nowhere entering into even the Marxian bottom line. This is the ultimate contradiction of the epoch that Marx’s theory does not provide the resources to resolve.

Re-setting base-superstructure theory to the life-ground is required, and Marx began his historic work in promise of this. In the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, he exalts “human needs” as enabling motivators and extenders of human “species being” into and forming the natural environment with the life activity of consciousness in realising capacities in a world humanity which “beholds itself in a world it has created”. Productive work “is the objectification of man’s species being”, he writes in the EPM and “the history of industry – – is the open book of man’s essential powers”.  Humanity is realised, he writes in Theses on Feuerbach, against commodity consumerism, “only when the object becomes for him a human object”.  Production, he continues in The German Ideology one year later in 1846, is “a definite form of expressing their life”, as “what they are – – both with what they produce and how they produce” (Marx’s emphases).  The beginnings of Marx’s base-superstructure theory are in these ways focused on production as driven by universal human life needs and capacities transforming the world in creative action – a “conscious self-transcending of coming to be”.

Yet once inside the ruling method of modern science where redundant and externally observable sequences alone count as scientific, Marx’s BST is bound by its chains even as he seeks to transcend them. It is worth citing here the earlier philosopher and founder of modern Economics, Adam Smith, to get a sense of the theoretical origins of the ghoulish rationality into which Marx submerges himself to master the dismal science. In his monumental Wealth of Nations, the founding text of the “moral science”, Professor Adam Smith argues for his time and the epoch that “among the inferior ranks of people the scantiness of means of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce” (Book I, Chapter 3, “Wages of labour”).

Social Darwinism before Darwin is the deep structure of this thought system in which sacrifice of the least reverses Christianity in its name. Yet once inside this grim grip of method, Marx the scientist leaves behind Marx the philosopher of human liberation. The unique human capacity of “species being” and “free conscious activity that adopts the species as its object” is dropped from his work after 1846. “Means of life” as what productive forces produce silently disappears after Wage Labour and Capital in 1847. As Marx’s study becomes research-submerged in seeking the theory-suppressed origin of profit and the inner logic of the capitalist system he abhors, the ennobling categories of the early and unpublished manuscripts disappear. In ironic reduction by the economic determinism he is the first to identify, Marx’s early first principle in the EPM  is forgotten: “One basis for life and another basis for science is an a-priori lie”.

By the time of Capital, Marx’s productive forces have no life-value framing left to distinguish them from life-destructive forces.  They are no longer that which produce means of life without which life capacities wane and die, but manufactured commodities, including ever larger-scaled cannon and machine powers devastating the natural world across cultures and destroying pre-industrial peoples at the same time. Marx like the epoch does not shrink from conceiving the life-annihilating powers. For the BST, no life sacrifice is too great for the inevitable future communism it projects. We see here the epochal pattern of technological, mass and economic powers fastened to great visions that even humanist to the core cannot find the life-ground on which every moment depends.

What Marx studies in unprecedented depth is the money-value process of brutally competitive production of commodities to maximize outputs, lower costs and private profits, and he stands throughout for the “living labour” of the industrial productive forces, the humanity of its bearers, their development of life capacities, the surplus labour-value extracted from them with no payment. He documents in words of fire the most extreme system oppressions and torments on record. This is why Marx’s work is so uniquely resonant across peoples over 150 years.  Yet his productive base remains without any life-carrying capacity criteria to steer against the inhuman mass-productivism of Stalinism, Taylorism or China or towards ecological sustainability by full recycling. At the same time, on the level of collective agency, the BST notion of productive class cannot in principle enlist the great and creative life forces of first peoples, subsistence farmers, household labour, student masses, identification with fellow species, and green consciousness to ground a life-based transformation beyond the money-ghoul disorder. Productivism across opposing classes escalates volumes of material outputs as ‘more goods’.

Marx’s Capital is not a “theoretical anti-humanism” (as Louis Althusser argues) because his theory is driven by a Promethean humanism so insurgent that it is certain of a proletarian dictatorship bringing in the final emancipation of humanity.  On the other hand, when human life capacity gain or loss do not figure into the value calculus of productive forces or the commodities they produce, we can see the disastrous outcomes in the long run with no life capital base recognised.  As in natural evolution, unavoidable tragedy is built into the struggle for survival  – the mors immortalis of all species and societies dying into new forms. For Marx’s historical materialism, the redeeming certitude is that the industrial productive powers ‘surpassing all prior societies put together’ will finally enable an overthrow of the capitalist still stamped with the beast: which he finds in unspoken poetic justice, ‘digs its own grave’ by the joint cooperative labour powers and machines it builds to overthrow it. Yet the theoretical problems of Marx’s BST come back to one buried meta issue. If technological development is the ultimate measure of a society’s historical advance, what is the life standard or principle whereby society can know the difference, in either capitalism or socialism, between this assumed material progress and, in historical fact, long-term life-commons ruin?  The “precision of natural science” that Marx attributes to “the material mode of production” lacks any criteria benchmarks to satisfy the ultimate question.

The question of ‘the illusion of progress’ has been posted in many quarters, but nowhere are the dots joined of the lost life-ground of Marx’s base-superstructure theory as well as the epoch.

The Missing Life Capital Base of Marx’s Base-Superstructure Theory

Re-set of Marx’s productive base to principled consistency with human and natural laws of life and life support systems is the missing foundation of historical materialism as well as the capitalist system from the start. Yet in all cases and at all levels, the measure of life necessity that is blocked out is undeniable once defined: any material need or necessity is that without which life capacities of any kind are reduced or die – from oceans to songbirds to human brains. While Marx does not penetrate to this unifying principle or its implications for system transformation, it is implicitly presupposed in both his attacks on the capitalist system and his revolutionary alternative to it. This underpinning value code may be tested by any case of denunciation or affirmation in Marx’s analysis which does not conform to the italicised principle. It is measurable and applicable to all productive plans and practises, with organic medical practises and public health programs implicitly guided by it. This life-value base and metric also defines the universal life necessities which constitute the “realm of necessity” Marx recognises as that which all societies’ modes of production must provide for – and, in value logic entailment,are better or worse in accordance with how well they do so.

Can Marx’s BST be re-set to include this missing collective life capital base? There seems only way do so, and that is comprehension of the following three moments of any life-coherent value system across generations: all enduring life value is that which (i) produces more life value (ii) without loss and (iii) with cumulative gain. The sole concept in any language which comprehends these three moments of lasting values in terrestrial time is life capital whose collective form includes every social asset through time from the sciences and arts to stable hydrological cycles to a public healthcare system to pollution-abating and recycling technologies to regional biodiversity and arable lands, and food seed banks, to local, national global aquifers, rivers, sewers and filter systems. The “collective” modifier is in fidelity to Marx’s methodolological collectivism which understands social systems in terms of social entities rather than as atomic aggregates to which the dominant economic, medical and biological sciences are still bound.

Yet the concept of ‘capital’ itself has been so narrowed down to money demand appropriating profit in limitless accumulation that anti- or pro-Marx ideologues cannot think past the dominant meaning.  This is a quintessential paradigm block.

We can test the unifying principle of collective life capital in Marx’s base-superstructure theory by seeking any value affirmation or negation which conflicts with it. In onto-axiological terms not found in economic or political theory, every value is a life capital value if it reproduces and gains in yield consistently with other life capital: as in any good way of life and as in Marx’s implicit life-value code of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.  This missing life-coherence principle fits to Marx’s base-superstructure theory in all that its states or implies as social objective. For example, all sound public infrastructures and services as well as natural resources can be defined, evaluated, tracked in gains and losses of life-carrying capacities and needs, and made consistent with one another in sustainable flourishing in accordance with this underlying life capital method and measure: the very definition of Marx’s otherwise undefined and misunderstood ‘communist society’, as can also be tested in his texts from the EPM to the Gotha Program. The principal problem of the BST as well as the capitalist epoch is lack of principle to comprehend these common life capital bases and the life-coherent knowledge to sustain consistency among them. Conversely, the ultimate problem of capitalism is that it is life-capital blind in M-C-M^1—n principle, and is cumulatively life-destructive by the powers of its technologies disaggregating all that exists for private profit as the overriding end of ‘growth’. Marx’s entire corpus and BST method is an encyclopedically learned testimony to this underlying disorder without naming it, or preventing its productivist-led recurrence in societies self-described as ‘communist’.

While Marx leaves capitalist misrule to the ‘inevitable proletarian revolution’ to resolve, capitalist centuries have so built systemic life destruction into ‘development’ and ‘growth’ that it requires this ultimate re-set to life capital parameters that Marx does not provide. The appearance of capitalism’s incomparably great productive powers masks even to Marx what is, in fact, cumulatively depredating technological forces, methods and commodifications  despoiling the very life carrying systems of human and natural evolution on the planet. A century and a half after Capital, the macro economy remains without a collective capital base or equivalent on which all depends and interdepends. Neo-liberal state policies dictate defunding, privatizing and de-regulation of whatever social life-support systems and life-protective regulatory control have evolved over a century, including those advocated by Marx – work-time limits to a shorter working day (now growing); public banks (now privatized in even currency issue); nationalized industries (privatized for profit almost everywhere); and a graduated income tax (increasingly pushed into reverse).

At the same time, the productive force development of capitalism hardly provides the production forces for primary life necessities themselves. Even assuming a future ‘government of associated producers’, it must re-set production itself to life capital terms, criteria and investment. The basic need of a place to live is now everywhere controlled by private rentiers and banks producing for profit not homes with a housing-production system not structured for peoples’ needs. The ultimate life capital necessity of clean water to drink is so ignored by existing productive force development that two-thirds of the world now runs short of it. Where publicly owned and managed clean water supply exists – the life foundation of any society or production system – it is privatized into throwaway plastic bottles charging more than the price of oil while public water sources are run down by industrial farming and vehicle pollutions across the globe. Nourishing foods, the universal life necessity that launched the capitalist revolution by large-scale farming and international trade now mass produces nutrient-deficient and disease-causing substances leading non-infectious epidemics of disease, suffering and death.

Together these degenerate trends –all called ‘more productivity’ pose the greatest threat to human and fellow life in history and perhaps the species time on earth, most deeply of the planet’s life carrying capacities themselves. Only by the recognition and metric of a collective life capital base, quantifiable by the money investment required to sustain each of its domains in proportion to the life capacities destroyed without it, is the problem built into the productive forces themselves soluble in principle. If the common life asset is already depleted and polluted beyond recovery, it is at least known with a defined category to measure the life-carrying capacities lost, and required henceforth for social transformation to be consistent with the universal life necessities now being deprived and despoiled without recognition of it.

Marx’s BST, including in particular its theory of social revolution, does not have the resources to resolve this ultimate problem nor even recognise it. Without the collective life capital base and measure to ground base-superstructure theory, the cumulative capitalist forces of life-system destruction remain built into the revolutionary productive forces themselves.

The Productive Agency of Social Transformation 150 Years after Capital

Marx believed that industrial workers (the proletariat) would rise up around the world (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

At the heart of Marx’s base-superstructure theory, Capital contends that the industrial working class or proletariat is “disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself” to revolt against it – a signature contention which has been widely followed. Yet a logical slippage occurs in Marx’s argument which is not recognised. For within “this very mechanism of capitalist production”, no other purpose is allowed but to serve the M-C-M¹ “law of motion of modern society” which, by Marx’s own description, operates solely to lower money costs for capitalists to pump out maximum profit. In particular, there is no freedom of time, motion or speech in assembly-line production progressively analysed into constituent phases and programmed to extract maximum life energy from workers to maximize profit. What has gone unnoticed is a fallacy of equivocation between the production process of workers bound to serve total capitalist command within the industrial workplace and workers joining together outside this workplace on the basis of their collective interests which are systematically expelled from it. As Marx himself says elsewhere in Wage Labour and Capital, “life only begins for the labourer where his bought labour ceases”.

Marx also claims in this most revolutionary passage of Capital that the industrial proletariat is “growing in revolt” and “always increasing in numbers”. Here the error is not logical, but factual.  The industrial proletariat since Marx’s Capital – perhaps due in part to it – has been progressively replaced by automated systems which in the last half century have multipled industrial job reduction, separation of work functions into globally scaled assembly-lines, and systematic deprivation of collective worker leverages of strike, union association, local market demand, and job security. Here again Marx’s base-superstructure theory of social transformation needs to be re-set to remain applicable. In fact, the class most superseding and displacing the industrial proletariat has been knowledge creators and workers who emerge everywhere that symbolic capabilities and activities replace physical inputs in production – the greatest revolution in productive development since Marx. While the physical-input class has been effectively terminated in capacities to organise or lead social transformation, knowledge creators and workers are bound by exact learning and the sciences within at and at the top of material production systems across cultures as well as outside them. Yet what they still lack, like Marx’s BST itself, is comprehension and action in accordance with the collective life capital bases (as defined in the prior section) on which all depend in the clean water they can drink, the nourishing food they can eat, the life security they can move or sleep in, and so on through all the life carrying capacities of social reproduction each must have accessible to live and live well as individuals as well as societies.

On the other hand, knowledge creators and workers and their are already organising, unifying and disciplining investigations and mass resistance to capitalist life destructions and degradations of  life systems and links on a case-by-case basis. These include campaigns against and for species extinctions and conservation, rainforests and animal habitats of every kind, human water sources across the planet, atmosphere and ocean carbonization , toxic and diseases-causing foods and working conditions, political corruption and tax evasions, children’s rights and gender liberation, environmental degradations and pesticides or herbicides, trade treaties depriving workers of jobs and life security of citizens, US-led war criminal policies and actions, exposure of secret and mendacious political dealings against the common interest,  public electricity infrastructures, dirty oil extractions and transportations crossing planet in pollution of means of life on every level – – – the domains of battle for life and life support systems against capitalist invasions for private profit are increasing in numbers and revolt. What still lies ahead for this emergent agency of global social transformation is connective knowledge and action across common life capital bases now still isolated from each other in conception and execution towards cross-cultural public policy formation in comprehensively life-coherent definition leading societies on every front out of the degenerative trends deepening within material production itself as well as the ownership structure and political and ideological planes laid bare by base-superstructure theory. This requires ‘disciplined, organised and united’ understanding within and outside workplaces at a level only adumbrated by Marx’s BST. As he knew it is not just a question of ‘ideas seizing the masses as a material force’, but of public authority investigation, action and law consistent with    objective and scientific knowledge across public spheres of life protection and enablement.

Marx’s Preface to Capital is far-seeing in defining the leading lines of the knowledge vocation and its search for truth, objective understanding of the facts, and social defence of universal life necessities for those deprived of them across domains:

where there are plenary powers to get at the truth (Marx’s emphasis): if it was possible to find for this purpose men as competent, as free from partisanship and respect of persons as are [emphases added] the English Factory inspectors, her medical reporters on public health, her commissioners of inquiry into the exploitation of women and children, into housing and food.”

Observe how encompassing these life capital bases are and the ‘plenary powers to get at the truth’. Observe how Marx supports the knowledge-creation capacities of the most developed capitalist society to seek the truth across the most basic domains of life production and reproduction.  Consider then this logic of knowledge evolution as the ultimate species, survival and development advantage of humanity through historical and natural time increasingly connecting and leading the rest.  This is the collective life capital knowledge base which advances in the deepest contradiction with the private money-command system of capitalism, and what alone outgrows its vampire grip – 150 years after Capital.

John McMurtry Ph.D (University College London) is a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and Professor (emeritus) of Philosophy.

Source

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. 1975-2004. Collected Works.  Lawrence and Wishart Ltd./Progress Publishers: New York/Moscow.

Latin America is in limbo as the US’ “Operation Condor 2.0” has more or less succeeded in reducing multipolarity in the region, though the upcoming Mexican and Brazilian presidential elections might herald a paradigm shift if leftists win the highest office in both Great Powers.

The US has systematically dismantled multipolarity in the Western Hemisphere ever since it began its asymmetrical counteroffensive in 2009 by supporting the military coup against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. Since then, the leftist governments in Argentina and Brazil fell due to electoral and constitutional coups, severely reversing the effects of the “Pink Tide” and opening up the Mercosur trading bloc to the same type of neoliberal influence that it had previously intended to thwart.

Venezuela has been in the throes of a deadly and ever-escalating Hybrid War for almost the past three years, and while the government of President Maduro hasn’t been toppled, its regional influence has been considerably weakened as a result. Moreover, the US is assembling a coalition of regional states to intensify the pressure being put on the Bolivarian Republic, possibly heralding in a new “Lead From Behind” model that could be used elsewhere in the hemisphere.

Speaking of which, it appears likely that Bolivia will be in for a period of unrest next year after the announcement by the country’s court that President Morales will be allowed to run for a fourth term despite last year’s referendum on giving him this right being narrowly defeated at the polls. Bolivia is also the central transit state for China’s Transoceanic Railroad that will connect Peru and Brazil, so the US has yet another reason to seek the destabilization of this multipolar gas-rich socialist state that’s recently expanded its partnerships with both Russia and China.

Nicaragua might also experience difficulties as well as the government of President Ortega is forced to respond to the declining economic situation in the Western Hemisphere’s second-poorest country and avoid the Hybrid War trap being set in sparking a repeat of the Contra-era eastern Mosquito Coast conflict. Neighboring Honduras, which is one of the largest origin states for illegal migrants to the US and also a crucial transit location for drug trafficking operations, might descend into unrest if the people continue agitating against the government after President Juan Orlando Hernandez stole the last election to hand himself an unprecedented second term in office.

For as strategically hopeless of a situation as this may seem, there are actually two potential opportunities for reversing the course of events and pushing back against the unipolar dominance that’s creeped back into the hemisphere, and they both come down to next year’s presidential elections in Mexico and Brazil. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, popularly known by his abbreviated initials as AMLO, is a leftist-nationalist opposition leader who’s wildly popular in Mexico and has a serious chance at winning the presidency in July. He’s already contested several elections in the past, barely losing in 2006 because of what he alleged had been voting fraud, and his potential victory next year could spice up the American-Mexican relationship.

AMLO is regarded by many as being a Mexican version of Trump, albeit from the leftist angle, and while far from being a second Chavez, his entrance to office could immediately have far-reaching consequences for the US, most notably in terms of renegotiating NAFTA and dealing with illegal migrants. It’s far too early at this point to gauge his prospects for winning, but nevertheless, there’s a lot of positive energy surrounding him, and it can’t be discounted that he might at the very least pull off a repeat of the 2006 elections where he ended up claiming victory but blamed his eventual razor-thin defeat on fraud. This scenario could unsettle the situation in Mexico and turn the country into a security risk for the US, which is why it must be monitored.

As for Brazil, the ruling authorities are waging “lawfare” in trying to prevent the ultra-popular former president affectionately known as Lula from running for office again, relying on his purported connection to the extensive “Operation Car Wash” corruption scheme to argue that this makes him ineligible to stand. In any case, the Workers’ Party might do fairly well and could capitalize on the widespread resentment against Temer’s rule to pull off a victory, but at the same time, voters are indeed disillusioned by the scandal-plagued party and might opt for Soros-linked Marina Silva and her new Socialist Party offshoot called the Sustainability Network.

Because of the uncertainty over Latin America’s geopolitical direction, it’s reasonable to describe the entire region as being in limbo between multipolarity and unipolarity, with the pro-US forces on the strategic initiative but nevertheless not yet totally back into power. The upcoming elections in Mexico and Brazil will to a large extent determine the future trajectory of the hemisphere, as will the outcome of the Hybrid War on Venezuela and any incipient conflicts that also might be hatched against its Bolivian and Nicaraguan partners.

The post presented is the partial transcript of the CONTEXT COUNTDOWN radio program on Sputnik News, aired on Friday Dec 29, 2017:

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.

Featured image is from the author.

The attempt to tease, weave and develop a narrative against President Donald J. Trump over a Russian connection began almost immediately after his victory in November last year. This was meant to be institutional oversight and probing, but in another sense, it was also intended to be an establishment’s cry of hope to haul the untenable and inconceivable before some process.  No one could still fathom that Trump had actually won on his merits (or demerits).  There had to be some other reason.

Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against those entities of establishment fame.  There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with.  Then there is the Department of Justice, which he regards as singularly unjust.

The FBI investigation into Trumpland and its reputed nexus with Russia remains both bane and opportunity for Trump. As long as it continues, it affords Trump ammunition for populist broadsides and claims that such entities are sworn to destroy him.  

To watch this story unfold is to remember how a soap opera can best anything done in celluloid. The New York Times has given us a New Year’s Eve treat, claiming that former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos spilt the beans to former Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer at London’s Kensington Wine Rooms in May 2016.

The two men had, apparently, been doing what any decent being does at such a London venue: drink.  Papadopoulos’ tongue started to wag as the imbibing continued.  There was a Russian connection.  There was dirt to be had, featuring Hillary Clinton. 

Downer, however hazed, archived the discussion.  He could make a name for himself with this decent brown nosing opportunity.  Australia, Washington’s ally with an enthusiastic puppy dog manner, wanted to help, to tip off US authorities that a great Satan, Russia, might be involved.  So commenced the long road to the fall of Trump’s former aide, who conceded, in time, to have lied to the FBI.  Trump’s response was to degrade Papadopoulos as a “low-level volunteer” and “liar”, giving him the kiss of unimportance.

Australian ex-officials were by no means the only ones involved in providing succour to the anti-Trump effort.  A picture was being painted by other sources – British and Dutch, for instance – pointing to the Kremlin as central to the Democratic email hacks.  The FBI probe, in time, would become the full-fledged investigation led by a former director of the organisation, Robert Mueller.

This provides the broader context for the Trump assault on all manner of instruments in the Republic.  Earlier in December, Twitter was again ablaze with the president’s fury. The blasts centred on the guilty plea by former national security advisor Michael Flynn.  He had, in fact, had conversations with the former Russian ambassador.

Trump’s approach was two-fold: claim that Flynn’s actions had been initially, at least, lawful, while the conduct of the FBI and Department of Justice had been uneven and arbitrary.

 “So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed, while Crooked Hillary Clinton, on that now infamous FBI holiday ‘interrogation’ with no swearing in and no recording, lies many times… and nothing happens to her?”

He then reserved a salvo for the DOJ.

“Many people in our Country are asking what the ‘Justice’ Department is going to do about the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States Congress, deleted and ‘acid washed’ 33,000 Emails?  No justice!”

The persistent inability to understand Trumpland as a series of bullying an exploitative transactions  blunts the value of the FBI investigation.  Whatever it purports to be, it smacks of desperation, an effort in search of an explanation rather than a resolution. The Trump Teflon remains in place, immovable.

More to the point, Trump is certainly right in questioning the historic inability of the FBI to be a credible instrument of justice, even if history is not his strong suit.  The Bureau under J. Edgar Hoover was a monster of surveillance, its reputation, despite being in deserved tatters, defended by one president after the other.

As for bias, Trump is certainly right on the score that certain FBI officials, foremost amongst them lawyer Lisa Page and FBI special agent Peter Strzok, were demonstrably favourable to Clinton over him.

The Trump campaign, keen to find chinks in the Clinton camp, was always going to be indiscriminate and characterised by ruthlessness: the provenance of the information was hardly going to matter.  Be it a hack, a disclosure; be it legitimately or illegitimately obtained, information in this context proved to be advertising power.  

To that end, anything against Hillary would have been treated as rich mineral, whatever quarry it might have been hewn from.  That it stemmed from Russian sources gave fever to those still gripped by Cold War nostalgia.

In the new year, the antics will continue and Trump will, as he has all year, continue to receive blows with a certain nonchalance.  He will also retaliate in kind.  The establishment forces have been busy on various fronts, but the Trump machine, authoritarian, unreflective, but resolute, continues to function with indignant disdain. As long as that lasts, he will thrive.

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

Featured image: Alice Donovan’s Twitter profile image

Diana Johnstone explains that President Trump can be excused from being prosecuted as a Russian agent if he will give up his intention of normalizing relations with the necessary enemy of the US military/security complex and join in the orchestrated demonization of Russia.

*

There is no holiday truce in the propaganda war. On this Christmas day, The Washington Post offered its readers a scare story entitled “Kremlin trolls burned across the Internet as Washington debated options”.

The article is long – nearly 4000 words. The only part that is sure to be read in these busy times of short attention spans is the headline, whose two themes are rich in subliminal messages.

First, a slash and burn operation by an army of Kremlin trolls is laying waste to the Internet. Second, official Washington in its benevolent innocence is having trouble facing up to this nefarious threat.

Let’s take these two themes one at a time.

Invasion of the Troll Army

The journalistic peg for this story is a phantom freelance journalist named Alice Donovan whose “first email arrived in the inbox of CounterPunch, a left-leaning American news and opinion website, at 3:26 a.m. – the middle of the day in Moscow”.

Aha!

Drawing on its abundant intelligence community sources, the WaPo article continues:

“The FBI was tracking Donovan as part of a months-long counterintelligence operation code-named ‘NorthernNight’. Internal bureau reports described her as a pseudonymous foot soldier in an army of Kremlin-led trolls seeking to undermine America’s democratic institutions.”

Now, it is interesting to note that the only evidence provided in this article for “Russia’s army of trolls” (the expression pops up again) is the existence of this pseudonymous foot soldier named Alice Donovan. And the only evidence of her existence is numerous articles published on about a dozen websites over the past two years. Because when CounterPunch attempted, alarmed by the FBI, to find out who she is, it was unable to do so.

So, in this account, one ephemeral foot soldier is cited as proof of an “army”.

This should immediately raise questions. Why was the FBI investigating someone whose only trace of existence was authorship of website articles? It couldn’t be investigating “a person”, since apparently no one knows who this person is. So it was investigating a website writer. Why? What was its criterion?

“As the 2016 presidential election heated up,” the article continues, Alice Donovan “seemed to be doing the Kremlin’s bidding by stoking discontent toward Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and touting WikiLeaks, which U.S. officials say was a tool of Russia’s broad influence operation to affect the presidential race.”

In short, “stoking discontent” toward Hillary is the distinguishing sign of being “a tool” of a Russian operation. Incidentally, there are a lot of us who did just that. I am one of them, having written a whole book of discontent toward Hillary. Are we all under FBI investigation?

Is it or is it not the mission of the FBI to run a counterintelligence operation investigating website writers who digress from the official Washington line on Hillary Clinton, Russia and Syria? Alice Donovan did so but her pieces were relatively mild. Why should she be singled out for an FBI counterintelligence operation?

Why was CounterPunch warned against her and not against all of us who write such articles?

The not so subliminal message was: any article submitted to a website that contradicts the official line may be the work of sinister Kremlin agents. The evidence: they’ve found one! Its name is Alice Donovan. So be very careful what you publish.

Of course, the “evidence” is just as invisible as all the “proof” of Russian subversion produced so far by U.S. security agencies. Nobody has seen Alice Donovan. Nobody has talked with her. So far, there is no proof of her existence. But that has not prevented leading mainstream media from proclaiming her as exhibit A for Alice in the media prosecution of Vladimir Putin for “undermining our democracy”.

“The FBI, in keeping with its standard practice in counterintelligence investigations, has kept a close hold on information about Donovan and other suspected Russian personas peddling messages inside the United States”, according to the WaPo.

But not such a close hold that it refrained from unnerving CounterPunch editors with suggestions that it was facilitating Kremlin cyberwar, or from passing along confidential intelligence reports to the most influential newspaper in the Nation’s Capital, whose ties to the CIA are longstanding.

If Alice Donovan is such a threat, why not expose her/his/its identity?

Reacting to FBI warnings, CounterPunch did its own investigation and came up with significant facts.

First, since it was impossible to trace “Alice Donovan”, the FBI must have been alerted by the writings, not by the person. When and how did the snoopers discover that she was apparently using a pseudonym? Did they know that first, meaning that the FBI equated pen names with Russian subversion? But what counts in an article is above all the content, not the signature. Throughout history, writers have used pen names as protection from potential persecution. The FBI exchange with CounterPunch indicates an intention to warn “left-leaning” websites not to publish anonymous articles, which could be a first step toward excluding persons who have something to say but fear getting in trouble because their views are unorthodox, especially in a period of intensifying witch hunt.

But the most significant fact emerging from CounterPunch’s own investigation is that articles by “Alice Donovan” failed to introduce some new strain of Russian propaganda into American cyberspace. They were not at all original. The phantom commentator picked up pieces of articles found on other left-leaning websites, and pasted them together as her own. The articles were cut and paste – in a word plagiarism.

That is the smoking gun, and the fingerprints are not Russian.

Indeed, inasmuch as there was nothing new, nothing particular sensational, no great “fake news” revelation in the Donovan prose, what could the “Kremlin” hope to gain? Why attempt to “undermine our democracy” with a few shadows of other existing internet articles?

This simply makes no sense.

There is another hypothesis, however, that does make sense. It is clear from the very creation of Operation NorthernNight that the FBI was charged with the task of producing proof that Internet dissidence has its origins in a Putin plot. But when such evidence turns out to be difficult or impossible to find, it can be manufactured instead – just as a certain number of “terrorist plots” have been manufactured by luring some gullible fool into a sting operation.

It could be well worth the trouble of the FBI to entrap leftist publications into publishing articles that could be “exposed” as “Kremlin propaganda”. It is obvious that the Deep State is desperate for “evidence” to back up their Russia-is-destroying-our-democracy fairy tale, and this would fit right in. The invention of “Alice Donovan” could provide such “evidence”.

If you were an FBI hack, commissioned with writing articles to be signed by “Alice Donovan”, how would you go about it? As an FBI hack, you probably have no idea how to write such an article. The easiest way would be to copy what real “left-leaning” authors had written. The Donovan papers added nothing to what was already in the public domain. They said nothing that other writers had not written, and that might risk further poisoning the minds of gullible Americans. She just cut and pasted. That would be a most convenient way to “invent” a fictional Russian troll – set her loose among the websites and then “discover” the scandal. Just a new twist on the FBI’s perpetual entrapment ploys. A variation on the theme of sting operations. We lure you into doing something we can accuse you of. But it is the “left-leaning” websites that are lured into having published “fake news” by a “Kremlin troll”.

This should teach them to be careful!

There is indeed no proof that “Alice Donovan” is a creation of the FBI undercover operation known as NorthernNight, just as there is no proof that “Alice Donovan” was a creation of a Kremlin disinformation campaign. However, there is proof that the FBI undercover operation existed. From its secret sources, The Washington Post reveals that a “previously unreported order – a sweeping presidential finding to combat global cyber threats – prompted U.S. spy agencies to plan a half-dozen specific operations to counter the Russian threat.” Why couldn’t “Alice Donovan” have been one of those operations?

On the other hand, the Kremlin disinformation campaign is still a matter of speculation – despite all the mainstream reports based, like this one claims to be, on “interviews with dozens of current and former senior U.S. officials at the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and U.S. and European intelligence services, as well as NATO representatives and top European diplomats.”

Since all those interviews are anonymous, what makes them more credible than an anonymous blogger? Where is the evidence – of anything?

This whole article is built on the a priori assumption of the existence of “an army of Kremlin trolls” out to destroy American democracy. The theme is imaginatively elaborated, but never supported by solid facts.

Saving Trump From the Trolls

If the first theme in the article is designed to intimidate “left-leaning” websites, obliging them to tow the official line, and henceforth threatened with accusations of colluding with “the Kremlin’s army of trolls” if they do not do so, the second theme is indirectly addressed to Trump. The subliminal message: jump onto the anti-Russia bandwagon and you may not be impeached after all.

This message is delivered by innuendo. Whereas the whole “Russian fake news” campaign got off the ground as a way to explain the preposterous election of Donald Trump, and also as a way to discredit the despised president and prepare his destitution, the tone has changed. Now, the WaPo reports, Trump is not a beneficiary but a target of Russian disinformation:

“After Trump took office, Russia’s army of trolls began to shift their focus within the United States, according to U.S. intelligence reports. Instead of spreading messages to bolster Trump, they returned to their long-held objective of sowing discord in U.S. society and undermining American global influence. Trump’s presidency and policies became a Russian disinformation target.”

“Donovan and other Kremlin-backed personas” began attacking the Trump administration for, among other things, supporting “terrorists” and authorizing military strikes that killed children in Syria.

“ ‘They are all about disruption,’ said a former official briefed on the intelligence. ‘They want a distracted United States that can’t counter Vladimir Putin’s ambitions’.”

What ambitions are those? According to Washington informants, this was because Putin wanted to “make up for its diminished military” by seizing on “influence campaigns and cyberwarfare as equalizers.”

Now, one might think that if all Russia can muster to “equalize” the United States’ unprecedented military machine is an army of Alice Donovans, all those security experts in Washington should relax and stop worrying.

According to this tale, that is just what they did, convinced that “it was all over and we’d won the propaganda war”. Then came – horrors! – RT, a Russian sponsored American television channel than offers viewers a vision of the news that strikes the Washington Post like an exorcism chant.

Poor, Fragile America

So now U.S. security officials run whimpering to The Washington Post claiming that top policy-makers were misled by “a misguided belief in the resilience of American society and its democratic institutions.” Miscalculations and “bureaucratic inertia” left the United States “vulnerable to Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election”… The world’s greatest democracy turns out to be a house of cards.

What a confession! It turns out that if the Russians huff and puff, they can blow the house down.

“I thought our ground was not as fertile,” said Antony J. Blinken, President Barack Obama’s deputy secretary of state. “We believed that the truth shall set you free, that the truth would prevail. That proved a bit naive.”

Gee whiz, the guys in Washington are just too honest to dream of the nasty things those mean Russians can do. But now The Washington Post is there, hand in hand with “the intelligence community”, to warn us, and to warn you, Mr. Trump, that the Russians are the bad guys out to destroy America and you must do everything to stop them.

These complaints have a familiar ring. Whenever the Pentagon is gearing up to bomb some hapless country into regime change, we hear the same chorus from the mainstream media, from intelligence experts and high officials “on conditions of anonymity”, as well as from assorted semi-governmental “non-governmental” human rights organizations, proclaiming that American leaders must be awakened from their idealistic dreams in order to stop the latest Hitler from doing whatever it is such villains do. Of course, America’s naive leaders are just too kind and innocent to take this latest terrible threat seriously – until alerted by diligent spooks and their mainstream media collaborators. We’ve heard this again and again. Remember how human rights advocates had to nag and nag the gentle US war machine to get it to bomb Serbia, to bomb Libya, to arm “good” Syrian rebels. Official America is so good and trusting that it has to be forced to take necessary defensive action.

So come on, Trump, just wake up to the Putin cyber threat, and all will be forgiven.

The New Year is one full of economic, political, and war threats.

Among the economic threats are stock, bond, and real estate markets artificially pumped up by years of central bank money creation and by false reports of full employment. It is an open question whether participants in these markets are aware that underlying reality does not support the asset values.  Central banks support stock markets not only with abundant liquidity but with direct stock purchases.  The Japanese central bank is now one of the largest owners of Japanese equities.  Central banks, which are supposed to provide economic stability, have created a massive fraud. 

Throughout the Western world politics has degenerated into fraud. No government serves the public’s interest. (See this) Except for some former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe, European governments have defied the will of the people by admitting vast numbers of refugees from Washington’s wars and others pretending to be refugees.  The European governments further imperil their citizens with their support for Washington’s rising aggression toward Russia.  The universal failure of democratic politics is leading directly to war.

The Saker explains that Americans with intelligence, honor, courage, and integrity have disappeared from the US national security establishment.  In their place are arrogant morons high on hubris who believe:

(1) We can buy anybody,

(2) Those we cannot buy, we bully,

(3) Those we cannot bully, we kill,

(4) Nothing can happen to us, we live in total impunity no matter what we do.   

Scott Bennett reports that US soldiers are being propagandized that Russia is an enemy with whom we are headed to war. 

The Anglo-Zionist empire is trying to overturn the Iranian agreement and to restart the attempt to overthrow the government of Syria.  Lebanon’s Hezbollah is also in the empire’s sights. Washington is arming Ukraine in order to enable an attack on the breakaway provinces of Novorussia.  Threats against North Korea escalate. Even little Venezuela is threatened with military intervention simply because the country wants to control its own destiny and not be controlled by Washington and the New York banks.

In the opinion of some, Russia’s very cautious diplomacy has increased the likelihood that Washington will miscalculate and give the world a third world war.  By not accepting the requests of the breakaway Russian provinces in Ukraine to be reunited with Russia, the Russian government paved the way for Washington to provide the military means for its Ukrainian puppet to attempt to reconquer the provinces.  Success would damage Russian prestige and encourage Washington in its aggressive actions.  Sooner or later Russia will have to stand and fight. 

Russia’s premature declaration of victory in Syria and withdrawal has made it possible for US forces to remain in Syria and attempt to restart the effort to overthrow the Assad government.  Russia would have to defend its victory, or by the failure to do so encourage more aggressive actions by Washington.

Hopes have evaporated that President Trump would restore the normalized relations between the nuclear powers that Reagan and Gorbachev made possible.  The question for the New Year is when does Washington’s aggression against Russia ignite a hot war.

Your website will be examining these issues as they unfold in 2018. From the perspective of today, it is unlikely that the New Year will be a happy one.  Nowhere in the West is there a sign of leadership toward peace and the well-being of humanity.

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

Featured image is from Antiwar.com.

Social media services like Facebook and Twitter are increasingly likely to remove content from their networks upon request by Israeli Ministry of Justice officials, according to testimony by a government official at a parliamentary committee meeting on Monday.

The head of cyber unit at Israel’s State Attorney’s Office, Haim Wismonsky, reported to government ministers that 85% of government requests to remove content deemed harmful or dangerous were accepted in 2017, compared to 70% last year.

In 2016, the government requested the removal of 2250 posts or social media pages. This year’s total will not be available for another month, but

“the amount of content multiplied several-fold,” said Mr. Wismonsky. “There was an enormous spike.”

The parliamentary committee that heard Mr. Wismonsky convened in order to discuss a proposal for a law that would empower an administrative tribunal to order social media companies to remove certain types of content. Under the so-called “Facebook Law,” two conditions would have to be met for a tribunal to make such a ruling.

First, the court would have to deem the content criminal in nature. Then, the court would have to decide that it represents a threat to an individual, to public safety or to national security. The law would apply to all social media and also to Google search results.

Civil liberties groups have been criticizing the proposed law, saying that it would give too much power to an administrative tribunal in determining what constitutes a crime.

So far, the Ministry of Justice has focused on content by terrorist organizations and any posts that incite to violence and terror attacks, Mr. Wismonsky said. These types of posts “galvanize lone wolf attacks,” he said, referring to the phenomenon in recent years of stabbings and vehicle attacks carried out by individuals without affiliation to terrorist groups.

In the future, there will also be a focus on stemming the occurrence social media posts targeting victims of sexual violence.

Some companies have been more cooperative than others. It is easy to get Google and Facebook to act, Mr. Wismonsky said, adding that Twitter and WordPress are less likely to cooperate.

“A page explicitly associated with Hamas would be removed by Facebook, while Twitter would require a court order,” he said.

The proposed social media law could help resolve situations like this.

“There are cases in which we think something poses a threat, but the company says its user agreement has not been violated,” Mr. Wismonsky said. “That’s when we’ll want legal backing.”

The parliamentary committee’s chairman Nissan Slomiansky responded to Mr. Wisnosky’s findings, saying that it appears the government is powerless against companies that refuse to cooperate.

“I am not saying that we are going to control these companies but we cannot let them go completely unchecked,” said Mr. Slomiansky, a member of the Israeli parliament with the right-wing party The Jewish Home. “We have to agree that every entity obey the laws of the state where it operates.”

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 document marks the beginning of a new cooperative effort against Iran, a senior U.S. official told The Jerusalem Post.

What it means: A senior U.S. official said that after two days of talks the U.S. and Israel reached at a joint document which articulates full cooperation to deal with Iran’s nuclear drive, its missile programs and its other threatening activity in the region. The U.S. official said the document goal’s was to translate President Trump’s Iran speech to joint U.S.-Israeli strategic goals regarding Iran and to set up a joint work plan.

At what the TV report described as a “secret” meeting at the White House, the U.S. and Israel specifically agreed to set up joint teams to handle various aspects of the Iranian threat. This includes a joint team, the report said, which will deal with Iranian activity in Syria and Tehran’s support for the Hezbollah terror organization. This working group will also deal with drafting U.S.-Israeli policy regarding the “day after” in the Syrian civil war.

Another joint team will deal with both diplomatic and intelligence activities designed to grapple with Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. This group will further monitor and verify that Iran is not violating existing terms of the deal. It also includes diplomatic steps outside of the nuclear deal to put more pressure on Iran. The working group will deal with possible covert steps against the Iranian nuclear program.

A third joint team, it was reportedly agreed, would grapple with Iran’s ballistic missile program and its efforts to build accurate missile systems in Syria and Lebanon.

Finally, a fourth team would oversee U.S.-Israeli preparation for any escalation by Iran and/or Hezbollah. This team is also tasked with different escalation scenarios in the region concerning Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Player at the table: The Israeli team was headed by national security adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat and included senior representatives of the Israeli military, Ministry of Defense, Foreign Ministry and intelligence community. The U.S. side included national security adviser H.R. McMaster and included senior representatives from the National Security Council, State Department, Department of Defense and the intelligence community.

Senior Israeli officials confirmed that the U.S. and Israel have arrived at strategic understandings regarding Iran that would strengthen the cooperation in countering regional challenges.

The Israeli officials said:

“The U.S. and Israel see eye to eye the different developments in the region and especially those that are connected to Iran. We reached at understandings regarding the strategy and the policy needed to counter Iran. Our understandings deal with the overall strategy but also with concrete goals, way of action and the means which need to be used to get obtain those goals.”

Featured image is from the author.

Featured image: Satellite image shows damage at Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant (via ecowatch.com).

Dr Helen Caldicott explains recent robot photos taken of Fukushima’s Daiichi nuclear reactors: radiation levels have not peaked, but have continued to spill toxic waste into the Pacific Ocean — but it’s only now the damage has been photographed.

*

Recent reporting of a huge radiation measurement at Unit 2 in the Fukushima Daichi reactor complex does not signify that there is a peak in radiation in the reactor building.

All that it indicates is that, for the first time, the Japanese have been able to measure the intense radiation given off by the molten fuel, as each previous attempt has led to failure because the radiation is so intense the robotic parts were functionally destroyed.

The radiation measurement was 530 sieverts, or 53,000 rems (Roentgen Equivalent for Man). The dose at which half an exposed population would die is 250 to 500 rems, so this is a massive measurement. It is quite likely had the robot been able to penetrate deeper into the inner cavern containing the molten corium, the measurement would have been much greater.

These facts illustrate why it will be almost impossible to “decommission” units 1, 2 and 3 as no human could ever be exposed to such extreme radiation. This fact means that Fukushima Daichi will remain a diabolical blot upon Japan and the world for the rest of time, sitting as it does on active earthquake zones.

Robot image of Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 reactor (Source: tepco.co.jp)

What the photos taken by the robot did reveal was that some of the structural supports of Unit 2 have been damaged. It is also true that all four buildings were structurally damaged by the original earthquake some five years ago and by the subsequent hydrogen explosions so, should there be an earthquake greater than seven on the Richter scale, it is very possible that one or more of these structures could collapse, leading to a massive release of radiation as the building fell on the molten core beneath. But units 1, 2 and 3 also contain cooling pools with very radioactive fuel rods — numbering 392 in Unit 1, 615 in Unit 2, and 566 in Unit 3; if an earthquake were to breach a pool, the gamma rays would be so intense that the site would have to be permanently evacuated. The fuel from Unit 4 and its cooling pool has been removed.

But there is more to fear.

The reactor complex was built adjacent to a mountain range and millions of gallons of water emanate from the mountains daily beneath the reactor complex, causing some of the earth below the reactor buildings to partially liquefy. As the water flows beneath the damaged reactors, it immerses the three molten cores and becomes extremely radioactive as it continues its journey into the adjacent Pacific Ocean.

Six years later, radiation levels at Fukushima are so high not even a robot can survive inside https://t.co/gWuugk2Xqx pic.twitter.com/A7ZB91olvU

— Intl. Business Times (@IBTimes) February 11, 2017

Every day since the accident began, 300 to 400 tons of water has poured into the Pacific where numerous isotopes – including cesium 137, 134, strontium 90, tritium, plutonium, americium and up to 100 more – enter the ocean and bio-concentrate by orders of magnitude at each step of the food chain — algae, crustaceans, little fish, big fish then us.

Fish swim thousands of miles and tuna, salmon and other species found on the American west coast now contain some of these radioactive elements, which are tasteless, odourless and invisible. Entering the human body by ingestion they concentrate in various organs, irradiating adjacent cells for many years. The cancer cycle is initiated by a single mutation in a single regulatory gene in a single cell and the incubation time for cancer is any time from 2 to 90 years. And no cancer defines its origin.

We could be catching radioactive fish in Australia or the fish that are imported could contain radioactive isotopes, but unless they are consistently tested we will never know.

As well as the mountain water reaching the Pacific Ocean, since the accident, TEPCO has daily pumped over 300 tons of sea water into the damaged reactors to keep them cool. It becomes intensely radioactive and is pumped out again and stored in over 1,200 huge storage tanks scattered over the Daichi site. These tanks could not withstand a large earthquake and could rupture releasing their contents into the ocean.

Way back in 2011—
Fukushima meltdown – Caldicott says Japan may become uninhabitable – media silent https://t.co/xobjVo5o2r @IndependentAus

— Michelle Pini (@vmp9) February 14, 2017

But even if that does not happen, TEPCO is rapidly running out of storage space and is trying to convince the local fishermen that it would be okay to empty the tanks into the sea. The Bremsstrahlung radiation like x-rays given off by these tanks is quite high – measuring 10 milirems – presenting a danger to the workers. There are over 4,000 workers on site each day, many recruited by the Yakuza (the Japanese Mafia) and include men who are homeless, drug addicts and those who are mentally unstable.

There’s another problem. Because the molten cores are continuously generating hydrogen, which is explosive, TEPCO has been pumping nitrogen into the reactors to dilute the hydrogen dangers.

Vast areas of Japan are now contaminated, including some areas of Tokyo, which are so radioactive that roadside soil measuring 7,000 becquerels (bc) per kilo would qualify to be buried in a radioactive waste facility in the U.S..

As previously explained, these radioactive elements concentrate in the food chain. The Fukushima Prefecture has always been a food bowl for Japan and, although much of the rice, vegetables and fruit now grown here is radioactive, there is a big push to sell this food both in the Japanese market and overseas. Taiwan has banned the sale of Japanese food, but Australia and the U.S. have not.

Greenpeace reports jump in radioactive contamination in Fukushima waterways | The Japan Times https://t.co/LyiY6HxQp4

— Sally Forsstrom (@MalurusSally) July 23, 2016

Prime Minister Abe recently passed a law that any reporter who told the truth about the situation could be goaled for ten years. In addition, doctors who tell their patients their disease could be radiation related will not be paid, so there is an immense cover-up in Japan as well as the global media.

The Prefectural Oversite Committee for Fukushima Health is only looking at thyroid cancer among the population and by June 2016, 172 people who were under the age of 18 at the time of the accident have developed, or have suspected, thyroid cancer; the normal incidence in this population is 1 to 2 per million.

However, other cancers and leukemia that are caused by radiation are not being routinely documented, nor are congenital malformations, which were, and are, still rife among the exposed Chernobyl population.

Bottom line, these reactors will never be cleaned up nor decommissioned because such a task is not humanly possible. Hence, they will continue to pour water into the Pacific for the rest of time and threaten Japan and the northern hemisphere with massive releases of radiation should there be another large earthquake.

Three-quarters of Yemenis, including over 11 million children, are in a desperate need of humanitarian aid while over a half are suffering dire food and water shortages, UN agencies are reporting, fearing the worst is yet to come.

MyHeritage revealed on December 28 2017 a database that includes the citizenship requests filed by 67,000 people during the British mandate period in the land of Israel. Among those who filed a request was former Israeli President Shimon Peres.

*

A database that includes 67,000 citizenship requests from the British mandate period between the years 1937 and 1947 was revealed on Thursday. Among those who requested citizenship were people who went on to become key figures in the young State of Israel- including former Israeli President Shimon Peres, who was born Szymon Perski.

Peres’ request includes documents in which he declared that he is interested in agricultural work and wants to change his name to Shimon. Another request was submitted by author Dahn Ben-Amotz, who asked to speed up his immigration process.

The database was compiled by MyHeritage, an Israeli startup that specializes in developing genealogy building tools, with the assistance of the Israel State Archives. The requests, each of which is about 15 pages long, include the names, birthdates and addresses of 206,000 people.

Another request Photo Credit: MyHeritage

Each request includes two recommendation letters from citizens who declared their support for the petitioner. Among those who submitted recommendations for future citizens were former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, former Minister Shlomo Hillel and author Yehuda Burla.

Many of the requests were filed by Jews who managed to escape Europe shortly before the Holocaust and survivors who wanted to move to Israel after the collapse of the Nazi regime. Other requests were filed by Jewish people from Arab countries who wanted to come to the holy land to fulfill the Zionist dream.

Featured image is from MyHeritage.

The Argentinian authorities are wondering about the massive purchase of land in Patagonia by a British billionaire, and the “holidays” that tens of thousands of Israëli soldiers are enjoying on his property.

In the 19th century, the British government were undecided as to where they should settle Israel – either in what is now Uganda, in Argentina or in Palestine. In fact, Argentina was at that time controlled by the United Kingdom and, on the initiative of French baron Maurice de Hirsch, had become a land of refuge for Jews who were fleeing the pogroms in central Europe.

In the 20th century, after the 1955 military coup d’Etat against democratically elected President General Juan Perón [and subsequently in the 1970s], a current of antisemitism developed within the armed forces. A brochure was distributed accusing the new State of Israel of preparing an invasion of Patagonia, the “Andinia Plan”.

It has become apparent today that even though the Argentinian extreme right had exaggerated the facts in the 1970’s, there was indeed a project for implantation (and not invasion) in Patagonia.

Everything changed with the Falklands War in 1982. At that time, the Argentinian military junta attempted to recuperate the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which from their point of view had been occupied by the British for a century and a half. The UNO recognised the legitimacy of the Argentinian claim, but the Security Council condemned the use of force to recover these territories. The stakes are considerable, since the territorial waters of these archipelagos offer access to all the riches of the Antarctic continent.

At the end of this war, which cost more than a thousand lives (official British figures are largely understated), London imposed a particularly severe Peace Treaty on Buenos Aires – Argentinian armed forces are limited to their most simple expression. Above all, the control of their Southern and Antarctic air space is confiscated for the profit of the Royal Air Force, and they are obliged to inform the United Kingdom about all their operations.

In 1992 and 1994, two particularly devastating, murderous and mysterious attacks successively destroyed the Israeli embassy and the headquarters of the Israeli association AMIA. The first attack took place when the station chiefs of Israeli Intelligence had just left the building. The second occurred in the context of joint Egypt-Argentinian research for the development of Condor ballistic missiles. In the same period, the main Condor factory exploded, and the sons of presidents Carlos Menem and Hafez el-Assad died accidentally. The various enquiries gave rise to a succession of manipulations.

After having blamed Syria, prosecutor Alberto Nisman turned on Iran, whom he accused of having ordered the two attacks, and Hezbollah, who he claimed had carried them out. The ex- Peronist President Cristina Kirchner was accused of having negotiated the end of the legal proceedings against Iran in exchange for advantageous oil prices. Prosecutor Nisman was found dead at his home, and President Kirchner was found guilty of high treason. However, last week, a coup de theâtre destroyed everything we though we knew – the United States FBI handed over DNA analyses which attest to the absence of the presumed terrorist among the victims, and the presence of a body which has never been identified. 25 years later, we know nothing more about these attacks.

In the 21st century, benefitting from the advantages offered them by the Falklands War Treaty, the United Kingdom and Israel are now setting up a new project Patagonia.

British billionaire Joe Lewis has acquired immense territories in the South of Argentina and even neighbouring Chile. His properties cover areas several times larger than the State of Israël. They are situated in Tierra del Fuego, at the extreme Southern point of the continent. In particular, they surround the Lago Escondido, which effectively denies access to the entire region, despite a legal injunction.

The billionaire has built a private airport with a two kilometre landing strip, in order to be able to receive civil and military aircraft.

Since the Falklands War, the Israëli army has been organising “holiday camps” (sic) in Patagonia for its soldiers. Between 8,000 and 10,000 of them now come every year to spend two weeks on Joe Lewis’ land.

While in the 1970’s, the Argentinian army noted the construction of 25,000 empty houses, which gave rise to the myth of the Andinia Plan, hundreds of thousands have been built today.

It is impossible to verify the state of the construction work, since these are private lands, and Google Earth has neutralised the satellite photographs of the area, just as it does with NATO’s military installations.

Neighbouring Chile has handed over a submarine base to Israël. Tunnels have been dug in order to survive the polar winter.

The Mapuche Indians who inhabit both Argentinian and Chilean Patagonia were surprised to learn that the Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche (RAM) had been reactivated in London. This is a mysterious organisation which fights for independence. First accused of being an old association recuperated by the Argentinian secret services, the RAM is today considered by the left as a legitimate secessionist movement, but by the Mapuche leaders as an initiative financed by George Soros.

On 15 November 2017, the Navy lost all contact with the submarine ARA San Juan, which was finally declared lost at sea. It was one of the TR 1700 class diesel-electric submarines which were the flagships of the reduced Argentinian army. The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) has announced that it has recorded an unusual acoustic phenomenon in the Atlantic, close to the area from which the San Juan sent its last signal. The government finally admitted that the submarine was on a non-specified “secret mission”, of which London had been informed. The USA began a search, while the Russian Navy deployed a drone capable of exploring the ocean to a depth of 6,000 metres, but found nothing. The San Juan probably exploded. The Argentinian Press is convinced that the submarine had either collided with a mine, or was destroyed by an enemy torpedo.

It is impossible for the moment to determine if Israel is engaged in a programme for the exploitation of Antarctica, or if it is building a rear base in case of defeat in Palestine.

Translation by Pete Kimberley

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Later on Friday, Israel’s rubber-stamp military court will likely extend 16-year-old Ahed Tamimi’s illegal detention.

Under military rule, she can be held indefinitely uncharged and untried, for maximum six-month periods, renewed as often as Israel wishes to keep Palestinians imprisoned.

If Ahed faces charges, what’s most likely, she could be imprisoned longterm – despite guilty of no crimes.

She’s a redoubtable figure, extraordinary for her age, heroically resisting brutal Israeli occupation.

A video of her slapping an Israeli soldier went viral on social media. Omitted from the footage shown was Ahed being slapped hard first in response to her gently pushing and demanding soldiers twice her size leave her family property.

Seconds later, she responded by slapping one of the soldiers hard. Western and Israeli media lied about restrained soldiers, trained to be violent and abusive against Palestinians.

With her daughter in custody, Bassem Tamimi wrote a moving commentary, titled “My Daughter, These Are Tears of Struggle, saying:

“I’m proud of my daughter. She is a freedom fighter who, in the coming years, will lead the resistance to Israeli rule.”

He commented on Israel’s pre-dawn raid on his home, repeating what they did many other times, dozens of soldiers involved in the latest incident, breaking in violently, arresting Ahed, his wife Nariman, and cousin Nour.

Bassem: “Although it is Ahed’s first arrest, she is no stranger to (Israeli) prisons.”

She “spent her whole life under the heavy shadow of the Israeli prison – from my lengthy incarcerations throughout her childhood, to the repeated arrests of her mother, brother and friends, to the covert-overt threat implied by (Israeli) soldiers’ ongoing presence in our lives.”

“So her own arrest was just a matter of time. An inevitable tragedy waiting to happen.”

The slapping incident initiated by a hostile soldier and her response in kind did no harm – other than embarrassing Israel on videotape.

Yet it was used as a convenient pretext to arrest her, maybe intending to imprison her longterm.

On a visit to South Africa months earlier, Bassem and Ahed presented a video, documenting the struggle of their village home, Nabi Saleh, its residents tormented under brutal occupation conditions.

After the airing, Ahed addressed the audience, saying:

“We may be victims of the Israeli regime, but we are just as proud of our choice to fight for our cause, despite the known cost,” adding:

“We knew where this path would lead us, but our identity, as a people and as individuals, is planted in the struggle, and draws its inspiration from there.”

“Beyond the suffering and daily oppression of the prisoners, the wounded and the killed, we also know the tremendous power that comes from belonging to a resistance movement; the dedication, the love, the small sublime moments that come from the choice to shatter the invisible walls of passivity.”

“I don’t want to be perceived as a victim, and I won’t give their actions the power to define who I am and what I’ll be. I choose to decide for myself how you will see me. We don’t want you to support us because of some photogenic tears, but because we chose the struggle and our struggle is just. This is the only way that we’ll be able to stop crying one day.”

Imagine this eloquence and passion from a young 16-year-old girl, involved in the Palestinian liberation struggle since age-10, extraordinarily mature and committed for justice – why Israel wants her punished and silenced, the way all rogue states operate.

Ahed’s courage in standing up to abusive Israeli soldiers wasn’t because of a single incident affecting the lives of her family members, Bassem explained.

“She stood there before them because this is our way, because freedom isn’t given as charity, and because despite the heavy price, we are ready to pay it,” he stressed, adding:

Ahed represents “a new generation of our people…young freedom fighters” resisting occupation harshness.

“Ahed is one of many young women who in the coming years will lead the resistance to Israeli rule. She is not interested in the spotlight currently being aimed at her due to her arrest, but in genuine change.”

Addressing his daughter personally, Bassem said:

“…Ahed, no one could be prouder than I am of you.You and your generation are courageous enough, at last, to win. Your actions and courage fill me with awe and bring tears to my eyes.”

They’re “tears of struggle, (not) sadness or regret.”

Bassem and his wife Nariman are longtime Palestinian activists for long-denied justice.

Ahed carries the family torch for a new generation – imprisoned or free committed to confront a ruthless occupier.

Give credit where it’s due. Haaretz published Bassem’s moving commentary and tribute to his courageous daughter – remarks almost never permitted by Western media, especially in America, one-sidedly supporting Israel’s worst crimes.

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

No prisoners of conscience were included in the Special Pardon.

On December 29, 2017, President Moon Jae-in granted a special pardon in his first year in office. Since he left out the chance on the National Liberation Day and Chuseok, we looked forward to his first amnesty. However, we cannot believe the result even if we get to the contents. He is the president who didn’t release a single prisoner of conscience. So, why did he drag on until the last working day of 2017?

President Moon did not keep the victims of the former government warm.

The Minister of Justice took credit saying this special pardon was designed from the very start to help those convicted of crimes while trying to make a living. But it is not different from the previous disappointing government. This special pardon ignored all prisoners of conscience including Lee Seok-ki and Han Sang-gyun as well as the victims associated with the Sewol Ferry Tragedy and THAAD. 

The conscience of the government stopped in front of prisoners of conscience.

A related official of the Blue House said,

“There was a concern that the special pardon would lead to national division.”

It sounds like a cowardly excuse. The government would rather say that it was afraid that the approval rating or votes in the local election in 2018 would fall. As the poet Song Kyung-dong said,

“Is the government of Moon Jae-in afraid of Park Geun-hye and Lee Jae-yong in prison?”

President Moon Jae-in must know that human rights issues should be decided by a majority decision.

However, the fact that he dealt with all results through electronic approval during his vacation comes to our attention.

December 29, 2017, will be recorded in history as the day when the conscience of the government which was established as a result of the people’s Candlelight Movement [and the impeachment of president Park] betrayed both the prisoners of conscience [including those imprisoned by President Park] as well as the Candlelight Movement. 

Africa’s known for its internal divisions and predisposition to conflicts, especially those which are encouraged from abroad, and it’s with this in mind that there are plenty of reasons to worry about its stability in 2018. Proceeding from North Africa to Southern Africa, Egypt is regularly attacked by terrorists in the Sinai and elsewhere, posing a real threat to President Sisi’s government. In addition, Egypt believes that its water security is endangered by Ethiopia’s plans to build the Grand Renaissance Dam, and the continued development of this megaproject is expected to see tensions soar between the two states as it eventually nears its completion. This could possibly even see Egypt extend covert support to Ethiopia’s Oromo people, the country’s largest minority that’s been engaged in large-scale anti-government protests over the past year and recently started clashing with the Somalian minority over land rights, a conflict which might grow to take international dimensions if Somalia’s Al Shabaab terrorist group decides to intervene in support of its ethnic compatriots.

Egypt’s next door neighbor of Libya is still caught up in a multisided civil war, albeit one which has since crystallized mostly into an east-west rivalry and could be partially resolved by next year’s presidential elections, dependent upon Saif Gaddafi and General Haftar entering into an agreement to politically cooperate with one another. As for Algeria, the inevitable passing of aging and reportedly incapacitated President Bouteflika might spark speculation about the country’s possible return to its 1990s civil war, but its “deep state” will probably ensure a smooth leadership transition just like the one that took place in Uzbekistan in 2016. Moving southwards into the Sahara, Mali is still a terrorist-infested nest that France and its fellow G5 Sahel allies are unable to resolve. Moreover, its problems have begun to spill across the border into neighboring Burkina Faso and Niger, the latter of which is an exceptionally fragile and failing state with the world’s highest birthrates.

Niger abuts Nigeria and is allied with it in a War on Terror against Boko Haram and alongside Chad and Cameroon, but the West African giant on whose territory most of this conflict is being fought is beginning to unravel along regional lines. There have always been divisions between the Muslim north and the Christian south which were only united into a single colony in 1914, spilling over most dramatically in the 1967-1970 Nigerian Civil War over the southeastern self-declared secessionist region of “Biafra”. Nowadays there are signs that the chronic impoverishment of this oil-rich region is once again giving rise to anti-state violence, whether in the form of “rebels”, bandits, or terrorists. Worse still, “Biafra” borders the Northwest and Southwestern regions of Cameroon that are at the heart of that country’s own separatist conflict over what its supporters call “Ambazonia” and which has recently turned very violent over the past couple of months.

Continuing along, not only is Cameroon afflicted by Boko Haram and “Ambazonian” separatism, but it’s also caring for many refugees from the Central African Republic, which has been in a genocidal state of civil war between Christians and Muslims since 2013, ignobly competing with neighboring South Sudan for being the most dysfunctional state in the world and together with it forming what can be described as a “Failed State Belt” in the continental heartland. While these two conflicts might worsen in the coming year, their humanitarian consequences might pale in comparison to if the Democratic Republic of the Congo descends into civil war, which it’s basically on the brink of doing already. The last Congo War killed an estimated 5 million people, mostly from disease and starvation, and the present low-level one is being “justified” on the basis of President Kabila delaying national elections but is mostly driven by mineral interests.

The killing of 15 UN peacekeepers in northeastern Congo by the anti-Ugandan and Salafist terrorist organization called the “Allied Democratic Forces” shows that this corner of the country isn’t immune from the violence either, and Uganda might be in for a rough ride if President Musaveni passes away without any clearly designated successor, though the scenario could unfold according to the prospective Algerian one where the “deep state” takes matters into its own hands in the interests of national stability. Nearby Burundi was once thought to be a crisis in the making, but President Nkurunziza has succeeded in wiping out the anti-government fighters who were opposed to his controversial third term in office. That being said, Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi were all involved to one extent or another in the last Congo War, so the collapse of the Democratic Republic might have unexpected consequences for them as well.

Nearing the southern tip of the continent, the ruling FRELIMO party of gas-rich Mozambique will probably continue peace talks with the Cold War-era armed RENAMO opposition, and Zimbabwe will likely proceed with its leadership transition in peace. As for regional hegemon South Africa, newly elected ANC leader Cyril Ramaphosa will continue to reform the party from within by making it more business-friendly and less multipolar ahead of the 2019 national elections, though apart from the ever-present potential for labor and xenophobic violence, no large-scale political destabilization is expected. Altogether, to summarize Africa’s most important 2018 fault lines, the War on Terror in Mali might spread throughout other parts of West Africa, and Nigeria and Cameroon’s separatist conflicts might begin to morph into a single transnational battlespace. Ethiopia will continue to be challenged by some Oromo groups, while the Congo could slide into a civil war that once again draws in many international participants. Finally, North Africa might stabilize, while East and South Africa will remain mostly the same.

The post presented is the partial transcript of the CONTEXT COUNTDOWN radio program on Sputnik News, aired on Friday Dec 29, 2017:

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.

Featured image is from the author.

Featured image: Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying (Source: People’s Daily Online)

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

On Thursday, Trump abrasively tweeted: “Caught RED HANDED – very disappointed that China is allowing oil to go into North Korea.”

“There will never be a friendly solution to the North Korea problem if this continues to happen!”

The NYT, WaPo, CNN, other US and Western media jumped on the issue, repeating Trump’s accusation, no evidence proving China is violating UN Security Council resolutions on the country.

Editorials in China’s Global Times (GT) and People’s Daily (PD) sharply denied the accusation.

PD quoted China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying, saying:

“The Chinese government has been comprehensively, accurately, faithfully and strictly implementing the Security Council’s DPRK-related resolutions,” adding:

Beijing’s enforcement of Security Council resolutions is “earnest and serious (its measures and actions) forceful and effective.”

“If there is solid evidence proving that there is on the Chinese side any violation of the Security Council resolutions, China will surely deal with it in accordance with laws and regulations, and not a single case of violation should get away with it.”

Hua suggested Western media address whether governments they represent strictly implement SC resolution. Washington, NATO, Israel, and its rogue allies breach them with disturbing regularity, pursuing their lawless agendas.

In response to Western media claims about photos taken by US satellites, allegedly showing Chinese ships linking up with North Korean ones, GT said the vessels in question aren’t oil tankers or capable of carrying large tonnage.

Besides, it’s unclear what nation they belong to or where they came from.

GT:

“It’s universally known that the ownership of a vessel cannot be determined from the logos and flags on it.”

“It’s hasty to assert that the ship is connected to China just based on its appearance. Moreover, if it was indeed smuggling, it is highly likely that the vessel would use false logos.”

“What motivation would China possibly have to secretly supply oil to North Korea? How would Beijing benefit from risking its national reputation for such petty actions?”

“Amid increasingly tough sanctions on Pyongyang, there are indeed some people smuggling for huge gains. But these smugglers might be mainlanders, South Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese, groups from Southeast Asian countries or even Westerners.”

The greater issue is why China and Russia permitted multiple rounds of harsh sanctions on North Korea – knowing they’re counterproductive.

They don’t work, encouraging, not curtailing, Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic programs – most importantly, inflicting enormous harm on millions of ordinary North Koreans, victims of US-led rage against their country.

China and Russia shamed themselves for going along with Washington’s punitive agenda, its ruthlessness against all sovereign independent countries including their own.

Resoluteness demands standing up to bullies like America, challenging its ruthlessness responsibly, not acting as a willing co-conspirator against the North Korean people.

Note: Security Council sanctions on North Korea ban around 90% of refined petroleum products, not 100%.

They permit four million barrels of crude oil imports. They ban or severely limit most everything else, a policy of economic strangulation – a flagrant human rights abuse.

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

A new edition of Rudolf Hilferding‘s Finance Capital: A Study of the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development has been published in a new translation and with a useful introduction and notes by Tom Bottomore (Routledge and Kegan Paul, £8.95). It provides an opportunity to consider whether the theories advanced by Hilferding and others have been confirmed in the years since the work was first published in 1910.

Towards the end of the 19th century there was a growing tendency towards the formation of trusts and combines associated with what came to be known as imperialism. Among the other books on the subject there were J.A. Hobson‘s Imperialism (1902) and his earlier Evolution of Modern Capitalism, Lenin’s Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism and L.B. Boudin‘s Socialism and War (1916). Later on J.M. Keynes had something to say about it in his General Theory (1936). Hobson held that monopolistic industries restrict output in the home market, in order to raise prices and profits, and therefore have to seek foreign outlets for investment and markets. For this purpose they get governments to colonise foreign territories (Evolution of Modern Capitalism, page 26). Lenin made use of Hobson for his own Imperialism, and gave high praise to much of his works. Keynes saw in Hobson many features of his own theories set out in the General Theory.

Hobson, unlike Lenin but like Keynes, offered a remedy:

“If the whole gain of improved economies passed, either to the workers in wages or to large bodies of investors in dividends, the expansion of demand in the home market would be so great as to give full employment to the productive forces of concentrated capitalism, and there would be no self-accumulating masses of profit . . . demanding external employment.”

Keynes (in Chapter 24) saw “the competitive struggle for markets” as a predominant factor in “the economic causes of war”. But, said Keynes, if governments followed Keynesian policies to increase demand at home and thus maintain full employment, the competitive struggle for markets as a main cause of war, would disappear.

Lenin and Hilferding gave detailed accounts of the supposedly unstoppable growth of monopoly in industry and banking but carried it much further, crediting the banks with dominating industry and the cartels with fixing prices and dividing up world markets among themselves. Lenin wrote:

“Cartels become one of the foundations of the whole economic life. Capitalism has been transformed into imperialism.”

Hilferding wrote:

“An ever-increasing proportion of the capital used in industry is finance capital, capital at the disposition of the banks which is used by the industrialists” (page 225).

Lenin quoted and endorsed this. Hilferding (page 368) said that it was only necessary to take over six large Berlin banks to take possession of “the most important spheres of large-scale industry”. It is worth noticing that in the depression of the 1930s most of the big German banks collapsed, or almost did so, along with the industrial companies in which the banks’ money was tied up. Among other forecasts made by Lenin was that because of the dominance of finance capital “there was a decrease in the importance of the Stock Exchange”.

Some social-democrats, including Kautsky, thought that the end result would be “a single world monopoly . . . a universal trust”, followed by socialism. Hilferding thought that this single world monopoly was “thinkable economically, although socially and politically such a state appears unrealisable, for the antagonism of interests . . . would necessarily bring about its collapse”. But Hilferding (page 343) thought that world cartels would result in “longer . . . periods of prosperity” and shorter depressions. The long depression of the 1930s and the long depression since 1979 belie this.

It was Boudin in his Socialism and War who put in its most crude form the theory on imperialism and war. He argued (like Hobson and others) that the turning point was the replacement of such industries as textiles by iron and steel. He wrote (page 64):

“Modern imperialism . . . is the expression of the economic fact that iron and steel have taken the place of textiles as the leading industry of capitalism, and imperialism means war. Textiles, therefore mean peace, iron and steel—war.”

The argument was that exports of textiles and similar consumer goods are paid for at once but iron and steel exported to build railways, factories, ports and so on are long-term investments needing the protection provided by the home government turning importing countries into colonies. Boudin’s theory to explain competition for markets (page 55) was:

“The basis of all capitalist industrial development is the fact that the working class produces not only more than it consumes, but more than society as a whole consumes.”

Therefore, said Boudin, developed countries cannot find markets inside the capitalist world but only on the fringes of capitalism, first in primitive agriculture at home and, when that too is developed, only in the countries not yet developed. These countries themselves develop and have to seek non-existent markets for their “surplus” products.

It is only necessary to look at what actually takes place to see that Boudin’s theory is demonstrably false. The working class do not produce more than society itself consumes. Or rather, they alternately produce more than society currently consumes and then less than society currently consumes. At the onset of a depression stocks pile up of the goods some industries have overproduced for their markets but later on, as recovery begins, stocks run down again, as they did early in 1985. In 1983 British exports totalled £60,534m. According to Boudin this was all “surplus” to demand in the home market. Who then bought the £65,993m of imports that were sold in this country? In the same year, 77 per cent of British exports went to countries officially classified as “developed countries”—which Boudin said was impossible. Hilferding, Lenin and Hobson all failed to allow for the sectional divisions of interest in the capitalist class. Hilferding treated the monopolist industries as representing a united capitalist class.

Certainly the export industries have an interest in getting the government to promote exports. But most capitalists have no such interest. British exports represent under a third of total production; for America and Russia about 10 per cent of total production. At their conference last year the Confederation of British Industries defeated an executive resolution calling on the government to lower the exchange rate of the pound in order to promote exports. The industries making profit by selling imports in the home market, and the industries buying cheap imports rather than pay more for home products, want the exchange rate to be higher, not lower.

At a time when the Thatcher government was declaring that they wanted the pound exchange rate not to fall but to rise, and asking Reagan to help bring it about, the Financial Times published an article (14 January 1985) with the title “Industry Delighted At Fall Of Pound”. It was true only of export industries not having to import raw materials, but in the article there were examples of industries having to import materials which wanted the pound exchange rate to rise and not to fall. The British Steel Corporation told the Financial Times that “every one cent decline in the value of sterling costs us £4 million”.

The failure to recognise sectional capitalist interests applies particularly to monopoly, which raises selling prices and consequently profits for the monopolies and is viewed very differently by the rest of the capitalists, who object to being held to ransom. In the 19th century British government policy towards monopoly was to protect the interests of the rest of the capitalist class by nationalisation, as with telegraphs and telephones. Frederick Engels put the same view in his Socialism, Utopian and Scientific: “. . . no nation will put up with production conducted by trusts, with so barefaced an exploitation of the country by a small band of dividend-mongers”. The same idea was behind the Tory railway nationalisation Act of 1844. It gave the government power to take over the railways and was used as a threat of what would happen if the railway companies continued to use their monopoly to the detriment of the rest of the capitalist class.

But in America the method used was to control monopoly by the Anti-Trust Laws, which have resulted in heavy fines and sometimes imprisonment. American Telephone and Telegraph, controllers of the near-monopoly Bell telephone system and described as the largest and richest corporation in the world, has recently fallen foul of the law and has been broken up into separate organisations, all open to competition. In Britain, the Tory government has gone over to the American system. Along with partial de-nationalisation the Telecommunication services have lost their monopoly and been thrown open to competition. The same applies to bus services. British governments long ago halted further amalgamation of the big commercial banks who now face competition from the development of ordinary banking services by the building societies, the Trustee Savings Bank and others. How far this process will go remains to be seen, but the belief of Hilferding and Lenin that competition was dead, has been disproved.

It is equally clear that Boudin and Keynes were wrong in their belief that the competitive struggle for markets results from an inbuilt deficiency of demand in the home market. The profit motive behind the search for overseas markets by the export capitalists is no different from the profit motive behind the home producers for the home market, and the import capitalists.

What then are the causes of international conflicts of interest and war? Some, but not many, wars are fought over markets. For example the opium wars, when British traders were able to get the government to go to war to compel China to allow the import of opium. In the modern world, markets take second place to strategic issues. The conflict between America and European countries on the one side and Russia on the other illustrates the point. It is not Russia but Japan, America’s ally which has flooded American and European markets with their cheaper products. The point was put in proper perspective by Professor Edwin Cannan in 1915:

“Commercial interests seem to me to appear in international quarrels simply as a cover for strategic interests. Where there are not supposed to be divergent strategic interests, no amount of divergent or supposedly divergent commercial interests produces either war or preparations for war” (An Economist’s Protest, page 26).

This exactly fits the relationship between America and Japan because the latter is held to be strategically so important to America’s control of the Pacific against Russia.

The most frequent cause of conflict and war is the effort of national sections of capitalism to obtain control of needed overseas sources of food and other materials and to protect transport routes. Petrol products have bulked large in this century. It has not been competition by oil producing countries to send their oil that has threatened war but the importing countries’ need to have dependable supplies. Two years ago, America threatened military action if the Middle East oil producing countries organised an embargo on exports to America and Europe.

Discussing the question Engels, in a letter dated 27 October 1890, pointed out that it was the search for gold which led the Portuguese to Africa, and it was not exports to India but imports from India which led to the conquest of India by the Portuguese, Dutch and English between 1500 and 1800: “Nobody dreamed of exporting anything there”. Exports came later.

Lenin made a valid point in his Imperialism about some annexationist wars. He wrote that sometimes the powers try to annexe regions “not so much for their own direct advantage as to weaken an adversary and undermine its hegemony”. Lenin and Hilferding both saw the growth of monopoly and its resulting wars as a prelude to socialism, and insisted that socialism was the only answer. But Hilferding found himself acting as Finance Minister in a German coalition government, trying vainly to solve the problems of German capitalism. And Lenin’s “socialism” has resulted in Russia becoming a capitalist super-power.

Lenin saw “the export of capital” as the hallmark of capitalism’s highest stage. It is interesting to note the role now played by Russia. The Statesman’s Year Book, 1962 had this to say:

“After the second world war the USSR has become one of the biggest creditor countries in the world. Between 1955 and January 1961 economic aid in the form of 2 per cent and 2½ per cent loans, has been advanced for over 520 industrial and agricultural enterprises in socialist countries”.

This foreign loan policy has continued since 1961.

Sometimes it is useful to take a break from news bulletins and newspapers, and even from ‘friendly’ Internet publications.

Occasionally it is good to realize that there are actually two parallel realities that are constantly competing for the ‘hearts and minds’ of people living all over the world. There is real life and ‘fake life’. There is reality and elaborately manufactured pseudo-reality, which is designed to appear more real than the reality itself. It is like that chemically produced green apple shampoo that smells more authentic than the fruit itself. 

*

Periodically I disappear into some jungle or a war zone, in Afghanistan, Southern Philippines or in the middle of plundered Borneo Island. When I return to what some people would readily describe as the‘normal world’, and a news bulletin unexpectedly confronts me at some airport lounge, everything suddenly appears to be bizarre, grotesque, totally surreal, at least for the few initial but excruciating moments.

It is because most of the mainstream news communiqués and analyses are produced in the plush comfort of an armchair, or at a mahogany writing table, thousands of miles from shrapnel, sweat, torn flesh, blood, burning forests, polluted waterways, and the other horrors which are, in fact, nothing other than the true reality for billions of human beings inhabiting our planet.

Remembering how things really feel, taste and smell I get desperate. I don’t recognize places described by the mass media. We are talking about two different universes; yes, about two absolutely opposite realities.

*

If mainstream reporters go to the field, they are well equipped with bulletproof vests, helmets, with 4×4 vehicles (some of them also bulletproof), with excellent life and health insurances that include airlifts and other evacuation clauses, as well as with hefty salaries and other compensation schemes. On their chests and their backs, it says loudly and explicitly “PRESS”.

So what am I bitching about? Is it wrong to compensate people who are risking their lives, or to try to protect them?

No, it is not; of course it is not wrong.

Except, there is that one tiny ‘but’… You can never, ever get ‘too close’ to anything real, this way. You cannot turn yourself to a buffoon or a walking media Rambo, and expect to uncover something hidden, something important, and something thoroughly groundbreaking.

If you over-protect your life, over-insure your each and every step, you’d build a thick wall between yourself and the real life.

If you go into the field looking like this, you will be spotted and questioned, and you will need all sorts of permits and stamps. It is almost like declaring: “I’ll play by your rules, I’ll not rock the boat, and I’ll let you monitor each step that I take”. Imagine arriving while being decked out like that and attempting to cover genocide in Papua! Good luck, really. About official permits, if you are from a ‘friendly’ mainstream agency, you can get them almost immediately. Yes, of course, organizations such as the BBC or CNN could easily supply you with all the necessary credentials. You could even count on an official government armed ‘escort’, or you could count on an escort supplied by friendly (to the West) ‘rebel groups’. Not to speak of all those ‘all you can eat’ press briefings.

However, the chances that real people would talk to you would be slim. But would you care about hearing from real people if you work for an official mainstream newspaper or a television channel? I doubt it. Real people could, God forbid, say real things, instead of what you are ordered to ‘discover’ in such places as Bosnia, Rwanda, Syria or Afghanistan. In the end, you’ll hear what you came to hear and report, and your writing and clips would be mainly in accordance with the established stereotypes.

Then what, how? Who could do it; who could describe reality, and actually stay alive?

In a brilliant film directed by Oliver Stone, Salvador (1986), one of the main characters declared:

“You got to get close to the truth. You get too close, you die.”  

He died, but what he said – that is precisely it! There is this invisible, imaginary line, in the air or on the ground, somewhere. You never see it, but if you have worked in many war zones before, you sense it, and it is what actually saves your life. It saves it often, most of the times, but of course not always. Those who usually die are men and women who make crucial mistakes during their first attempts, before developing their instincts. What I’m talking about cannot be taught; it is not logical – it’s just ‘there’.

To get as close to the truth as possible, one has to work, fast, decisively and with certain precision, avoiding obvious blunders.

People around you have to trust you, and you yourself have to know whom to trust and from whom to hide.

You are on your own, or at least most of the time you are.

All this guarantees nothing, but these are some of the basic preconditions, if you want to understand a conflict, a war.

Working in devastated places is very emotional, very deep, and sometimes you get overwhelmed, and sometimes your glasses get blurry. You make mistakes; hopefully not too many. Occasionally you go after a particular story, or you know generally what you want to find and a story bumps into you, or you stumble over it, or it just hits you frontally, brutally and at full strength.

If it is good, it is never just ‘reporting’. It is much more than journalism, or it is simply shit. There must be some poetry in what you are doing, there has to be also philosophy and humanism, as well as plenty of context and ideology and passion.

There can be no ‘objectivity’ in this work: objectivity is just an illusion, a fairytale dispersed by mainstream media. But you should never lie: you witness and say what you have to say, the way you believe it should be said, and while you do it, it is your obligation to inform your readers and viewers where precisely you stand.

As a human being, as an artist and thinker, you should always take sides. But your position – on which side of the ‘barricade’ you stand – has to be clear and honest. Otherwise you are a liar.

*

The bitter but essential truth is: Even if you put your life on the line, even if you get badly injured or psychologically exhausted, do not expect much gratitude or support.

Many local victims – people whom you came to defend – will suppose and even tell you straight to your face that ‘you came to get rich using their suffering and misery’.

Your readers in wealthy countries will imagine that you are being generously funded. They were conditioned to believe that there are no altruistic individuals, governments and countries left on this earth.

The reality is quite different: if you work independently, if you refuse to repeat lies and take orders, to merge with the mainstream, if you go against the interest of the West and its allies and ‘clients’, the chances are that you will get zero financial support, no protection whatsoever and absolutely no perks.

You may get millions of readers, of course. And you can recycle your reports in your books and films, as I did in my more than 800-page long “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. If your writing is good, your books will sell, somehow, even if they attack the establishment frontally. But don’t count on any support from ‘friendly governments’ or wealthy but ‘left leaning individuals’. There is no Engels around, these days. You are really on your own. Trust me, you are.

You and your determined work may save several villages, or if you are very good, you could make a difference on a global scale. Your writing or your films may help to stop a war. But never expect any official recognition, any practical backing or even mercy from your readers. In 2015, after making several films and writing books about several particularly horrid war zones, mostly in Africa, I totally collapsed. For several weeks, I was not able to move. I thought it was the end. There was no help at all coming from those millions of my readers living in all parts of the world. At that time I made my condition public. Still nothing. Few letters of ‘moral support’ arrived. Few: “Be strong, the world needs you!” In the end, it was my close family circle that literally pampered and rescued me and put me back to my feet and into fighting order.

This is not a reproach, just a warning to those who are getting ready to fight for the survival of humanity: “You will be totally on your own. You will most definitely collapse on several occasions.”

Still, I know no other way how to live meaningfully. I would never trade my life with the life of anyone else.

*

There is another very important and revealing piece of information, which I’d like to share with you, my readers.

In 2017 I worked in several extremely dangerous parts of the world, including Afghanistan, the Pakistani-Afghan border during the exchange of fire between the two countries, on the Turkish-Syrian border in Euphrates area during the Turkish invasion, in the war-torn southern Philippines, in Lebanon and in the fully devastated (by logging and mining) Indonesian part of the Island of Borneo.

Afghanistan Soviet tanks cemetery

I drove all around Afghanistan, with no protection, no security and no one covering my back. My friend who doubled as my driver and interpreter was the only man I could count on. Sometimes I held the wheel myself. We even made it into the Taliban controlled territories and drug-infested slums of Kabul. All in a 20 year old, beat up Toyota Corona.

In all these places, I did not see one single Western mainstream reporter. Not one!

Where were they, all those media superstars, I don’t know, but most likely they were holed up somewhere at the NATO headquarters, or at least in the only remaining plush hotel in Afghanistan – Serena.The same can be said about the southern Philippines, although there, to be ‘objective’, one Aussie colleague actually got hit by a sniper’s bullet, just couple of days before I arrived.

Do never trust those who write about the suffering of others exclusively from the safety of their living room couches. It is fine to write from there, of course, but only after you have actually seen the people you are talking about; after you have seen them at least once, for a substantial amount of time, after you have listened to their stories, to their desperate cries, and after you have got very dirty and very scared yourself, and truly desperate, in short: after you have got right there, near that invisible line which separates life from death, and after you have tasted the water of the proverbial river Lethe.

*

But back to where I began.

Imagine: I leave the places where people are fighting for survival, or where they are fighting for true freedom, or against imperialism. I hardly have time to take a deep breath, to recover from food and air poisoning, to change into some presentable clothes, and it all hits me directly in my face: I see some news bulletin, I read articles published by mainstream media, and while doing it, I absolutely don’t recognize the world, which I have witnessed in all its rainbow of colors, with all its glory and its misery.

I feel ‘out of place’.

I know, some call it ‘Vietnam Syndrome’. There are many other definitions for these feelings, or for this outrage, or desperation, or whatever you want to call it.

You suddenly feel it, you know it: somewhere far away where you had been living and working just several hours ago, there is still what could be defined as the ‘real world’, inhabited by real people. And then, right now, there is this other world, which over imposes, almost fully covers(and even dwarfs) that real one, by using its mainstream clichés and false mass-produced certainties.

*

This year – this ‘departing year’ 2017 – has definitely not been a good year for our planet.

A group of nations, which has been controlling the world for already several centuries brutally and shamelessly, is pushing us, our entire human race, closer and closer towards complete disaster, towards a showdown, towards a confrontation that may abruptly terminate millions of innocent human lives.

I’m concerned. I’m very concerned. I have already witnessed indescribable calamities in so many places. I know, I can perfectly well imagine, where all this could lead.

Colonialism is always wrong. Imperialism is always wrong. Cultural, religious or economic supremacy theories are wrong, with absolutely no exceptions.

If a group of nations from one relatively small continent has been continuously usurping the entire world, shaping it to its advantage and enslaving people of other colors, beliefs and values, it is all unmistakably wrong.

But the world is like that – brutal, unjust, and controlled by one aggressive, greedy, sly and arrogant minority. The world is still like that. Once again, it is increasingly like that.

And I cannot stand such an ‘arrangement’.

I don’t want it to be like that. I’m tired of covering grief, pain, horror and violence. I’m exhausted of filming or photographing perpetual destruction and downfalls.

That’s why I’m writing this, at the very end of the year 2017. Perhaps it is just one more futile attempt to stop something inhuman and unnecessary from happening.

Perhaps it is almost impossible to cut through the pseudo-reality manufactured by the mainstream media, academia and ‘culture’. Or maybe it’s not impossible. I actually believe that ‘it is never too late’, as I believe that nothing in life is truly ‘impossible’.

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2018!

Let me inform you that the world is totally different, actually much more beautiful and diverse than you have been told. Even most of those places that are now in flames are beautiful. And if left in peace, they’d thrive.

The world is worth fighting for. It is worth defending.

Don’t ever trust the “news” and “information” which is being disseminated by those who are continuously trying to loot and enslave the world. Trust only what you see and hear, and what you feel. Trust people who are in love with this world, if you manage to identify them. Trust your own senses, your inner logic, and your emotions.

Do not vote for bombing or putting sanctions on any foreign country, anywhere on Earth, before you see it with your own eyes, before you are really convinced, before you talk to its people, and before you truly understand what they are saying. Do not make decisions or conclusions after staring at the television set only. Remember: pseudo-reality kills! And it wants you to participate in this murder.

Go!

Discover!

After US bombing near Mosul Iraq 4

See for yourself. I hope to encounter you, at least some of you, in Syria, in North Korea, in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia, China, South Africa, Cuba, and Eritrea –also in hundreds of other great places, which have been brutalized and smeared by those who are dreaming about making this entire world thoroughly banal, consisting only of a few super-wealthy nations served and fed by all those “others”that have been reduced to slavery.

After seeing the world with your own eyes, after understanding it, I’m almost certain that you will agree with me: right now there are two parallel realities on this planet. One consists of true human lives and human stories, the other one only of trivial but manipulative interpretations of the world. One (true) reality is longing for progress, kindness, optimism and harmony; the other (fake one) is constantly spreading uncertainty, nihilism, destruction and hopelessness.

It is not only what they call “fake news”, it is an entire ‘fake reality’ that has been manufactured by the establishment and upheld by men and women with helmets, bulletproof vests, 4WD’s and prominent PRESS insignia.

Once again, HAPPY NEW YEAR 2018!

Happy Discovery Of The World!

Happy Struggle For Survival Of Our Precious Planet!”

Year 2018 will be crucial. Let us all join forces in order for Humanism and that beautiful lady called ‘The True Reality’survive, to prevail, and to triumph.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Trump lied claiming his administration’s highest priority is “defeat(ing) and destroy(ing)” ISIS and other terrorist groups.

Washington created and supports them. Trump continues the imperial agenda he inherited from his predecessors – a warrior president deploring peace and stability.

Earlier photographic evidence showed ISIS using US-made TOW-guided anti-tank missiles against government forces.

Their tanks, artillery, mortars and other heavy weapons come from foreign suppliers – notably from America, other NATO countries and Israel.

Without their material support, ISIS and other terrorist groups couldn’t exist.

Earlier Russian Defense Ministry satellite images showed US support for these groups, including their use of US-produced Humvee armored vehicles used by Pentagon special forces.

Sergey Lavrov earlier condemned Washington’s refusal to combat al-Nusra terrorists, calling US policy “absolutely unacceptable.”

New accusations of US support for ISIS come from eyewitnesses, reported by Syrian media – residents of Deir Ezzor saying US helicopters evacuated jihadist fighters.

Sources reported them taken to al-Hasakah province in northeastern Syria, the area controlled by US forces.

Damascus informed UN authorities about what’s going on to no avail, no actions taken by the world body to denounce US support for ISIS and other terrorist groups.

Earlier Syrian reports said US helicopters evacuated wounded ISIS fighter to receive medical treatment from Doctors Without Borders.

Russia’s Defense Ministry accused the US-led “coalition” of training jihadist fighters in al-Hasakah, reorganizing the so-called New Syrian Army, comprised of cutthroat killers.

Earlier reports indicated US helicopters evacuated ISIS field commanders from Raqqa, Deir Ezzor, and Mayadin.

Russia’s reconciliation center in Syria also accused the US-led “coalition” of relocating jihadist fighters to continue combatting government forces.

Washington’s goal in Syria remains unchanged – regime change, replacing Assad with pro-Western puppet rule, controlling the country, looting its resources, subjugating its people, and isolating Iran ahead of a similar strategy to undermine its government.

Geopolitical conditions are dismal, Trump continuing the belligerent agenda of the Clintons, Bush/Cheney and Obama – escalating conflicts, not ending them, risking war in new theaters.

Prospects for the new year look grim, no end of Washington’s rage for imperial wars of aggression. Its aim for unchallenged dominance threatens everyone.

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

In an alarming development for India, after a meeting of foreign ministers of China, Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Beijing on Tuesday (Dec 26), Chinese foreign minister Wang said China and Pakistan are willing to find out ways to extend China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the $57 billion project, to Afghanistan.

[These developments tend to weaken US strategic interests in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, China is also developing a Afghanistan-China corridor as part of the Belt and Road which includes a road project linking Afghanistan to China’s Xingjiang-Uygur autonomous region, M. Ch, GR Editor]

Wang said China hoped the economic corridor could benefit the whole region and act as an impetus for development.

Afghanistan has urgent need to develop and improve people’s lives and hopes it can join inter-connectivity initiatives, Wang told reporters, as he announced that Pakistan and Afghanistan had agreed to mend their strained relations.

“So China and Pakistan are willing to look at with Afghanistan, on the basis of win-win, mutually beneficial principles, using an appropriate means to extend the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to Afghanistan,” he added.

India has looked suspiciously at the project as parts of it run through Pakistan-administered Kashmir that India claims its own territory.

China has sought to bring Kabul and Islamabad together partly due to apparent Chinese fears about the spread of militancy from Pakistan and Afghanistan to the far western Chinese region of Xinjiang, according to Reuters news agency.

Hence China has pushed Pakistan and Afghanistan to improve their own ties so they can better tackle the militancy in their respective countries, and has also tried to broker peace talks with Afghan Taliban militants. A tentative talk process collapsed in 2015.

Wang said China fully supported peace talks between the Afghan government and Taliban and would continue to provide “necessary facilitation”.

The Belt and Road infrastructure drive aims to build a modern-day “Silk Road” connecting China to economies in Southeast and Central Asia by land and the Middle East and Europe by sea.

At the same time, to alleviate Indian apprehensions, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said the project extension was not directed at any third country and that it serves the common interests of the three counties.

“Just as foreign minister Wang Yi said at the joint press conference, CPEC is not directed at the third party and we hope to bring benefit to the third party and the whole region,” Hua said without naming India while responding to a question on reports about New Delhi’s concerns about CPEC.

“The trilateral cooperation and dialogue is not directed at any country or any party and the dialogue and cooperation should not be influenced and disturbed,” Hua emphasized.

The CPEC is a flagship project

The CPEC is a flagship project of China’s prestigious One Belt One Road and links its restive Xinjiang region with Pakistan’s Gwadar port in Balochistan province.

The network of highways, railways, roads and special economic zones is opposed by India as it passes through a part of Kashmir administered by Pakistan and claimed by India.

“It is an economic cooperation program and it should not be politicized and has nothing to do with territorial dispute,” she said adding that the project will bring the benefit to the third party and the whole region.

“Afghanistan is a common neighbor of China and Pakistan. They have strong desire to develop the economy and improve livelihood. They are willing to integrate into the regional connectivity process and willing to integrate into CPEC,” she said.

The three sides have agreed to promote connectivity under Belt and Road Initiative framework and follow the principle of starting from easy and smaller projects step by step to identify cooperation projects for common development, she said.

During the trilateral meeting, a consensus was reached on eight-point plan to bring peace between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The consensus included a security mechanism to enhance counter-terrorism cooperation to fight all forms of terrorist organizations and terrorists, she added.

Hua said Afghanistan and Pakistan will promote the exchanges between their clerics and avoid the spread of religious extremism. Under the trilateral framework of the dialogue, the countries should follow the principle of mutual benefit and equal consultation, she said.

She said the three sides have agreed to stay committed to the four goals – support Afghanistan’s peaceful reconstruction and reconciliation peace process, help Afghanistan and Pakistan to improve and develop ties, promote the joint security of the region, promote regional connectivity, and BRI.

According to Hindustan Times, China has always sought to allay India’s apprehensions about the project, describing it purely as an economic initiative. Beijing also says the project will not affect its neutral stance on the Kashmir issue.

India is in a pivotal geographic location for the Silk Road Economic Belt – any major development to get to either Africa (through the Indian Ocean) or central Asia requires India’s input. The potential of a robust Chinese presence on the China-India border or in Pakistan, and a similar such presence in the Indian Ocean, has alarmed the Indian government, China’s main economic rival on the continent.

The Belt and Road Initiative, a signature foreign policy priority of Chinese President Xi Jinping, is often referred to as the largest initiative of its kind launched by a single country.

It comprises two large segments: the Silk Road Economic Belt, a land route starting in western China that goes through Central Asia and on to the Middle East; and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, a maritime route that goes around Southeast Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the Horn of Africa.

All in all, it includes more than two thirds of world population and more than one third of global economic output, and could involve Chinese investments that total up to $4 trillion.

Afghanistan and India launch second air corridor

Meanwhile, a second India-Afghanistan air cargo route linking Kabul to Mumbai was officially launched on Dec. 27, with officials saying it is expected to boost the export of fresh fruits and medicinal plants from Afghanistan.

The second route follows the success of the Kabul-New Delhi air corridor that was inaugurated by President Ashraf Ghani in mid-June.

Afghan officials told the media that 10,640 tons of fresh produce, fresh and dried fruits, medicinal plants and handicrafts worth more than $20 million had been exported to India since the launch of the first corridor.

Second vice president of India, Mohammad Sarwar Danish said the air corridor is very important for the government. “We are hoping that the neighboring countries even consider the economy in their political policy,” he said.

Abdus Sattar Ghazali is the Chief Editor of the Journal of America (www.journalofamerica.net). He is the author of several books including Islam & Muslims in the 21^st Century published in 2017.

Featured image is from the author.

From the systemic madness of Tillerson and Volker, the ongoing conflicts and uprisings in numerous reaches of the empire, to the controversial FIFA ruling, Russia under sanctions and Putin’s coming last presidential term, plus revived ‘popular coup’ technique attempts in Latin America, things are looking up for war and down for diplomacy?

Anyone saying that another world war can’t happen, hasn’t understood the problem of the present global instability in its fullest sense. While the US has certainly faced deadlock with Russia over Ukraine, and loss of power and influence in the Middle-East, the coming year presents us a few items which have the serious potential to push global instability to the point of world war.

Outside of the echo chamber of the US media’s insulated creation of simulated reality, where pushing for war and conflict doesn’t actually lead to one, serious experts point to some very worrisome signs for the coming year.

During the working session of the Civil Forum “Belarus, Ukraine, Russia” held in Minsk on December 22nd, 2017, dedicated to the issues of the relationship between the three countries with the European Union, Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian experts agreed that the conflict around Ukraine will not end in 2018.

An interesting thing to note about official experts on the U.S. from Eastern Europe, is their depth of knowledge of the inner workings and dynamics of American policy formation and practice. In contrast, in the U.S. we find characters like Michael McFaul who regularly confuse punditry for analysis.

As noted by Ukrainian political scientist Ruslan Bortnik,

“the Ukrainian crisis equates to the increased military budgets of European and American militarist elites”.

He explains unsurprisingly that the

“Ukrainian crisis is a very profitable business on a global scale”, while it will bring profit, “business will continue”.

In Bortnik’s opinion, “2018 can be very controversial.”

This is due to the quite possible strengthening of the sanctions regime against Russia even in upcoming February, with the sale of U.S. armament to Ukraine in the amount of 42 million dollars, with the breach of the Minsk Protocol etc.

The Ukrainian political scientist notes that “non-constructive comments of Tillerson and Volker are expanding the conflict framework”, and Russia, in its turn, does not want to compromise.

At the same time, “attempts to use the diplomatic layout as a field to achieve victory, not to resolve the crisis” are observed.

Ruslan Bortnik believes that

“after the FIFA World Cup, Russia will have a free hand, and Putin, after being elected for his last presidential term, will work to make history.”

In turn,

“as soon as the FIFA World Cup-2018 is held, Ukraine will enter the pre-election period (in 2019, both parliamentary and presidential elections will take place), any compromises for the Ukrainian authorities will be impossible, and the war factor is a very cheap and effective tool for managing the internal political situation.”

All these factors, Bortnik concludes,

“may become another escalation of the conflict in the Donbass and make it impossible to establish real peace until 2020.”

Ukrainian political scientist, director of the Information and Analytical Center “Perspektiva” Pavel Rudyakov also believes that “there is no positive scenario for Ukraine in 2018.”

In his opinion, the stability of the current regime is explained by the fact that “the Ukrainian government is legitimized by an external factor and even if there are 5% advocates of the rule, it will not matter.”

Pavel Rudyakov, who called Volker “the black demon of the Minsk process,” noted that at one time there was a hope that Americans, by sending Volker, wanted to build a dialogue with Moscow.

“But in reality we see attempts by him to provoke Russia, thereby Volker destroys the construction that could save the world,” the political scientist noted, emphasizing that “the Minsk process is holding back the format from a completely irrational steps. “

Belarusian political scientist Peter Petrovsky also believes that the confrontation around Ukraine in 2018-2019 will only increase.

According to him,

“it is possible that Ukraine will definitively abandon the railway services and close the borders with Russia.”

Despite the fact that

“Ukraine has already lost a lot in reducing trade with Russia”, the Ukrainian leadership, according to him, “has gone so far in its Russophobic statements that it does not balance the view with some benefits in Russian-Ukrainian relations, and are ready to be completely vulnerable and unprotected should there be a complete breakdown of relations.”

Peter Petrovsky notes that

“it is possible in exactly the same way as that which turned out to be possible was what we previously considered impossible until 2014”.

The extreme point in breaking relations with Russia, according to the Belarusian expert, is that Ukrainian hawks “can put in the run-up to the parliamentary and presidential elections of 2019 if such is the task.”

According to the Belarusian political scientist,

“with the main goal of the West being the final inclusion of Ukraine in the Euro-Atlantic space, here no one will even think in terms of the unity of Ukraine.”

He emphasizes that if it is necessary, Ukraine will have to finally give up both Crimea and Donbass:

“Under certain conditions, both the EU and the U.S. will be able to agree to this subject to the final Euro-Atlantic integration of Ukraine.”

For his part, Russian political scientist Sergey Panteleev noted that

“in Ukraine, the negative mythological image of Russia as an ‘aggressor country’ has become one of the foundations of the existence of the current Ukrainian political regime, a determining factor in their legitimization and the main commodity, which Ukraine actively sells outward.”

According to him,

“from the point of view of geopolitics, the Ukrainian crisis is a long-tested American option of holding the territory through a controlled conflict in order to weaken Russia, Germany and Europe as a whole”.

Wouldn’t this seem to be why we are seeing American support for the regime in Ukraine, which has shown its complete irrelevance?

“The regime, which is kept afloat exclusively on western subsidies, information war, the restoration of an authoritarian government with a significant radical nationalist factor, ” – explains Panteleev in breaking down the key part of American politics in Ukraine.

Panteleev believes, that the smoldering conflict in Ukraine can expand, capturing Russia, Belarus and Europe.

In other words, 2018 promises to be a very interesting year indeed.

At the same time, the tough position on Ukraine taken by the Trump administration, from which Russia, on the contrary, was expected to weaken under sanctions and resolve the conflict, will be determined by the “U.S. domestic political agenda related to the need for the U.S. president to prove that he is not the ‘hand of Moscow.’ “, says Panteleev.

This is also connected with the provocative attitude of Volker towards Russia, actually aimed at failure of the Minsk process.

Meanwhile, the Russian political scientist sees a personal motive in the actions of Volker, aimed at his attempts to gain a foothold in the American political establishment at the expense of the militaristic rhetoric that is in demand today.

“In the context of the political crisis in the United States, there is a chaotization of the decision-making system, where private interests and even irrational factors become important,” the Russian political scientist says, emphasizing that “this irrationalism will determine the strengthening of the confrontational component in U.S.-Russian relations.”

At the same time, Sergey Panteleev believes that Russia will in no way agree with the U.S.-Ukrainian model of peacemaking in Donbass and will principally defend its interests in the region. Where does that leave our present ‘smoldering’ deadlock?

Russian political scientist, expert of the Russian Council for Foreign Affairs Alexander Guschin, noting that

“the goal of Ukrainian events is to weaken Russia’s influence,” also indicates that de-escalation of the conflict in the near future is not to be expected.

According to him,

“Volker’s activities show that the confrontational rhetoric continues and there is no hope that it will stop.”

Assuming that the military-political situation has an obvious tendency to aggravate, in his opinion, “Russia reacts adequately, strengthening its defense potential.”

Alexander Gushchin also draws attention to the fact that “a peacekeeping operation of the Volker variety is unacceptable for Russia”, in this regard, “the Western version of peacekeepers is unlikely to pass”, and the most likely scenario is a “simmering conflict”.

At the same time, the Russian expert considers high risks of regional conflict on the perimeter of Russia and even the possibility of a more serious crisis.

“Who said that the global war can not happen again?”,- asks the question Alexander Gushchin, noting that the current crisis will be long-term, in which the “independence of Europe will be limited.”

The Russian political scientist stresses that the NATO paradigm and the influence of the U.S. on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will be decisive and aimed at “preventing the strategic alliance of Moscow and Berlin.”

In conclusion, Alexander Gushchin said that the world, and Ukraine in particular, need a strong Russia, since “strong Russia is not an antiquated Russia, but Russia that defends its value paradigm, its paradigm of the vision of international relations, and not bipolar, but its status as a world and a major regional power, in the sense that there is a region where she will play one of the first, and in some cases – the first role.”

Given the ‘irrationalism’ in the U.S decision making process, apparently intractable features of the U.S deep state which not even an ego driven and determined president has power to control, the chances for an increase of tensions in 2018 is absolutely guaranteed, without provisos. What’s more, the direction and tone of the day gives us strong reasons to believe that events in 2018 can easily simmer into a boil which consumes the entire region, Europe, and beyond.

Joaquin Flores is Editor-in-Chief of Fort Russ News, as well as the Director of the Belgrade based think-tank, the Center for Syncretic Studies. He was educated at California State University, Los Angeles, in the field of International Relations. He previously served as Chief Negotiator and Internal Organizer in several jurisdictions for the SEIU labor union in California. Flores has twenty years experience in community, labor, and anti-war organizing.  Flores has appeared innumerable times on Iran’s ‘PressTV’ and Russia’s ‘RT’ news to share his expert opinion and analysis on current geopolitical matters. 

Honduras is bleeding now, and Honduran blood runs from the hands of President Trump and Gen. John Kelly, long a vicar of American violence enforcing the imperial will. In their vicariously murderous way, Trump and Kelly are carrying on with a century-old, bipartisan American tradition of oppression and human disregard in the classic “banana republic” that the US Marines once kept safe for United Fruit. Trump and Kelly now are merely defending the corrupt military coup of 2009, sanctioned by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (who was OK with death squads). Obama and Clinton are the godparents of the present Honduran thugocracy and its unchecked death squads that together provoked the massive emigration of Hondurans seeking safety here, thereby helping to elect Trump in 2016.

Reliable reporting on the current outpouring of protest in Honduras is hard to come by, but it’s rooted in the Honduran presidential election in November. The incumbent Honduran president, Juan Orlando Hernandez, 49, of the National Party, is a direct beneficiary of the 2009 coup, which elevated him to the leadership of the National Congress. He is a businessman (coffee, hotels, media) with a master’s degree in public administration from the State University of New York. He was first elected president in 2013 (with 34% of the vote) in a corrupt process during which at least 18 opposition-party candidates and supporters were murdered. Additionally, charges of fraudulent voting and corrupt campaign contributions were ignored by authorities, to the benefit of Hernandez. Once he was president, he was barred by the Honduran constitution from running for a second term. This obstacle was removed by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, which is controlled by the president. Hernandez has a long personal relationship with Gen. John Kelly. Going into the election, Hernandez was considered the favorite.

Juan Orlando Hernandez

Opposing Hernandez was democratic socialist Salvador Nasralla, 64, of the Libre-PINU Party (the Opposition Alliance against Dictatorship), the party of the coup-deposed President Manuel Zelaya. Nasralla graduated with honors from the Catholic University of Chile as a civil engineer and later earned an NBA. He was CEO of Pepsi Honduras before starting a television career in 1981. Since then, he has been harshly critical of chronic corruption in Honduras, founding the Anti-Corruption Party in 2013, when he won 13% of the vote for president. He was not expected to win the 2017 election.

As it stands now, the winner may never be known, but more than likely Nasralla won the popular vote. Among election monitors, the Organization of American States (OAS) and the European Union (EU) have rejected the results, while the US Embassy has said everything is hunky-dory. Meanwhile, the US and other anti-democratic forces are on the verge of installing their puppet Hernandez as the re-elected president of Honduras. The timeline of this stolen election illustrates just how secure the dictatorship and its allies in the US feel in their brazen criminality:

November 26. Apparently, something like 57% of Hondurans vote for a field of nine candidates. The Supreme Electoral Council, controlled by Hernandez, closes the polls an hour earlier than in the past, likely suppressing the vote. At first the Electoral Council releases vote totals as they come in, as is customary. Then, with Nasralla surprisingly leading, the Electoral Council suspends the count for seven hours.

November 27. With 57% of the votes counted, the Election Council reports that Nasralla is leading Hernandez by 5 points, roughly 45-40. These totals apparently represent mostly voting machine votes and not paper ballots. The Election Council then suspends the count again, for another 36 hours, telling the public there might be no final results until November 30.

Salvador Nasralla

November 28. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signs off on State Dept. certification that Honduras has been improving on fighting corruption and supporting human rights, clearing the way for $644 million in US aid.

November 28-29. The Election Council issues sporadic new totals that claim Nasralla’s percentage is shrinking and that Hernandez is pulling ahead.

November 29. Nasralla and Hernandez sign “a document vowing to respect the final result after every disputed vote had been scrutinized,” a circumstance unlikely ever to be realized. When the Election Council again halts the count, claiming a computer glitch, Nasralla repudiates the agreement and urges his supporters to protest: “They take us for idiots and want to steal our victory.” Nasralla supporters in the thousands take to the streets across the country.

November 30. Nasralla accuses the Election Council of election fraud. The Election Council reports 94% of votes are counted, with Hernandez ahead by less than 2 points (42.92 to 41.42%). Nasralla supporters are in the streets. Riot police fire tear gas, pepper spray, and live ammunition at protestors.

December 1. The Election Council announces there will be no further results till all votes are counted. Hernandez declares state of emergency and announces a 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew.

December 2. The Honduran National Roundtable for Human Rights denounces government action as state terrorism against civilians. The group also accuses the government of imposing the curfew as an act of repression to protect the electoral fraud it was perpetrating. By now government forces have killed at least 7 people and injured a score. The second night of curfew sees thousands of people banging pots and pans in protest (cacerolazos).
Substantial numbers of National Police defy the Hernandez government and refuse to enforce the curfew. A member of the elite Cobra riot police reads from a statement: “Our people are sovereign. We cannot confront and repress their rights.”

December 5. US State Dept. announces certification of Honduran improvement on human rights so that Honduras can continue to get US military assistance.

December 6. OAS observers cast doubt on the election results so far.

December 9. Hernandez government lifts state of emergency and curfew. Radio Progreso, an independent community station defending democracy, is attacked and taken off the air. Journalists are arrested.

December 10. Thousands of Hondurans march on US Embassy in Tegucigalpa protesting US interference in election.

December 14. The Honduran Election Council, as required by law, begins reviewing some 125 official objections to the November 26 election, including four motions challenging the presidential election.

December 15. The Election Council has finished a recount of ballot boxes with irregularities, but has not declared a winner. Protests continue throughout the country. The death toll reaches 16, with 1,675 arrests.

December 17. The Organization of American States (OAS) denounces the Honduran election and calls for a new election in a statement saying: “Facing the impossibility of determining a winner, the only way possible so that the people of Honduras are the victors is a new call for general elections.”

Supporting the OAS conclusions is a detailed technical report on the election by Georgetown University professor Dr. Irfan Nooruddin who writes in conclusion: “On the basis of this analysis, I would reject the proposition that the National Party [Hernandez] won the election legitimately.”

At the same time, Nasralla has left Honduras to go to Washington to plead his case at the State Dept.

Taking advantage of that opportunity, the Election Council announces that Hernandez has beaten Nasralla by less than two points (42.95 to 41.42%) out of almost 3.5 million votes cast (3,476,419). There are about 6 million voters in the country of 9 million people.

Mexico recognizes Hernandez as winner, an announcement coordinated with the US. Nasralla and his supporters call for the population to keep mobilizing and keep protesting.

December 18. Honduran vice president Ricardo Alvarez rejects OAS (but not US) interference in Honduran affairs:

This is an autonomous and sovereign country. This is a country that is not going to do what anybody from an international organization tells it to do. I will say it again: The only other election this country will have, the next one, is on the last Sunday of November 2021. There’s not another election.

December 20. Three human rights experts (David Kaye, Michel Frost, Edison Lanza) from the United Nations and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights condemn the Hernandez government for the use of lethal force on protestors, and for violating basic human rights to life, free expression, and free assembly. They write:

“We are alarmed by the illegal and excessive use of force to disperse protests, which have resulted in the deaths of at least 12 protesters and left dozens injured. Hundreds of people have also been detained, many of whom have been transferred to military installations where they have been brutally beaten and subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment.”

December 21. Honduras is one of only eight countries at the UN voting not to denounce the US plan to move its embassy to Jerusalem.

December 22. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has the State Dept. issue a statement recognizing Hernandez as winner, adding the absurdly hypocritical caveat that “a significant long-term effort to heal the political divide in the country and enact much-needed electoral reforms should be undertaken.”

Congressman Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, says the State Dept.’s action left him “angry and disturbed.” One of some 50 lawmakers who signed letters urging the US to support the OAS call for a new election in Honduras, McGovern states the obvious: “Very few Hondurans have confidence in the results, and the country remains deeply polarized.” McGovern then adds fairy dust: “For the U.S. government to pretend otherwise is the height of blind folly and it will surely harm our influence and undermine our priorities throughout the region.” This is real blind folly, unless McGovern or anyone else steps up to do anything about it.

Canada also recognizes Hernandez as the winner.

Nasralla concedes.

Why was the US so concerned about Nasralla? He opposes corruption, violence, law-breaking, dictatorship – are these views now seen as threats to US interests? The US doesn’t explain itself. It doesn’t have to, it’s the US. As reporter Allan Nairn said on Democracy NOW recently:

And at one point early in December, [acting US ambassador Heide] Fulton and John Creamer, who’s a senior State Department official and a former aide to General John Kelly of the White House, met with Nasralla. And he said that the U.S. officials were urging him to stop the protests. The protests were the one popular source of leverage against the electoral fraud, and the U.S. was trying to shut them down—without success—even though Nasralla made a point of saying he wanted to be a friend of the U.S., he wanted to be an ally of the U.S. He said he wasn’t going to touch the military base, he wasn’t going to touch the multinationals. He even said he would sign every U.S. extradition order without even reading them….

So, they decided even Nasralla, who was promising all those things to comply with the U.S., was not good enough, was not acceptable to them, because he would represent a voting out of the coup regime. The 2009 coup, which had backing from the Pentagon and from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the time, put in a series of presidents, of whom Hernández is the latest, who back the oligarchy, give the U.S. a blank check to do whatever they want militarily, and who have very little popular support.

Remember that Honduran constitutional ban on a Honduran president being able to run for a second term? The military coup in 2009 claimed then-president Zelaya was trying to change the constitution. Eight years later, stealing an election in which the Honduran president succeeds himself is justified by changing the constitution. As long as the US puppet wins, principles don’t matter any more to Trump and Tillerson than they did to Obama and Clinton.

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

The late Michel Ratner, passed away in 2016. As an attorney, he was powerful voice on civil rights as well as an analyst of “war on terrorism” and US foreign policy.

With foresight, Ratner formulated Moving Toward a Police State (or Have We Arrived?) shortly after 9/11 in November 2001. What has been the historical evolution since the launching of the US Patriot Act by President Bush shortly after the 9/11 attacks:

“The USA Patriot Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism), aimed at both aliens and citizens. The legislation met more opposition than one might expect in these difficult times. Sixteen years later, “Have we Arrived”?”

Flash forward to 2018, the anti-war movement is defunct. Where is the opposition to the US Police State, which is tacitly supported by media propaganda and a carefully controlled protest movement largely funded by Wall Street?

Today my thoughts are with Michael Ratner.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, December 2017

***

I live a few blocks from the World Trade Center. In New York, we are still mourning the loss of so many after the attacks on our city. We want to arrest and punish the terrorists, eliminate the terrorist network and prevent future attacks. But the government’s declared war on terrorism, and many of the anti-terrorism measures, include a curtailment of freedom and constitutional rights that have many of us very worried.

I wrote the above paragraph and much of the article that follows toward the end of October. At that time, the repressive machinery then being put into effect was already terrifying. Since that time the situation has gotten unimaginably worse; rights that we thought embedded in the constitution and protected by international law are in serious jeopardy or have already been eliminated. It is no exaggeration to say we are moving toward a police state. In this atmosphere, we should take nothing for granted. We will not be protected, nor will the courts, the congress, or the many liberals who are gleefully jumping on the bandwagon of repression guarantee our rights. We have no choice but to make our voices be heard; it is time to stand and be counted on the side of justice and against the antediluvian forces that have much of our country in a stranglehold.

The domestic consequences of the war on terrorism include massive arrests and interrogation of immigrants, the possible use of torture to obtain information, the creation of a special new cabinet office of Homeland Security and the passage of legislation granting intelligence and law enforcement agencies much broader powers to intrude into the private lives of Americans. Recent new initiatives — the wiretapping of attorney-client conversations and military commissions to try suspected terrorists — undermine core constitutional protections and are reminiscent of inquisitorial practices.

Although it is not discussed in this article, the war on terrorism also means pervasive government and media censorship of information, the silencing of dissent, and widespread ethnic and religious profiling of Muslims, Arabs and Asian people. It means creating a climate of fear where one suspects one’s neighbors and people are afraid to speak out.

The claimed necessity for this war at home is problematic. The legislation and other governmental actions are premised on the belief that the intelligence agencies failed to stop the September 11th attack because they lacked the spying capability to find and arrest the conspirators. Yet, neither the government nor the agencies have demonstrated that this is the reason.

This war at home gives Americans a false sense of security, allowing us to believe that tighter borders, vastly empowered intelligence agencies, and increased surveillance will stop terrorism. The United States is not yet a police state. However, even a police state could not stop terrorists intent on doing us harm. In addition, the fantasy of Fortress America keeps us from examining the root causes of terrorism, and the consequences of decades of American foreign policy in the Middle East, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Unless some of the grievances against the United States are studied and addressed, terrorism will continue.

Military Commissions: The Peruvian Option

On November 13, President Bush signed an executive order establishing military commissions or tribunals to try suspected terrorists. Under this order non-citizens, whether from the United States or elsewhere, accused of aiding international terrorism, at the discretion of the President, can be tried before one of these commissions. These are not court-martials, which provide far more protections. The divergence from constitutional protections the executive order allows are breathtaking. Attorney General Ashcroft has explicitly stated that terrorists do not deserve constitutional protections. These are “courts” of conviction and not of justice.

The Secretary of Defense will appoint the judges, most likely military officers, who will decide both questions of law and fact. Unlike federal judges who are appointed for life, these officers will have little independence and every reason to decide in favor of the prosecution. Normal rules of evidence, which provide some assurance of reliability, will not apply. Hearsay and even evidence obtained from torture will apparently be admissible. This is particularly frightening in light of the intimations from U.S. officials that torture of suspects may be an option. Rules of evidence help insure the innocent are spared, but also that law enforcement authorities adhere to what we thought were evolving standards of a civilized society.

Unanimity among the judges is not required even to impose the death penalty. Suspects will not have free choice of attorneys. The only appeal from a conviction will be to the President or the Secretary of Defense. Incredibly, the entire process, including execution, can be conducted in secret and the trials can be held anywhere the Secretary of Defense decides. A trial might occur on an aircraft carrier and the body of the executed “buried” at sea. The President is literally getting away with murder.

Surprisingly, a number of prestigious law professors (e.g. Lawrence Tribe and Ruth Wedgwood) have accepted and even argued in favor of these tribunals. The primary claim is that it might be necessary to disclose classified information in order to obtain convictions. This is a pretext. There are procedures for handling classified information in federal courts as was done in the trial of those convicted in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. It certainly does not provide a reason for sending suspects into a “justice” system akin to that which the US condemned in Peru. The 1993 trials also demonstrate that these trials can be held in federal courts.

Trials before military commissions will not be trusted in either the Muslim world or elsewhere. Nor should they. They will be viewed as what they are — “kangaroo courts.” How much better to demonstrate to the world that the guilty have been apprehended and fairly convicted. A better solution would be for the US to go to the U.N. and have the UN establish a special court for the trials. Judges from different legal systems including that of the US, Muslim and civil law countries could constitute such a court.

Wiretapping Attorney-Client Communications

At the heart of the effective assistance of counsel is the right of a criminal defendant to a lawyer with whom he or she can communicate candidly and freely without fear that the government is overhearing confidential communications. This right is fundamental to the adversary system of justice in the Untied States. When the government overhears these conversations, a defendant’s right to a defense is compromised.

Attorney General John Ashcroft

Now, with the stroke of pen, Attorney General Ashcroft, has eliminated the attorney-client privilege and will wiretap privileged communications when he thinks there is “reasonable suspicion to believe” that an “inmate may use communications with attorneys or their agents to further facilitate act of violence or terrorism.” He says that approximately one hundred such suspects and their attorneys may be subject to the order. He claims the legal authority to do so without court order; in other words without the approval and finding by a neutral magistrate that attorney-client communications are facilitating criminal conduct. This is utter lawlessness by our country’s top law enforcement officer and is flatly unconstitutional. This wiretapping of attorney-client communications has already begun.

The New Legal Regime

The government has established a tripartite plan in its efforts to eradicate terrorism in the United States. President Bush has created a new cabinet-level Homeland Security Office; the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating thousands of individuals and groups and making hundreds of arrests; and Congress is enacting new laws that will grant the FBI and other intelligence agencies vast new powers to wiretap and spy on people in the United States.

The Office of Homeland Security

On September 20th President Bush announced the creation of the Homeland Security Office, charged with gathering intelligence, coordinating anti-terrorism efforts and taking precautions to prevent and respond to terrorism. It is not yet known how this office will function, but it will most likely try to centralize the powers of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies — a difficult, if not impossible, job — among some 40 bickering agencies. Those concerned with its establishment are worried that it will become a super spy agency and, as its very name implies, that the military will play a role in domestic law enforcement.

FBI Investigations and Arrests

The FBI has always done more than chase criminals; like the Central Intelligence Agency it has long considered itself the protector of US ideology. Those who have opposed government policies — whether civil rights workers, anti-Vietnam war protesters, opponents of the covert Reagan-era wars or cultural dissidents — have repeatedly been surveyed and had their activities disrupted by the FBI.

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attack, Attorney General John Ashcroft focused on non-citizens, whether permanent residents, students, temporary workers or tourists. Normally, an alien can only be held for 48 hours prior to the filing of charges. Ashcroft’s new regulation allowed arrested aliens to be held without any charges for a “reasonable time,” presumably months or longer. (See below for new legislation regarding detention of immigrants.)

The FBI began massive detentions and investigations of individuals suspected of terrorist connections, almost all of them non-citizens of Middle Eastern descent; over 1,100 have been arrested. Many were held for days without access to lawyers or knowledge of the charges against them; many are still in detention. Few, if any, have been proven to have a connection with the September 11 attacks and remain in jail despite having been cleared. In some cases, people were arrested merely for being from a country like Pakistan and having expired student visas. Stories of mistreatment of such detainees are not uncommon.

Apparently, some of those arrested are not willing to talk to the FBI, although they have been offered shorter jail sentences, jobs, money and new identities. Astonishingly, the FBI and the Department of Justice are discussing methods to force them to talk, which include “using drugs or pressure tactics such as those employed by the Israeli interrogators.” The accurate term to describe these tactics is torture. Our government wants to torture people to make them talk. There is resistance to this even from law enforcement officials. One former FBI Chief of Counter-Terrorism, said in an October New York Newsday article, “Torture goes against every grain in my body. Chances are you are going to get the wrong person and risk damage or killing them.”

As torture is illegal in the United States and under international law, US officials risk lawsuits by such practices. For this reason, they have suggested having another country do their dirty work; they want to extradite the suspects to allied countries where security services threaten family members and use torture. It would be difficult to imagine a more ominous signal of the repressive period we are facing. The FBI is also currently investigating groups it claims are linked to terrorism — among them pacifist groups such as the US chapter of Women in Black, which holds vigils to protest violence in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. The FBI has threatened to force members of Women in Black to either talk about their group or go to jail. As one of the group’s members said, “If the FBI cannot or will not distinguish between groups who collude in hatred and terrorism, and peace activists who struggle in the full light of day against all forms of terrorism we are in serious trouble.”

Unfortunately, the FBI does not make that distinction. We are facing not only the roundup of thousands on flimsy suspicions, but also an all-out investigation of dissent in the United States.

The New Anti-Terrorist Legislation

Congress has passed and President Bush has signed sweeping new anti-terrorist legislation, the USA Patriot Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism), aimed at both aliens and citizens. The legislation met more opposition than one might expect in these difficult times. A National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom of over 120 groups ranging from the right to the left opposed the worst aspects of the proposed new law. They succeeded in making minor modifications, but the most troubling provisions remain, and are described below:

Rights of Aliens

Prior to the legislation, anti-terrorist laws passed in the wake of the 1996 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma had already given the government wide powers to arrest, detain and deport aliens based upon secret evidence — evidence that neither the alien nor his attorney could view or refute. The current proposed legislation makes it even worse for aliens.

First, the law would permit “mandatory detention” of aliens certified by the attorney general as “suspected terrorists.” These could include aliens involved in barroom brawls or those who have provided only humanitarian assistance to organizations disfavored by the United States. Once certified in this way, an alien could be imprisoned indefinitely with no real opportunity for court challenge. Until now, such “preventive detention” was believed to be flatly unconstitutional.

Second, current law permits deportation of aliens who support terrorist activity; the proposed law would make aliens deportable for almost any association with a “terrorist organization.” Although this change seems to have a certain surface plausibility, it represents a dangerous erosion of Americans’ constitutionally protected rights of association. “Terrorist organization” is a broad and open-ended term that could include liberation groups such as the Irish Republican Army, the African National Congress, or civic groups that have ever engaged in any violent activity, such as Greenpeace. An alien who gives only medical or humanitarian aid to similar groups, or simply supports their political message in a material way could be jailed indefinitely.

More Powers to the FBI and CIA

A key element in the new law is the wide expansion of wiretapping. In the United States wiretapping is permitted, but generally only when there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and a judge signs a special wiretapping order that contains limited time periods, the numbers of the telephones wiretapped and the type of conversations that can be overheard.

In 1978, an exception was made to these strict requirements, permitting wiretapping to be carried out to gather intelligence information about foreign governments and foreign terrorist organizations. A secret court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, was established that could approve such wiretaps without requiring the government to show evidence of criminal conduct. In doing so the constitutional protections necessary when investigating crimes could be bypassed. The secret court is little more than a rubber stamp for wiretapping requests by the spy agencies. It has authorized over 13,000 wiretaps in its 22-year existence, approximately a thousand last year, and has apparently never denied a request.

Under the new law, the same secret court will have the power to authorize wiretaps and secret searches of homes in criminal cases — not just to gather foreign intelligence. The FBI will be able to wiretap individuals and organizations without meeting the stringent requirements of the Constitution. The law will authorize the secret court to permit roving wiretaps of any phones, computers or cell phones that might possibly be used by a suspect. Widespread reading of e-mail will be allowed, even before the recipient opens it. Thousands of conversations will be listened to or read that have nothing to do with the suspect or any crime.

The new legislation is filled with many other expansions of investigative and prosecutorial power, including wider use of undercover agents to infiltrate organizations, longer jail sentences and lifetime supervision for some who have served their sentences, more crimes that can receive the death penalty and longer statutes of limitations for prosecuting crimes. Another provision of the new bill makes it a crime for a person to fail to notify the FBI if he or she has “reasonable grounds to believe” that someone is about to commit a terrorist offense. The language of this provision is so vague that anyone, however innocent, with any connection to anyone suspected of being a terrorist can be prosecuted. We will all need to become spies to protect ourselves and the subjects of our spying, at least for now, will be those from the Mid East.

The New Crime of Domestic Terrorism

The act creates a number of new crimes. One of the most threatening to dissent and those who oppose government policies is the crime of “domestic terrorism.” It is loosely defined as acts that are dangerous to human life, violate criminal law and “appear to be intended” to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” or “influence the policy of a government by intimidation of coercion.” Under this definition, a protest demonstration that blocked a street and prevented an ambulance from getting by could be deemed domestic terrorism. Likewise, the demonstrations in Seattle against the WTO could fit within the definition. This was an unnecessary addition to the criminal code; there are already plenty of laws making such civil disobedience criminal without labeling such time honored protest as terrorist and imposing severe prison sentences.

Overall, the new legislation represents one of the most sweeping assaults on liberties in the last 50 years. It is unlikely to make us more secure; it is certain to make us less free.

It is common for governments to reach for draconian law enforcement solutions in times of war or national crisis. It has happened often in the United States and elsewhere. We should learn from historical example: times of hysteria, of war, and of instability are not the times to rush to enact new laws that curtail our freedoms and grant more authority to the government and its intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

The US government has conceptualized the war against terrorism as a permanent war, a war without boundaries. Terrorism is frightening to all of us, but it’s equally chilling to think that in the name of antiterrorism our government is willing to suspend constitutional freedoms permanently as well.

A record cold wave extending from the Upper Midwest through the Great Lakes and into New England contributed to numerous deaths across the United States Christmas week. Homeless people and the elderly were particularly at risk, but the greater stress imposed by severe weather has yet again laid bare the social crisis affecting all sections of the working class.

Deaths due to hypothermia (exposure to extreme cold) were reported in Chicago; Cincinnati, Ohio; Rapid City, South Dakota; and Ogden, Utah over the Christmas holiday period.

The victim in Chicago was a 62-year-old man, whose name has not been released, found unresponsive in his car the day after Christmas. His was the fourth death in Chicago attributed to exposure since the current cold season began in late October. The other victims were all men suffering from multiple health problems aggravated by alcoholism.

The man found dead Tuesday at a bus stop in downtown Cincinnati, 55-year-old Kenneth Martin, was homeless. In Rapid City, Alan Jack, aged 69, was found dead outdoors early Christmas morning. The 79-year-old woman, Verna Marriott, found dead the morning of December 23 in Ogden was suffering from dementia and had wandered from the home she shared with her daughter’s family in the middle of the night.

An even greater death toll comes from the rising number of house fires, frequently triggered by space heaters or other precarious methods of keeping warm in severe weather. These fires for the most part represent the intersection of the cold wave with the bad housing conditions endured by impoverished layers of the working class.

Tweleve people died Thursday night, including a one-year-old child, as the result of a fire which ripped through an apartment building in the Bronx, New York City’s poorest borough. While a cause of the fire has yet to be officially determined, initial reports indicate that the fire was caused by a space heater. The fire comes less than two weeks after a house fire in Brooklyn killed a mother and her three children.

Two fires in eastern Iowa over the weekend killed nine people, including four children, bringing the total number of fire deaths in 2017 in Iowa to 51, the highest level in more than a decade.

Four members of one family died in a house fire early Christmas Day in Blue Grass, just west of Davenport. One of the four residents escaped but later died in the hospital. The other three died inside their home.

A second fire in a Davenport mobile home December 21 killed a mother and her four children. The mobile home had no working smoke detectors and, because it was owner-occupied, was not subject to fire department inspection.

Kelsey Clain, 23, and two of her children, Jayden Smead, five, and Carson Smead, two, died at the scene. Isabella Smead, nine months, died in hospital December 24, and Skylar Smead, four, died similarly on Tuesday, December 26.

In the neighboring state of Minnesota, a house fire Tuesday in Hibbing killed four people, including two grandparents, Steven and Patricia Gillitzer, and two grandsons, Todd Gillitzer, nine, and Anteus Adams, three. A third grandson, Jonathan Gillitzer, eight, was rescued by his grandfather and survived, but Steven, a retired firefighter, died trying to save other members of his family.

Firefighters from five departments fought the blaze in temperatures of around 20 below zero Fahrenheit, with wind chills as low as 35 below. The house had smoke detectors which were sounding when firefighters arrived at the scene. There were two other fire deaths in Minnesota since Christmas Day, bringing the total for the year to 63, the most since 2002.

Two children were killed in a house fire in East Franklin, Pennsylvania, northeast of Pittsburgh, on Thursday morning, December 28. The 13-year-old girl and 10-year-old boy were caught by a fast-moving fire, but five other residents—the children’s mother, her boyfriend, and three siblings escaped by jumping out second-floor windows. The day before, a 16-year-old boy was killed in a house fire in nearby South Bend, Pennsylvania.

Cold weather stretching into the southern portion of the Plains states created treacherous driving conditions. Four women—two teenagers, a 20-year-old and a 47-year-old—died Tuesday in a car crash near Abilene, Kansas caused by icy roads. The car hit a guardrail on a bridge and went over, landing 25 feet below on its roof, according to the state highway patrol.

The cold shattered records throughout the affected area, home to half the population of the United States. International Falls, Minnesota, proverbially the coldest spot in the continental US, set a record low of minus 36 degrees Fahrenheit Wednesday morning, four degrees below the 1924 record. Detroit tied its previous record of minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit the same day.

The National Weather Service issued extreme-cold advisories for New England, the Northeast, the Midwest and parts of the West. The forecast for New Year’s Eve in New York City was a wind chill in negative numbers, some 40 degrees colder than normal. City officials said that emergency shelter space was being opened for thousands of homeless people who might otherwise be on the streets this week.

As the cold wave set in, city after city across the United States has reported record annual death tolls among the homeless. Memorial services were held in several hundred cities on December 21—the shortest day and longest night of the year—to mark these tragic events.

The cities involved include many that might not be thought of as centers of homelessness and premature death—Charlotte, North Carolina, with 28 deaths, triple the previous high; Nashville, Tennessee, with 118 deaths; Denver, Colorado, with 232 deaths.

These grim totals were dwarfed by the figure from Los Angeles, a staggering 805 deaths among the homeless, up from 719 in 2016. The city is the center of US homelessness, and particularly of those living on the streets rather than in shelters or doubled-up with relatives and friends.

By one estimate, documented in a three-minute clip posted on Instagram on Christmas Day, there are 20,000 people living on the streets in downtown LA’s Skid Row alone. The UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty visited this area as part of his recent tour of high-poverty areas in the United States, and cited it as part of his report, which concluded that for many millions of people, “The American Dream is the American Illusion.”

Of 193 voting members of the UN,  65 sanctions-deserving, pro-Apartheid states shamefully failed to support the December 2017 UN General Assembly Resolution condemning US-backed Apartheid Israel’s unilateral annexation of Occupied East Jerusalem. While this moral failure is understandable  for serial genocidal and genocide-based nations like Australia and Canada and countries complicit in WW2 Nazi atrocities like Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Romania and the Ukraine, the moral failure of 21 out of 31 Small Island Developing States suggests that they succumbed to blatant US blackmail  and corruption.

The result of the vote for the December 2017 UN General Assembly Resolution condemning US-backed Apartheid Israel over Occupied East Jerusalem is as follows [1]:

Member states that voted Yes (128) :   Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea (South Korea), Russia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

Member states that voted No (9): Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo, and the United States.

Member states that Abstained (35): Antigua-Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Haiti, Hungary, Jamaica, Kiribati, Latvia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Trinidad-Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.

Member states that Didn’t Show (21): Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire), El Salvador, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Mongolia, Myanmar, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome-Principe, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Zambia.

Thus 128 out of 193 UN members states voted Yes in favour of International Law and Palestinian Human Rights and in opposition to US-backed Apartheid Israel’s continuing Occupation, not just of Occupied East Jerusalem but of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in general [1] where Indigenous Palestinians have been excluded from all Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [2].

Because of US backing, genocidally  racist Apartheid Israel has got way with immense, Nazi-style  crimes against humanity over the last 70 years – it has occupied all of Palestine plus neighbouring territories, the ongoing Palestinian Genocide has been associated, so far, with 2 million Indigenous Palestinian deaths from violence, 0.1 million, or imposed deprivation, 1.9 million, since WW1, 90% of Palestine has been ethnically cleansed,  7 million Palestinians are excluded from Palestine, and 14 million Palestinians are excluded from all or part of Palestine.  5 million Occupied Palestinians (half children and three quarters  women and children) are indefinitely, criminally,  violently and highly abusively incarcerated without human rights in the Gaza Concentration Camp (2 million) or in ever-diminishing West Bank ghettoes (3 million). Of Apartheid Israel’s 6.8 million Indigenous Palestinian subjects, 5 million (74%) are excluded from voting for the government ruling them i.e. they are subject to egregious Apartheid that is worse than that  in US-, UK-, Australia- and Apartheid Israel-backed Apartheid South Africa [2-16].

From an International Law perspective,  US-backed Apartheid Israel grossly violates (1) the Charter of the United Nations that declares that countries cannot simply acquire territory by force [17]; (2) Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention which states that “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” [18]; and (3) Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War that unequivocally state that the Occupier must supply its Subjects with life-sustaining  food and medical services “to the fullest extent of the means available to it” [19] (the GDP per capita is $37,000 for Apartheid Israel (zero avoidable deaths per year)  but $2,900 for Occupied Palestinians (about 4,200 avoidable deaths annually from deprivation as well as about 500 deaths from Israeli violence) [5, 20]. These gross violations of International  Law occur in Occupied East Jerusalem as well as in the rest of the Occupied Palestinian  Territory [21].

The full text of the 21 December 2017 UN General Assembly Resolution on the status of Jerusalem is as follows:

“Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Bearing in mind the specific status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for the protection and preservation of the unique spiritual, religious and cultural dimensions of the city, as foreseen in relevant United Nations resolutions, Stressing that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations in line with relevant United Nations resolutions,

Expressing, in this regard, its deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem,

1. Affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and in this regard calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem, pursuant to Security Council resolution 478 (1980);
2. Demands that all States comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem, and not recognize any actions or measures contrary to those resolutions; A/ES-10/L.22 2/2 17-22856

3. Reiterates its call for the reversal of the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution and for the intensification and acceleration of international and regional efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative 1 and the Quartet road map,2 and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967;

4. Decides to adjourn the tenth emergency special session temporarily and to authorize the President of the General Assembly at its most recent session to resume its meeting upon request from Member States” [22].

The UN News Centre reported the UNGA vote thus:

“By an overwhelming majority, Member States in the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday “demanded” that all countries comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, following an earlier decision by the United States to recognize the Holy City as the capital of Israel. Through a resolution adopted by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to nine against (Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo, United States), with 35 abstentions, the 193-member Assembly expressed “deep regret” over recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem and stressed that the Holy City “is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations in line with relevant UN resolutions.” Action in the Assembly today follows a failed attempt by the Security Council on Monday adopt a similar text reflecting regret among the body’s members about “recent decisions regarding the status of Jerusalem,” with a veto from the United States, a permanent member of the Council. Ahead of that failed resolution, Nickolay Mladenov, Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, told the Security Council that the security situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory had become more tense in the wake of US President Donald Trump’s decision on 6 December to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Subsequently, Yemen and Turkey, in their respective capacities as Chair of the Arab Group and the Chair of the Summit of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, requested the President of the General Assembly to “urgently resume’ the tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly in accordance with the so-named ‘Uniting for peace’ procedure. This procedure, under Assembly resolution 377 (1950), is a pathway around a Security Council veto. By it, the Assembly can call an emergency special session to consider a matter “with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures,” if the Security Council fails to act or if there is lack of unanimity among the Council’s permanent members, China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States” [23].

The UN News Centre reported the failure of a prior UN Security Council  vote on Occupied East Jerusalem due to veto by the US: “The United Nations Security Council on Monday failed to adopt the draft resolution that reflects regret among the body’s members about “recent decisions regarding the status of Jerusalem,” with a negative vote by the United States.  The text, tabled by Egypt, reiterated the United Nations’ position on Jerusalem and would have affirmed “that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered, the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council.”  The text would also have called on all States “to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem.” A negative vote – or veto – from one of the Council’s five permanent members – China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States – blocks passage of a resolution. Therefore, the draft was rejected despite support from the other four permanent members and from the 10 non-permanent members” [24].  The UN Security Council in 2017 was  composed of 15 Members, the 5 permanent members (China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date): Bolivia (2018), Egypt (2017), Ethiopia (2018), Italy (2017), Japan (2017), Kazakhstan (2018), Senegal (2017), Sweden   (2018), Ukraine (2017) and Uruguay (2017).

Source: Countercurrents

Now neo-Nazi Ukraine that had supported the UN Security Council  Resolution remarkably Didn’t Show for the UN General Assembly vote  and was rapidly rewarded for this pro-Apartheid position by the US agreeing to supply sophisticated anti-tank weapons to the Ukraine [25].

Those who supported Nazi Germany are legitimately  described as pro-Nazi. Similarly,  those supporting Apartheid Israel can reasonably be described as pro-Apartheid, noting that Apartheid is one of the vilest of crimes abhorred by the UN and International Law [26]. The wonderful Palestinian humanitarian Jesus declared: “He who is not for me is against me” [27] and the 65 out of 193 UN member  nations not supporting the December 2017 UN General Assembly Resolution against US-backed Apartheid Israel unilaterally annexing  Occupied East Jerusalem are shamefully anti-Palestine human rights  anti-international law and pro-Apartheid, and as such deserved to suffer  Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) as are presently being applied to Apartheid Israel.

The following analysis of pro-Apartheid states who failed to support the UN General Assembly Resolution on Occupied East Jerusalem is useful for those  planning to ethically buy goods or  services internationally or planning  ethical international holidays.

(1). 28 of 35 OECD countries voted “Yes” but 7 pro-Apartheid  OECD nations did not – Apartheid Israel, Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the US.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is a US hegemony-, race- and wealth-based collection of mostly US-linked, European and rich countries that notably excludes Russia, most Eastern European countries (excepting Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Slovenia) as well as China, Taiwan, and Singapore.

The Organization for OECD countries include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israël (Apartheid Israel), Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States [28].

28 of 35 OECD countries voted Yes. Of the 7 OECD countries that did not vote Yes,  2 voted No (the US and Apartheid Israel) and 5 Abstained (Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland). Of these 7 “advanced” countries that adopted a pro-racism, pro-Apartheid Israel and hence pro-Apartheid position, all have a dirty record of invading other countries with concomitant genocidal atrocities. Indeed invasion and colonization of their present territories commenced in 1788 (Australia), the 16th  century (the US and Canada), 1917 (Apartheid Israel) and the 9th century (Hungary). However ethnic cleansing of their present territories was not enough and these 7 deeply racist countries have invaded further countries with attendant atrocities.

Thus Australia has invaded 85 countries, the US 72, Canada 25, Apartheid Israel 12 and Hungary 7  [20, 29, 30] with these invasions variously associated with genocide, as follows: Australia (30 genocide involvements, notably the  ongoing Aboriginal Genocide and Aboriginal Ethnocide, 1788-present [20, 31]; the WW2 Bengali Holocaust, 1942-1945 [32-38]; the ongoing Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide, 1990-present) [20, 29-30, 39-41]; Canada (genocide and ethnocide of Indigenous First Nations [20]; linked to UK and/or US genocidal atrocities, notably the ongoing Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide, 1990-present [40, 41]), Apartheid Israel (ongoing Palestinian Genocide, 1917-present; variously involved in the Guatemala Mayan India Genocide, the Sri Lanka Tamil Genocide, the Myanmar Rohingya Genocide, and the Iraqi Genocide and Syrian Genocide that are part of the ongoing  US-led Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide) [3, 4, 41];  Hungary (Jewish Holocaust and Jewish Genocide, 1944-1945) [20];  and the US ( American Indian Holocaust and American Indian Genocide, 16th century onwards; African slave trade, 16th century onwards; major role in wars in Latin America, Africa, Europe and Asia, most notably in the last century genocide in Central America, Africa, Korea, Indo-China [20], and in the Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide notably in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria,  starving Somalia, Syria and starving Yemen [39-41]). The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were variously involved in genocidal US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan [20].

(2). 21 of 29 NATO countries voted Yes but US voted No and 7 abstained, including  Canada, Czech Republic and Poland, and 4 former WW2 allies of Nazi Germany (Croatia, Hungary, Latvia and Romania)  

The 29 NATO members are Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the US [42].

21 of 29 NATO countries voted Yes. Pro-Apartheid and serial war criminal US, that is number 1 in the world for supporting Apartheid Israel, voted No. Pro-Apartheid Canada, that is number 3 in the world after the US (#1) and Australia (#2) for supporting Apartheid Israel, abstained, as did the pro-Apartheid Czech Republic and pro-Apartheid Poland. 4 further abstaining pro-Apartheid NATO members were genocidal former allies of Nazi Germany in WW2 (Croatia, Hungary, Latvia and Romania).

The pro-Apartheid Czech Republic and pro-Apartheid Poland have short memories – they suffered hugely under Nazi German occupation in WW2 but both participated in the war criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq, an Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide that was associated with 1.5 million Iraq violent deaths, 1.2 million Iraqi avoidable deaths from war-imposed deprivation and 5-6 million refugees [39, 41].

Pro-Apartheid Croatia, pro-Apartheid Hungary, pro-Apartheid Latvia and pro-Apartheid Romania had dirty, war criminal records as allies of Nazi Germany in WW2 [20], and Hungary, Latvia and Romania contributed to the genocidal US invasion and occupation of Iraq as members of the US Coalition of the Willing.  While Croatia lent support for the Iraq War,  it later described the Iraq War as illegal, and Croatia  subsequently supplied arms to the separatist Iraqi Kurds [43].

According to Zionist historian Professor Martin Gilbert, the ratio of Jews killed/1941 Jewish population in these presently racist, pro-Apartheid European countries was 60,000.81,000 (Nazi-subjugated Czechoslovakia) and 2,600,000/3,000,000 (Nazi-subjugated Poland), 58,000/70,000 (Nazi-subjugated Yugoslavia of which pro-Nazi Croatia was a part), 200,000/710,000 (pro-Nazi Hungary; a later estimate is 400,000/800,000), 70,000/100,000 (pro-Nazi Latvia) and 750,000.1,000,000 (Pro-Nazi Romania) [44].

All the  pro-Apartheid NATO nations of the US, Canada, Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia and Romania have been involved in the ongoing Afghan Holocaust and Afghan Genocide that has involved 3-4million Afghan refugees and 5.6 million Afghan deaths from violence, 1.4 million, or war-imposed deprivation, 4.2 million)  [40, 41].

(3). 22 of 28 EU countries voted Yes but 6 pro-Apartheid EU countries abstained (Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Romania).  

The 28 EU members include Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom [45].

22 of 28 EU countries voted Yes but 6 pro-Apartheid EU countries abstained (Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Romania). As detailed above in section (2) , the Czech Republic and Poland suffered under Nazi German subjugation and it is hard to understand why they would soil their national image by supporting Apartheid Israel and hence its ongoing Palestinian Genocide. In contrast, the  genocidally racist pro-Nazi states of Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, and Romania were horribly involved in the WW2 Jewish Holocaust as well as variously in the mass murder of Slavs and Gypsies [20, 44] – the present  support of these formerly pro-Nazi and genocidally racist states for genocidally racist Apartheid Israel suggests that they have not come to terms with their evil past and are still harbouring  genocidally  racist attitudes.  However, in contrast to the actual UNGA vote, as reported by the Independent (UK): “[EU foreign policy chief] Federica Mogherini said during a news conference in Brussels that there was “full EU unity” in support of the status quo, whereby the international community conducts diplomatic relations via embassies in Tel Aviv” [46].

Nearly all EU countries have short memories of Nazi-occupied Europe and been participants in the ongoing Afghan Holocaust and Afghan Genocide (7.2 million Afghan deaths from violence, 1.7 million, or from war-imposed deprivation, 5.5 million, and 2-3 million refugees) [] The 4 EU countries that are members of the G7 have been major participants in the ongoing Afghan Holocaust and Afghan Genocide as reflected in military casualties US (2,271), UK (453), Canada (158), France (88), Germany (57), Italy (53) and Japan (0). However Apartheid Israeli ethnic cleansing in  East Jerusalem was evidently too much for the UK, France, Germany and Italy, which voted Yes for the UNGA Resolution . However the pro-Apartheid countries of  Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Romania were also involved in the Afghan Genocide with the following casualties: Poland (44), Czech Republic (10), Hungary (7), Latvia (4) and Croatia (0; some soldiers wounded but none actually killed) [47].

(4). 5 of 7 G7 countries voted Yes but 2 (pro-Apartheid Canada and the pro-Apartheid US) voted No.

The Group of 7 (G7) comprises Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. These countries represent  the 7 largest advanced economies in the world, and represent more than 62% of the global net wealth. The 43rd G7 summit was held on May 26–27, 2017 in Taormina, Sicily, Italy. This grouping began as a G6 in 1975 and became the G7 with inclusion   of Canada in 1975. Inclusion of Russia in 1997 made it the G8  but it reverted to G7 after exclusion of Russia in 2014 following  the US-backed Neo-Nazi coup in the Ukraine and Russian annexation of Crimea after an overwhelming victory in a Crimean plebiscite [48, 49].

From the perspective of Occupied Afghanistan, the   G7 nations represent an evil, dysfunctional and serial war criminal  family. Thus as of 2015  there had been 3,408 US coalition deaths in Occupied Afghanistan with the G7 nations leading the participation-reflecting body count as follows: US (2,271), UK (453), Canada (158), France (88), Germany (57), Italy (53) and Japan (0). Japan had an off-shore naval-based, re-fuelling  contribution that concluded in 2010 with the Japanese getting squeamish about their first resumption of participation in off-shore mass murder since WW2 in which Imperial Japan killed about 35 million Chinese in the 1937-1945  Chinese Holocaust [20, 50] and by conquering Burma and threatening British India contributed to the WW2 Bengali Holocaust in which the British with Australian complicity deliberately starved 6-7 million Indians to death for strategic reasons [32-38].

(5). 17 out of 20 G20 members voted Yes versus  Abstention by pro-Apartheid Australia and Canada and No by pro-Apartheid  Trump America.  

The G20 (Group of Twenty) was founded in 1999 as a  forum for the governments and central bank governors from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and the European Union (EU). The G20 meets annually [51]. Of the G20 countries only 3 – pro-Apartheid Australia, pro-Apartheid Canada and pro-Apartheid Trump America – failed to vote Yes.

(6).  9 out of 10 ASEAN nations voted Yes – but genocidally racist, pro-Apartheid  Myanmar under war criminal Aung San Suu Kyi Didn’t Show.

Founded in 1967, the Association for South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) includes Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Myanmar (Burma), Cambodia, Laos, and Brunei [52]. Of the 10 ASEAN nations all voted Yes except for genocidally racist, pro-Apartheid  Myanmar under genocidally racist war criminal Aung San Suu Kyi,  which failed to turn up to vote. Myanmar denies citizenship and human rights including citizenship to its 2 million Rohingya minority,  and with the complicity of genocidally racsit Apartheid Israel is conducting a merciless and bloody  ethnic cleansing of Rakhine state while a horrified world looks on [3, 41, 53].

(7). 41 out of 55 African Union (AU) countries voted Yes,  but 1 voted No, 8 Abstained and 5 Didn’t Show.

The Organisation of African Unity (OAU; Organisation de l’unité africaine (OUA) ) was established in  1963 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, with 32 signatory governments, It was disbanded in  2002 and replaced by the African Union (AU) which now has 55 member states [54-56].

Of the  55 African Union (AU) countries, 44  voted Yes, 1 voted No (Togo), 8 abstained (Benin, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda) and 5 didn’t turn up to vote (Central African Republic, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Sierra Leone, and Swaziland). This was a remarkable result of morality overcoming desperate need for these 44 generally impoverished nations in view of the bald  public threats of pay-back from pro-Apartheid Donald Trump and his hard-hearted, evil and pro-Apartheid UN representative Nikki Haley.

Thus bullying buffoon Trump declared: “For all these nations, they take our money and then vote against us. They take hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars and then they vote against us. We’re watching those votes. Let them vote against us. We’ll save a lot. We don’t care” [57]. US Ambassador Nikki Haley in a letter to most of the UN members stated: “The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those countries who voted against us,” she wrote in the letter obtained by AP. “We will take note of each and every vote on this issue.” [57]. US Ambassador Nikki Haley followed this blunt threat with an even nastier tweet: “At the UN we’re always asked to do more & give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American ppl, abt where to locate OUR embassy, we don’t expect those we’ve helped to target us. On Thurs. there’ll be a vote criticising our choice. The US will be taking names” [57].

The 44 African Yes votes is remarkable in view of the resolute African opposition to the iniquitous  evil of South African. Apartheid. One recalls Nobel Laureate and global hero Nelson Mandela in an address at the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (4 December 1997): “The UN took a strong stand against apartheid; and over the years, an international consensus was built, which helped to bring an end to this iniquitous system. But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians” [16, 58].

The pro-Apartheid positions of 14 African countries are variously explicable in turns of moral cowardice, greed and military  involvement with  the US. Thus from “US Army Africa” we find that “As part of African Deployment Partnership Training known as ADAPT, three U.S. Army Soldiers traveled to Lomé, Togo, to provide Phase II of Ground Training for 29 Togolese Defense Force personnel” and similar US Army collaborations in Algeria, Botswana, Burundi, Burkina Faso,  Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire), Djibouti, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Namibia, Nigeria, Mauritania, Morocco, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda [59]. Pro-Apartheid Kenya is involved with the US in the ongoing genocide in starving Somalia.

Wikipedia informs “The United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM, U.S. AFRICOM, and AFRICOM), is one of nine unified combatant commands of the United States Armed Forces, headquartered at Kelley Barracks, Stuttgart, Germany. It is responsible for U.S. military operations, including fighting regional conflicts, and military relations with 53 African nations. Its area of responsibility covers all of Africa except Egypt, which is within the area of responsibility of the United States Central Command. U.S. AFRICOM headquarters operating budget was $276 million in fiscal year 2012” [60].

The Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) consists of about 2,000 servicemen and women from the United States military and allied countries and  the official area of operation comprises Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Seychelles and Kenya, as well as  operations in Mauritius, Comoros, Liberia, Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania [61]. Operation Juniper Shield formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom – Trans Sahara (OEF-TS) is the military operation conducted by the United States and partner nations in the Sahara/Sahel region of Africa, variously involving  counterterrorism and policing of arms and drug trafficking in countries across central Africa, primarily Algeria, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Nigeria, and Morocco [62]. This dirty war by the child-killing Americans (plus Canadians) is the subject of the film “Embedded” which is an Africa-set drama that loosely relates to  the Vietnam-set novels “The Quiet American”  by Graham Greene (1955) [63] and “The Ugly American” by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer (1958) [64]. With some AFRICOM war episode  flashbacks, “Embedded”  is an extended conversation between an Australian war correspondent (Frank) and the beautiful  Madeline he picks up at a fancy hotel cocktail party in some African city.  Madeline’s husband has been killed by a bomb in Jerusalem and Frank pulls out a gun when he suspects she is an Israeli Mossad agent , which she denies – however the anagram for ISRAEL is e-LIARS. They  have lots of sex and lots of variously nihilistic conversations but,  without giving the plot away, after Frank indicates his utter disillusionment with what the Americans are doing in Mali, a disturbed audience realizes that he should have kept control of his gun [65].

While France voted Yes, France and the  US Alliance are variously  conducting  dirty operations across the Sahel in former British or  French colonies from Mali to starving  Somalia, namely Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Cote D’Ivoire, Djibouti,  Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Somalia and Sudan  [66]. In one of numerous blunders by buffoon Trump, in talking to the widow of Sgt David Johnson, he forgot the name of her husband who was killed along with three other US soldiers in Niger when their group was ambushed by more than 50 jihadis  on 4 October 2017 [67].

(8). 20 out of 33 Community of Latin American and Caribbean States voted Yes, versus 13 pro-Apartheid states.

The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) was formed in 2011, in Caracas, Venezuela, under The Declaration of Caracas and  is composed of  33 nations with a combined population of about 600 million [68].

The 33  CELAC member states are Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,  Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Panama, Saint Kitts  and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname,  Trinidad and Tobago,  Uruguay, and Venezuela.

20 out of 33 CELAC states ignored Trump’s crude and insulting threats and voted Yes, namely Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,  Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname,  Uruguay, and Venezuela.

The 13 pro-Apartheid CELAC states include Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Saint Kitts  and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago,

2 CELAC states voted No, namely  Guatemala and Honduras. Pro-Apartheid US and Apartheid Israel backed the Guatemalan  Mayan Indian Genocide [3, 20]. Honduras suffered a US-complicit coup under Obama and has been  the long-term staging post for deadly US military interventions and/or subversions in Central America, notably in  Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador [20].

Of the 11 further pro-Apartheid CELAC countries that Abstained or Didn’t Show, 4 have been subject to US military intervention, namely Dominican Republic, Mexico, Panama and El Salvador . Argentina suffered a decade of horrendous human rights abuse under a US-backed military regime. The remaining 6 pro-Apartheid CELAC states  – Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Jamaica, Saint Kitts  and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago – are Small Island Developing States (SIDS) that  cannot afford not to  take Trump’s threat seriously and/or have leaders susceptible to other US inducement ( it would take billions to bribe the UK but perhaps only millions to bribe a small SIDS government). 

(9). Only 10 of 31 Small Island and Developing States (SIDS) voted Yes, with 21 being pro-Apartheid.

Currently, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs  lists 57 small island developing states in the Caribbean, the Pacific and in Africa, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean and South China Sea (AIMS) [69]. Of these SIDS, 31 are members of the UN. Only 10 anti-Apartheid SIDS voted Yes, namely Barbados, Bahrain, Cabo Verde, Comoros, Dominica, Grenada,  Maldives,  Mauritius,  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Seychelles.

However 21 pro-Apartheid SIDS revealed themselves, including  4 SIDS that  voted No ( the tiny Pacific island US lackeys of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau), 11 SIDS that Abstained ( Antigua-Barbuda, Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Haiti, Jamaica, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Trinidad-Tobago, Tuvalu, and  Vanuatu) and 6 SIDS that did not even show up (Saint Kitts-Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome-Principe, Timor-Leste, and Tonga).

The SIDS face an acute, present-day,   common threat from man-made global warming. At the present circa  plus 1C temperature rise  SIDS are already being ravaged by global warming-intensified hurricanes (cyclones) [70]. However America under anti-science buffoon Trump has adopted a unique, anti-science and   terracidal climate change denialist  position, indicating  that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Agreement to which all other countries have agreed.

However these small, vulnerable states have all had histories  of deadly European colonization [20]. Indeed in the post-WW2 era the US has invaded the Dominican Republic, Grenada, and Haiti , Timor-Leste suffered a genocidal, US-backed invasion by Indonesia, Bahrain suffered invasion by US ally Saudi Arabia, and the US and Apartheid Israel have variously been involved in race-based Coups in Fiji [71].  The remarkable  failure of 21 out of 31 Small Island Developing States to support the UN General Assembly Resolution on Occupied East Jerusalem strongly suggests that they succumbed to blatant US blackmail  and/or US corruption.

(10). Only 2 out of 5 members of the “5-eyes” Anglosphere intelligence -sharing club voted Yes, namely the UK and New Zealand.

The rich, English-speaking, white, US Alliance  Anglosphere nations have a “5-eyes” Anglosphere intelligence -sharing Club comprising the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This is  actually a “6-eyes” Club because pro-Apartheid America shares intelligence from its “5-eyes’ partners with Apartheid Israel [72].  Only the UK and New Zealand voted Yes, with pro-Apartheid America voting No and pro-Apartheid Australia and Pro-Apartheid Canada both Abstaining.

Final comments.

The December 2017 UN General Assembly Resolution on Occupied East Jerusalem has revealed that serial war criminal, pro-Apartheid Trump America and US-backed Apartheid Israel are increasingly isolated from the international community. Thus those voting for the UNGA Resolution included  13/15 UN Security Council members, 128/193 UN members, 28/35 OECD members, 21/29 NATO members, 22/28 EU members, 5/7 G7 members, 17/20 G20 members, 9/10 ASEAN nations, 41/55 African Union  members, and 20/33 Latin America and Caribbean  CELAC members, but only 10/31 Small Island and Developing States and 2/5 members of the “5-eyes” Anglosphere intelligence-sharing club.

It is notable that  128/193 UN members, and 41/55 African Union  members ignored Trump’s blatant bullying and blackmail and voted Yes. However the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) were very vulnerable to US blackmail and corruption and only 10/31 Small Island Developing States voted Yes.

Of the 10 pro-Apartheid European countries  that did not vote Yes – Apartheid Israel, Australia, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary Poland, Romania,  the Ukraine and the US – all variously have horrendous records of genocidal violence against Indigenous People (Apartheid Israel, Australia, Canada, and the US), collaboration with the German Nazis in the 5-6 million-victim WW2 Jewish Holocaust and the 30 million-victim WW2 European  Holocaust of which it was a part (Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Ukraine), with all being variously  involved in the Zionist -backed Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide (32 million Muslims killed through violence, 5 million, or deprivation, 27 million, in 20 countries invaded by the US Alliance since the US Government’s 9-11 false flag atrocity in which Apartheid Israel and Saudi Arabia are likely to have also been involved) [66, 74].

The overwhelming support for the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council Resolutions on Occupied East Jerusalem and for UN Security Council Resolution 2334 on Apartheid Israeli crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories [75-77] indicates that the World has simply had enough of nuclear terrorist, racist Zionist-run, genocidally racist , democracy-by-genocide Apartheid Israel and its ongoing Palestinian Genocide, including the  ongoing ethnic cleansing of Occupied East Jerusalem.

Decent people around the world will urge and apply Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) not just against Apartheid Israel and its rotten supporters (most notably pro-Apartheid US, pro-Apartheid Australia and pro-Apartheid Canada) but also against all the 65 Sanctions-Deserving Pro-Apartheid States that for whatever reason (racism, greed, cowardice) failed to vote Yes for the UN General Assembly Resolution on Occupied East Jerusalem.

Dr Gideon Polya taught science students at a major Australian university for 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003). He has published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/).

Notes

[1]. “UN Jerusalem, Resolution: how each country voted”, Al Jazeera, 22 December 2017: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/jerusalem-resolution-country-voted-171221180116873.html

[2]. Gideon Polya, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights & Palestinians. Apartheid Israel violates ALL Palestinian Human Rights”, Palestine Genocide Essays, 24 January 2009: https://sites.google.com/site/palestinegenocideessays/universal-declaration-of-human-rights-palestinians .

[3].   Gideon Polya, “Palestinian Genocide–imposing Apartheid Israel Complicit In Rohingya Genocide, Other Genocides & US, UK & Australian State Terrorism”, Countercurrents, 30 November 2017: http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/11/30/palestinian-genocide-imposing-apartheid-israel-complicit-in-rohingya-genocide-other-genocides-us-uk-australian-state-terrorism/  .

[4]. “Palestinian Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/ .

[5]. Gideon Polya, “Israeli-Palestinian & Middle East conflict – from oil to climate genocide”, Countercurrents, 21 August 2017: http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/08/21/israeli-palestinian-middle-east-conflict-from-oil-to-climate-genocide/ .

[6]. Gideon Polya, “End 50 Years Of Genocidal Occupation & Human Rights Abuse By US-Backed Apartheid Israel”, Countercurrents,  9 June  2017: http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/06/09/end-50-years-of-genocidal-occupation-human-rights-abuse-by-us-backed-apartheid-israel/ .

[7]. William A. Cook (editor), “The Plight of the Palestinians: a Long History of Destruction”, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

[8].  Gideon Polya, “Review: “The Plight Of The Palestinians. A Long History Of Destruction””,   Countercurrents, 17 June, 2012: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya170612.htm .

[9]. Francis A. Boyle, “The Palestinian Genocide By Israel”, Countercurrents, 30 August, 2013: http://www.countercurrents.org/boyle300813.htm .

[10]. Francis A. Boyle, “The genocide of the Palestinian people: an international law and human rights perspective”, Center for Constitutional Rights, 25 August 2016: https://ccrjustice.org/genocide-palestinian-people-international-law-and-human-rights-perspective#_ftn5 .

[11]. Gideon Polya, “WW1 Start Centenary, Ongoing Palestinian Genocide, Latest Israeli Gaza Massacre & Western Lying”, Countercurrents, 5 August, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050814.htm  ).

[12]. “Gaza Concentration Camp”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/gaza-concentration  .

[13]. “Jews Against Racist Zionism”: https://sites.google.com/site/jewsagainstracistzionism/ .

[14]. “Non-Jews Against Racist Zionism”: https://sites.google.com/site/nonjewsagainstracistzionism/ .

[15]. Apartheid Israeli state terrorism: (A) individuals  exposing Apartheid Israeli state terrorism, and (B) countries subject to Apartheid Israeli state terrorism.”, Palestinian Genocide: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/apartheid-israeli-state-terrorism .

[16]. “Boycott Apartheid Israel”: https://sites.google.com/site/boycottapartheidisrael/ .

[17]. “Charter of the United Nations”: http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html .

[18]. “Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention”: http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/genocide/convention.html .

[19]. “Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War: https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/Geneva%20Convention%20IV.pdf .

[20]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, including an avoidable mortality-related history of every country from Neolithic times and is now available for free perusal on the web : http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com.au/  .

[21]. Gideon Polya, “Apartheid Israel & pro-Apartheid US, Australia & Canada face global sanctions over Occupied East Jerusalem”, Countercurrents, 20 December 2017: http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/12/20/apartheid-israel-pro-apartheid-us-australia-canada-face-world-sanctions-over-occupied-east-jerusalem/ .

[22]. “Full text of UN Resolution rejecting Jerusalem recognition”, Times of Israel, 21 December 2107: https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-un-resolution-rejecting-jerusalem-recognition/ .

[23]. “General Assembly demands that all states comply with UN resolutions of Jerusalem”, UN News Centre, 21 December 2017: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=58330#.Wj15VLCYO70 .

[24]. “Middle East: Security Council fails to adopt resolution of Jerusalem”, UN News Centre, 18 December 2017: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=58307#.Wj19AbCYO70 .

[25]. “Analyst: US anti-tank weapons in Ukraine could causer “serious escalation””, Sputnik, 27 December 2017: https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201712271060341272-us-antitank-weapons-ukraine-shipment/ .

[26]. John Dugard, “International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the crime of Apartheid”, Audiovisual Library of International Law: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/cspca/cspca.html .

[27]. Holy Bible, King James version , Luke 11.23.

[28]. “OECD”: http://www.oecd.org/about/ .

[29]. “Stop state terrorism” : https://sites.google.com/site/stopstateterrorism/  .

[30]. “State crime and non-state terrorism”: https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/  .

[31]. “Aboriginal Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/aboriginalgenocide/ .

[32]. Gideon Polya, “Australia And Britain Killed 6-7 Million Indians In WW2 Bengal Famine”,  Countercurrents, 29 September, 2011: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya290911.htm .

[33]. Gideon Polya, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability”, now available  for free perusal on the web: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/2008/09/jane-austen-and-black-hole-of-british.html  .

[34]. Madhusree Muckerjee, “Churchill’s Secret War. The British Empire and the ravaging of India during World War II” (Basic Books, New York, 2010).

[35]. Colin Mason, “A Short History of Asia . Stone Age to 2000AD” (Macmillan, 2000).

[36]. “Bengali Holocaust (WW2 Bengal Famine) writings of Gideon Polya”, Gideon Polya:  https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/bengali-holocaust .

[37]. Gideon Polya (2013), “Review: “The Cambridge History Of Australia” Ignores  Australian Involvement In 30 Genocides”,  Countercurrents, 14 October, 2013: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya141013.htm .

[38].  Gideon Polya (2015), “UK Zionist Historian Sir Martin Gilbert (1936-2015) Variously Ignored Or Minimized WW2 Bengali Holocaust”, Countercurrents, 19 February, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya190215.htm .

[39]. Iraqi Holocaust, Iraqi Genocide”: http://sites.google.com/site/iraqiholocaustiraqigenocide/ .

[40]. “Afghan Holocaust, Afghan Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/ .

[41]. “Muslim Holocaust Muslim Genocide”:   https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/ .

[42]. “NATO member countries” : https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm .

[43]. “Governmental positions on the Iraq War prior t the 2003 invasion of Iraq” , Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_positions_on_the_Iraq_War_prior_to_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Countries_supporting_the_U.S._position.

[44]. Martin Gilbert, “Jewish History Atlas”, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1969.

[45]. “European Union”: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries_en .

[46]. Caroline Mortimer, “EU says it will not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital before final peace agreement””, Independent, 12 December 2017: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/jerusalem-latest-eu-recognise-israel-benjamin-netanyahu-federica-mogherini-donald-trump-a8104716.html .

[47]. “Coalition casualties in Afghanistan”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan .

[48]. “Group of Seven”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Seven .

[49]. “Group of Eight”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Eight .

[50]. “Backgrounder: China’s WWII contributions in figures”, New China, 3 September 2015: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-09/03/c_134582291.htm .

[51]. “G20”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20  .

[52].  “Association for South East Asian Nations’, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Southeast_Asian_Nations .

[53]. Gideon Polya, “Hitler, Trump, Aung San Suu Kyi & genocidal intent to destroy”, Countercurrents, 29 September 2017: http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/09/29/hitler-churchill-trump-aung-san-suu-kyi-genocidal-intent-to-destroy/ .

[54]. “Organization of Africa Unity”:, Wikieorioa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_African_Unity .

[55]. “African Union”:, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union .

[56]. :Member states if the African Union”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_African_Union .

[57]. “Trump  threatens to :take names” and cut aid to any nation who opposes him in the United Nations”, News.com, 21 December 2017: http://www.news.com.au/world/trumps-jerusalem-threat-to-world/news-story/e5a0f4b07d834d6740cf0adfeae8ddaf .

[58]. Nelson Mandela quoted in “Nelson Mandela quotes: A collection of memorable words from former South African president”, CBS News, 5 December 2013: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nelson-mandela-quotes-a-collection-of-memorable-words-from-former-south-african-president/ .

[59]. “US Army Africa”; https://usarmyafrica.wordpress.com/ .

[60]. “United States Africa Command”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Africa_Command .

[61]. “Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom_%E2%80%93_Horn_of_Africa .

[62]. “Operation Juniper Shield”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Juniper_Shield .

[63]. Graham Greene, “The Quiet American”,  1955.

[64]. Eugene Burdick and William Lederer, “The Ugly American”, 1958.

[65]. “Embedded (2016)” : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3681474/ .

[66]. Gideon Polya, “Paris Atrocity Context: 27 Million Muslim Avoidable  Deaths From Imposed Deprivation In 20 Countries Violated By US Alliance Since 9-11”, Countercurrents, 22 November, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya221115A.htm .

[67]. “Donald Trump rejects claim he forgot fallen soldier’s name in phone call to widow”, Sky News, 23 October 2017: https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-rejects-claim-he-forgot-fallen-soldiers-name-in-phone-call-to-widow-11095208 .

[68]. “Community of Latin American and Caribbean States”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_States .

[69]. “Small Island Developing States”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Island_Developing_States .

[70]. Pacific Islands Development Forum 4 September  2015 “Suva Declaration on Climate Change”: http://pacificidf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/PACIFIC-ISLAND-DEVELOPMENT-FORUM-SUVA-DECLARATION-ON-CLIMATE-CHANGE.v2.pdf .

[71]. Gideon Polya, “Anti-Indian subversion of Fiji by Apartheid Israel , pro-Apartheid Australia and pro-Apartheid America”, Countercurrents, 20 October 2017: http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/10/20/anti-indian-subversion-of-fiji-by-apartheid-israel-pro-apartheid-australia-pro-apartheid-america/ .

[72]. Philip Dorling, “US shares raw intelligence on Australian  with Israel”, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 September 2013: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-shares-raw-intelligence-on-australians-with-israel-20130911-2tllm.html .

[73]. Gideon Polya,  “Racist Zionism and Israeli State Terrorism threats to Australia and Humanity”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/racist-zionism-and-israeli .

[74]. “Experts: US did 9-11”: https://sites.google.com/site/expertsusdid911/ .

[75]. United Nations, “Israel’s settlements have no legal validity, constitute flagrant violations of international law, Security Council reaffirms.   14 delegations in favour of Resolution 2334 as United States abstains”, 23 December 2016: https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm .

[76]. Gideon Polya, “Is UN Security Council Resolution 2334 the beginning of the end for Apartheid Israel?””, Countercurrents, 28 December 2016: http://www.countercurrents.org/2016/12/28/is-un-security-council-resolution-2334-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-apartheid-israel/ .

[77]. Gideon Polya, “Anti-racist Jewish humanitarians oppose Apartheid Israel & support UN Security Council resolution 2334”, Countercurrents, 13 January 2017: http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/01/13/anti-racist-jewish-humanitarians-oppose-apartheid-israel-support-un-security-council-resolution-2334/ .

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Reportedly, the idea is part of a Trump administration sham peace plan.

Palestinians won’t ever accept abandoning East Jerusalem as their legitimate capital, a small village substituting as a capital of a bantustan state, amounting to one in name only.

The proposal isn’t a peace plan. It’s a prescription for endless conflict and denial of fundamental rights for a long-beleaguered people.

Former Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh said he was told about the Trump administration’s sham proposal. More on this below.

Abu Dis is a Palestinian village bordering Jerusalem – in Area B under joint Israeli/Palestinian control.

Israel, of course, controls the Occupied Territories with an iron fist, the Palestinian Authority (PA) created as an enforcer for its ruthless rule.

Israel’s Apartheid Wall when completed will border Abu Dis from the north, west and east, the eastern portion to separate the village’s urban and rural areas, removing thousands of dunams of arable land from its jurisdiction.

The western portion of the wall divides Abu Dis from Jerusalem, access to the Holy City prohibited without Israeli hard to get permit permission for Palestinian men under age-55 and women under age-50.

Abu Dis and other area villages lack access to medical care, schools and enough employment for its people.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said Israel’s Apartheid Wall severely disrupts access for Palestinians to vital services and employment throughout the West Bank.

It has nothing to do with Israeli security, everything to do with persecuting Palestinians and land theft – about 10 -12% of West Bank land when completed.

Haniyeh said the Trump administration proposed connecting Abu Dis by bridge to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and compound.

The plan reportedly involves dividing the West Bank into three sections, along with establishing Gaza as an autonomous area, maintaining illegal blockade.

“The recent US decision on Jerusalem is part of ongoing efforts to terminate the Palestinian cause within the context of a so-called ‘deal of the century,’ “ Haniyeh explained, adding:

The unacceptable scheme “has implications for the reconfiguration of the entire region…which will come at the expense of Jerusalem and Palestinian rights.”

Under Oslo, East Jerusalem was to be the capital of a future Palestinian state. Suggesting Abu Dis instead shows outrageous contempt for the rights of an entire population.

During Abbas’ Riyadh visit earlier this month, crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) presented the idea of Palestinian statehood without sovereignty.

It would be without East Jerusalem as its capital, a pseudo-state surrounded by expanding settlements encroaching on Palestinian land, stealing it, with barriers they’re forbidden to approach, ghettoizing them.

Jerusalem would become Israel’s exclusive capital, East Jerusalem increasingly off-limits to them. Diaspora Palestinians would have no right of return.

Israel would be free to exploit Palestinian resources they way things are today.

Trump, Netanyahu and MBS apparently conspired against long-suffering Palestinians – the proposed scheme no responsible leadership would accept.

PLO and Hamas officials consider the scheme insulting and unacceptable.

Senior Hamas official Hassan Yousef said

“(i)f the Palestinian leadership were to accept” MBS’ proposal, “the Palestinian people would not let them remain.”

Abbas was reportedly told to accept the plan or resign. Weeks earlier, the NYT said

“the main points of the Saudi proposal as told to Mr. Abbas were confirmed by many people briefed on the discussions between” him and MBS.

The notion of a Palestinian pseudo-state without East Jerusalem as its capital, no right of return, no control over its resources, no halt in settlement construction, continued theft of its land and dispossession of its people, along with their rights under international law denied amounts to continued occupation and subjugation.

Trump’s Jerusalem declaration plunged a dagger into the heart of the moribund peace process, added proof that Washington can never be an honest broker for anything.

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

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Months of House, Senate and special council Mueller investigations represent exercises in mass deception.

They exposed America’s debauched political system, its rogue governance, its unacceptable anti-Russia hostility, betraying the public trust, jeopardizing remaining freedoms, accomplishing nothing else.

Yet they continue endlessly despite nothing to find. No evidence suggests Russian US election meddling.

Nothing indicates any improper or illegal Trump team dealings with Moscow. Fabricated allegations and accusations substitute for cold, hard facts.

Russiagate investigations are one of the greatest hoaxes in modern times, most Americans none the wiser, media rubbish manipulating them to believe disinformation, fake news and Big Lies.

Despite the scandalous ongoing witch-hunt investigations discovering nothing because there’s nothing to find, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence intends expanding its probe to include anyone of Russian descent or nationality it believes relevant to its work, according to The Young Turks (TYT), saying:

“In an email dated December 19, 2017, April Doss – who serves as senior minority counsel on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) – defined the scope of the committee’s inquiry as anyone a subject (who) ‘knows or has reason to believe (is) of Russian nationality or descent.”

SSCI vice-chairman Mark Warner laughably said the committee’s work is the “most important thing (he’s) ever done.”

Broadening the investigation came in response to the controversial alt-right GotNews.com/WeSearchr.com founder Charles C. Johnson.

Following a May 2015 tweet, calling on followers to “take out” Black Lives Matter, he was banned from Twitter. Offended individuals reported him for harassment. He’s been involved in other disturbing activities, including defamatory misreporting.

In July, a letter from Senators Burr and Warner requested a “closed interview.” He was told to provide any materials in his possession relevant to the Russiagate probe – including “all documents, emails, text messages, direct messages, calendar appointments, memoranda, notes or other documents related to any communications with Russian persons.”

During a November congressional hearing on Russia’s social media use, Twitter associate general counsel Sean Edgett revealed methods the company uses to detect accounts possibly linked to Russia.

They include use of Russian phone numbers, mobile carriers, email addresses, IP addresses, Cyrillic characters in an individual’s username, and whether someone ever logged in, from Russia.

How much longer will congressional and Mueller witch-hunt investigations continue? How much further will they expand?

How many more individuals and groups will be targeted? How many will be defamed or prosecuted for fabricated connections to Russia falsely called improper or illegal?

Will anyone supporting the Kremlin’s geopolitical agenda be targeted? Will they be criminalized?

The ongoing witch-hunt is similar to earlier ones in America by attorney general A. Mitchell Palmer post-WW I, the House Un-American Activities Committee and Joe McCarthy – similar or worse ones in other countries, notably in Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany.

The latter got German Lutheran past Martin Niemoller to memorably say:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out –

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Is that where things are heading in America?

Will independent journalists, political dissidents, anti-war, human and civil rights activists, as well as others critical of US domestic and imperial polices be targeted?

Is full-blown tyranny another major false flag away?

Will anyone writing or speaking freely about about America’s deplorable state be subject to arrest and prosecution?

Are we closer to greater police state repression than already, approaching what too few in America can imagine?

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

The Senate committee probing alleged Russian interference in the U.S. political system has deemed anyone “of Russian nationality or Russian descent” relevant to its investigation, according to a document obtained by TYT.

In an email dated December 19, 2017, April Doss—who serves as senior minority counsel on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI)—defined the scope of the committee’s inquiry as anyone a subject “knows or has reason to believe [is] of Russian nationality or descent.” The senior majority counsel for the SSCI, Vanessa Le, was cc’d on the emails.

Doss, the former head of intelligence law at the National Security Agency, was reportedly brought onto the committee by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who serves as its vice chairman and one of its most prominent public faces. Warner has repeatedly said that the committee’s work represents the “most important thing [he’s] ever done.” The chairman of the committee is Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.).

On July 27, 2017, Charles C. Johnson, a controversial right-wing media figure, received a letter from Sens. Burr and Warner requesting that he voluntarily provide materials in his possession that are “relevant” to the committee’s investigation. Relevant materials, the letter went on, would include any records of interactions Johnson had with “Russian persons” who were involved in some capacity in the 2016 U.S. elections.

The committee further requested materials related to “Russian persons” who were involved in some capacity in “activities that related in any way to the political election process in the U.S.”

Materials may include “documents, emails, text messages, direct messages, calendar appointments, memoranda, [and] notes,” the letter outlined.

Doss’s statement was in response to a request made by Robert Barnes, an attorney for Johnson, for clarification as to the SSCI’s definition of a “Russian person.”

How the committee expects subjects to go about ascertaining whether a person is of “Russian descent” is unclear.

“It does indicate that the committee is throwing a rather broad net,” Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University, said. “It is exceptionally broad.” In terms of constitutionality, Turley speculated that “most courts would view that as potentially too broad, but not unlawful.”

Rachel Cohen, a spokesperson for Sen. Warner, said the SSCI “does not comment on specific witnesses or related requests.”

Johnson told TYT that he intends not to cooperate with the SSCI in any respect.

Jill Stein, the 2016 Green Party candidate, also received a request for materials from the committee, and has stated that she plans to fully comply. But as TYT previously reported, a former Stein campaign staffer, Dennis Trainor Jr., said that he has serious reservations about compliance.

Featured image is from the author.

On November 13, 2017, 23 out of 28 European Union (EU) states signed a declaration to create what is expected to form the nucleus of a joint European army. The five countries that won’t be taking part are Great Britain, Denmark, Ireland, Malta, and Portugal, though Ireland previously expressed some interest in joining.

The defense agreement is aimed at developing rapid reaction forces and implementing new material and equipment, including tanks and drones. It will include a five billion euro defense fund for buying weapons, as well as a special fund to finance operations and research.

Germany has almost all but spearheaded this project by itself. Just two years ago, the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, told the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag why Germany believes it is important to have a European army of its own.

“You would not create a European army to use it immediately,” Juncker stated. “But a common army among the Europeans would convey to Russia that we are serious about defending the values of the European Union.”

This might sound nonsensical considering NATO is currently surrounding Russia’s borders in an effort to contain Russia within an ambush of American troops and missiles. However, countries like Germany genuinely believe the U.S. can no longer protect Europe from Russia. NATO is essentially headed by the U.S., followed closely behind Great Britain, both of which cannot always act in favor of mainland Europe’s core interests given its geographical detachment (not to mention that Great Britain has opted to leave the E.U., making its influence over Europe’s military interests less apparent).

Under Donald Trump, the U.S. has formally lost the so-called global leadership role that both George W. Bush and Barack Obama had already started eroding. In May of this year, NATO officials had to Trump-proof the president’s visit, ensuring no one talked longer than four minutes to keep up with his limited attention span. In this context, Germany has openly said it can no longer rely on the United States and is reportedly seeking to take up the leadership reigns following America’s demise as a superpower.

NATO also has Turkey as a member, a country that does not always see eye to eye with Germany and has even expressed its willingness to join the Russian and Chinese-led Shanghai Bloc, instead.

Germany’s lack of a positive outlook towards NATO is significant. Germany is Europe’s largest economy. By 2020, it aims to spend 53 percent more on military equipment compared to 2016, according to a German Ministry of Defense estimate. However, though it pledged to increase the size of its armed forces to 200,000 earlier this year, it can’t realistically emerge as a superpower on its own in the face of the rising powers of Russia, China, India, and the rest of the European states. That is precisely why in February this year, Germany took matters into its own hands and announced the integration of its armed forces with Romania and the Czech Republic, baby-steps towards its very own European army.

According to Foreign Policy:

“Romania’s entire military won’t join the Bundeswehr, nor will the Czech armed forces become a mere German subdivision. But in the next several months each country will integrate one brigade into the German armed forces: Romania’s 81st Mechanized Brigade will join the Bundeswehr’s Rapid Response Forces Division, while the Czech 4th Rapid Deployment Brigade, which has served in Afghanistan and Kosovo and is considered the Czech Army’s spearhead force, will become part of the Germans’ 10th Armored Division. In doing so, they’ll follow in the footsteps of two Dutch brigades, one of which has already joined the Bundeswehr’s Rapid Response Forces Division and another that has been integrated into the Bundeswehr’s 1st Armored Division. According to Carlo Masala, a professor of international politics at the University of the Bundeswehr in Munich, ‘The German government is showing that it’s willing to proceed with European military integration’ — even if others on the continent aren’t yet.” [emphasis added]

Germany was not in a position to militarily emerge as a major superpower, but it had other ideas in mind as to how to combat that particular dilemma.

“The initiative came out of the weakness of the Bundeswehr,” said Justyna Gotkowska, a Northern Europe security analyst at Poland’s Center for Eastern Studies think tank, as quoted by Foreign Policy. “The Germans realized that the Bundeswehr needed to fill gaps in its land forces … in order to gain political and military influence within NATO.”

Foreign Policy also highlighted that Germany has to be careful as to how its neighbors, its rivals, and the rest of the world perceive a re-emerging German military given its infamous history in World War II.

Enter an E.U. army, one that would almost certainly be headed by Germany but that would encompass enough states to make it a much more formidable force (minus the negative publicity associated with Germany becoming a military power once again). Another glaring problem is that unelected E.U. officials would then be in a position to send Europe’s troops into combat as opposed to the so-called democratically elected institutions that allegedly have a mandate to decide whether or not to send its residents to die overseas.

One should also bear in mind that France, a keen backer of this project, retains a permanent seat at the U.N. Security Council, equipped with a veto power it could use on behalf of this E.U.-led bloc. Even without the U.S. and the U.K., the force would have significant sway and power to implement its will and protect its interests.

While the idea of a European army is still in its early stages, as the dynamics on the global chessboard begin to switch out of Washington’s favor, this is surely one of the more important developments to keep an eye on.

Iran was not in a state to encroach the Middle East before 2003 when the US incursion into Iraq toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein and dissolved the erstwhile army. The invasion involuntarily rolled out new expectations for Iran as Saddam Hussein was a barrier to Iran’s extension of power into the Middle East. Iran fought an eight-year-long war with Iraq that cost it more than a million casualties in the 1980s.

The rise of the ISIS also presented Iran a great deal of opportunities to stretch its military hand into Iraq and Syria under the anti-ISIS operations. It delivered Iran strength to reshape its ties with regional powers such as Turkey and Russia. Moreover, the US’s invasion of Afghanistan to the east of Iran unlocked another door for Tehran by overthrowing the five year long rule of the Taliban regime that viewed Iran as a blood-enemy.

In September 2012, according to the Washington Post, Iraq refused the request of Washington to block the Iranian planes from traversing Iraqi airspace that were providing supplies to the Syrian government in its battle against Al Qaeda rebel forces.

The US doesn’t seem panicked regarding Iran’s increased influence in the region. The countries that need to worry are Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saudi Arabia might be well-armed to the teeth, but it doesn’t possess nuclear weapons to threaten Iran. Israel exploits the Saudi-Iran feud and nudges Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies towards the weakening of Iran’s position in the region or at least stop it from advancement.

With Iranian influence extending into Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and Sana’a, Iran directly and indirectly influences one-fifth of the Arab world. However, Iran’s ability to exert its influence in four Arab nations should be assessed in relation to the relative decline of Arab state power, not innate Iranian strength.

Iran’s joining of Russia in Syria in operations directed against Al Qaeda affiliated rebels including the ISIS contributed

1. first to preventing  the West/Israel and Saudi Arabia from taking hold in Syria,
2. second, it paved the ground for Iranian forces to stay behind in Iraq and Syria even after Russia declared its troops withdrawal from Syria, and
3. thirdly, it enabled Iran to supply arms and resources to Lebanon-based Hezbollah via Syria.

In Iraq, Tehran’s policies have been largely successful, giving Iran an unprecedented degree of influence there at the expense of the US and of Baghdad’s Arab neighbors. A friendly Iraq is not only an important part of the Iranian-led “axis of resistance” but also serves as an opportunity for Iran to evade the increasingly harsh international sanctions regime and to continue financing regional groups.

Iran-supported Hezbollah was the main motive behind the latest Saudi-Lebanon standoff. Saudi Arabia in chorus with Israel intended to subvert the rule of Hezbollah in Lebanon by forcing Prime Minister Hariri into resignation and plunging the country into crisis.

Israel could be facing its own threat from Iran, and its military is actually relatively small and isn’t designed for large-scale foreign deployments. Because of the size of its force, Israel can’t sustain extended, high-attrition warfare of the sort Iran endured in the 1980s. Iran has over 534,000 personnel in active service match it with Israel’s power that is negligible. Yet, Iran’s annual defense spending of $13–15 billion is far less than Israel’s $59 billion, Saudi Arabia’s $90 billion, or the UAE’s $28 billion.

Saudi Arabia is safeguarded against Iranian assault by virtue of its domination of oil resources. The US’ huge stake in Saudi Arabia’s oil is guaranteeing the country’s flow of oil through the Persian Gulf. The US President Donald Trump has not criticized the tough and repressive Islamic rules in the Kingdom in the same way it has linked Iran to terrorism. Also, Saudis have been exempted from Trump’s travel ban.

It is not just about the US’ bids for regime change in Iran that infuriates Iranians, the resentment dates back to 1953 when the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Iran’s prime minister Mossadegh in 1953. (image left, source wikipedia)

The recent regional developments especially the war on ISIS brought Iran and Russia further together. Iran positioned its mercenaries in Iraq and Syria. The Kurdish rebellion, on the other hand, helped in thawing Iran’s complicated ties with Turkey. Turkey later converted the trajectory from supporting the ISIS to joining the anti-ISIS bloc led by Russia and Iran.

Turkey’s downing of Russian fighter jet in Nov. 2015 didn’t injure duo’s relations for more than a year as Russian President Vladimir Putin offered unconditional support to Turkish President Recep T. Erdoğan after an attempted coup. The assassination of Russian ambassador to Turkey in 2016 in the midst of rapprochement was an attempt to bring the two neighbors’ relations back to an earlier worst state, but it failed.

A country’s behavior always changes based on its own strategic interests which is the same for Russia, Turkey and Iran. During the Cold War, Turkey was a key NATO ally against the Soviet Union.  Iran supported the Afghan rebels against the USSR, while the USSR supported Iraq against Iran.

Iran is in quest of extending its Shiite doctrine into other regions that predates the founding of the Islamic Republic. Russia earlier criticized of Turkey’s “neo-Ottomanism” and the West is concerned over Russia’s “Eurasianism”, while Russia, China and Iran, in turn, are cautioning and anticipating for the US’s grand offensive plans originating in Afghanistan. Now the fear is of a resurgence of an imperial project.

Russia is taking a neutral side when it comes to Iran-Saudi Arabia standoff as it has close economic ties with each. It has sold advanced weaponry to both countries and only willing to act as a mediator. This is while Turkey as a Sunni power is proximate to Saudi Arabia than Iran. Turkey had banded together with Saudi Arabia in alliance with other regional powers against Syrian Government that is favored by Iran.

Saudi Arabia-Qatar’s cul-de-sac disclosed the previously unknown degree of Iran and Qatar’s close relations. This intimacy was so much that forced Saudi Arabia to go tough on Qatar and introduce a myriad of bans which Iran struggled to offset to some extent.

Egypt as a close ally of Israel and the US has not been warm to Iran in relation to Saudi Arabia. Following Saudi Arabia’s declaration of sanctions on Qatar, Egypt, the UAE and Bahrain imposed a blockade in July.

As a fresh opposition to Iran’s footing in Syria, France’s foreign minister has accused Iran of trying to create an “axis” of military and political influence stretching from Tehran through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to the Mediterranean Sea.

Speaking in an interview with France 2 television broadcast on December 12, Jean-Yves Le Drian said that rather than pursue ambitions to expand its military presence in the region, Iran as well as Russia should work with the United Nations to try to establish peace in war-torn Syria. He said:

“There is a Syria that needs to exist free from foreign powers and influence”

Keep in mind that he would not have said so if the ISIS won the war and the West settled there.

Following the meltdown of the global economy in 2008/9 it was almost inevitable that the capitalist elite who had engineered the crisis would place, not merely the burden of paying for, but the ideological blame for the crisis on its victims.

Not all has gone the capitalists’ way however. Capitalism has, for example, come under concerted attack from varied and sundry sources as has not happened in almost a century. Thus, whether they arise from concerns for economic justice or ecological survival, from an interest in ‘radical democracy’ or in anti-imperialism, critiques of capitalism are back on the menu. Good stuff.

Still, many of these critiques, well-meaning and intentioned though they be, suffer – not invariably, you understand, but often enough to warrant deep concern – from a certain, how to say, befuddlement. One need only witness, for instance, the plethora of qualifiers on the subject to get a sense of the affliction: ‘corporate capitalism’, ‘disaster capitalism’, ‘predatory capitalism’, ‘financial capitalism’, ‘free market capitalism’, ‘rentier capitalism’, ‘monopoly capitalism’, ‘classical capitalism’ etc.

Now in casting our analytical gaze upon these adjectival qualifiers I submit that we are engaging in something rather more than a mere grammatical cavil. It may be true that some of the authors routinely employing these terms understand that what they are doing is simply bringing into bold relief a particular structural or historical aspect of capitalism. All well and good. But there is evidence to suggest that, much of the time, this is exactly not what is going on; that in fact what is going on is a barely veiled ideological ‘reformism’.

The latter term references the notion that capitalism is not in its essence bad, just that some variants of it are. Thus, if only we could, say, get back to ‘classical capitalism’ (a mythical time when capitalists supposedly understood what a ‘free market’ really was) then all would be well. Or perhaps, if we could just rid ourselves of ‘financial capitalism’, then we could all return to a regulated, productive, and equitable capitalism. The Golden Age would then, as capitalist ideologues themselves constantly assure us, be just around the next corner.

But, of course, no it wouldn’t.

For where all these qualifying formulations miss the mark is in either forgetting or in failing utterly to grasp what the core of capitalism really consists.

And so, then, of what does it consist?

Without diving too deeply into the inky abyss of Das Kapital we may yet say that capitalism is founded, first and foremost, on exploitation and that this exploitation is fundamental. Which is to say that it is not merely a matter of a temporary systemic crisis demanding – all odes to the immanent Golden Age aside – forty year global ‘austerity programs’, but that the wringing of capitalist profits is situated precisely in the theft of workers’ labour, of their ‘surplus value’. Moreover, this theft, structured on the profit motive, is further enjoined and aggravated by competitive inter-capitalist rivalry leading to the ineluctable ‘tendency of the rate of profit to fall’.

Consequent upon the latter are protracted periods of open class warfare in the global capitalist centres, and economic (and military) imperialism targeting the capitalist periphery. Indeed, far from standing on its own two legs, capitalism has always depended upon ‘primitive accumulation’, i.e. on non-capitalist inputs such as stolen resources, slave labour and subjugated markets, for its survival. As Rosa Luxemburg noted, colonialism, far from being some mere historical starting point, is capitalism’s constant and necessary condition.

Second, we may say that capitalism, whatever we may grant to it as an ‘engine of wealth creation’, is an essentially irrational economic system geared not towards the maximization of material wealth in general (as is often implied), but merely towards the maximization of wealth in so far as it can be appropriated as private profit. Thus, the ‘crises of overproduction’ which so regularly afflict the system overproduce goods not from the perspective of need (to which the billions of impoverished and immiserated humans on this planet bear stark witness), nor even from the perspective of the technical means and limits available to production, but only from the perspective of the money-backed profit that can be extracted from them.

Third, at the heart of capitalism is the centralization and concentration of both wealth and power. In this sense capitalism is akin to an unstable dynamic system in physics, rather like a bicycle in motion. It either moves, i.e. expands – or fails. The capture of political power is then but a simple corollary of the concentration of wealth. Whence the myth of bourgeois liberalism that you can somehow have political democracy without economic democracy.  And whence also the myth of reforming capitalism, an aspiration that founders on the rocks of capitalism’s revolutionary and expansionary dynamic, a dynamic that renders all such ‘reform’ both ephemeral and, ultimately, illusory.

And finally, this continual expansion, just by the by, also presumes global ecocide, a conclusion the mature Marx presciently realized was the only inevitable demise of the  capitalist system. And the only thing standing in the way of that grim future, as he also realized, was / is the development of a class consciousness sufficient for capitalism’s replacement – not its reform – by a truly democratic, rationally planned political economy.

Featured image is from The Socialist Network.

Mr. Vice President:

As you celebrate Christmas with your family and listen to the gospel story of the birth of Jesus, I hope you will read and reflect on the following piece I wrote a few years back.

I want you to open your eyes to the situation facing Palestinian Christians and Muslims living in the Holy Land. And I want you to understand why the Arab Christian leadership in Palestine was so troubled by your blindness to their plight that they refused to meet with you.

Christmas: Then and Now

Two thousand years ago, Palestine was subject to a harsh occupation, much as it is today. In some ways, though, the conditions back then allowed the residents of occupied Palestine greater mobility than the current inhabitants of that land.

As we are told in the bible story, Joseph had to take his expectant wife from Nazareth, where they were living, to Bethlehem, their ancestral village, in order to fulfill a requirement imposed by the authorities to register as part of a nationwide census. Today, of course, all of that would be impossible.

In the first place no Palestinian originally from Bethlehem could ever have moved to Nazareth. The occupation and closure of the West Bank makes that sort of movement impossible. Furthermore, Israeli law prohibits an Arab from Nazareth from marrying a Bethlehemite and bringing their spouse across the Green Line to live with them in Israel.

Additionally, while thousands of Palestinians in Bethlehem, both Muslim and Christian, can see Jerusalem from their homes, they can not go to the Holy City to pray. And Arab Christians from Jerusalem, likewise, can not easily go the Christmas services in Bethlehem to pray alongside their co-religionists at the seasonal event.

Bethlehem of old was overcrowded and under siege. Today, as well, the city itself is being strangled, hemmed in by settlements that have confiscated the town’s ancestral lands to make way for a 30 foot barrier wall and massive Jewish-only housing colonies that cut the Arab residents off from nearby Jerusalem. The constriction of growth and the lack of economic opportunity have forced Bethlehemites to flee in search of jobs and freedom, with tens of thousands of them and their descendants now living in the U.S. and the Americas. They can return to visit Bethlehem with difficulty, but are not permitted by the occupation authorities to take up permanent residency in the town of their origins.

While the kings of old, we are told, were able to travel from afar bearing gifts to honor the newborn child, one can only imagine the difficulties they would encounter today dealing with Israeli soldiers at the Allenby Bridge. Having personally endured their interrogations, I can hear the kings answering hours of questions, such as “Where are you from?” “Who are your parents, grandparents?” “Why are you here?” Who are you visiting?” “What are these gifts for?” The questioning is reminiscent of Herod’s interrogation of the biblical visitors. In today’s Israel/Palestine, it is doubtful whether those hapless “kings from the East” would have gained entry.

That Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were able to flee to Egypt to escape Herod’s vengeful wrath was possible back then. Today, that option is unlikely. The barrier/wall that encapsulates the West Bank, the hundreds of checkpoints, and the closure of Gaza would make such a life-saving flight impossible.

Finally, as I reflect on the birth of Jesus, I can not help but think of the almost 400 babies who will be born, this very day, to Palestinian parents in the West Bank and Gaza. I think as well of the number of those who will perish at birth because of inadequate medical services (some babies have been put at fatal risk at checkpoints, because Israeli soldiers would not permit their delivering mothers to pass). And I think of Mary, 2000 years ago, and am grateful that, despite all she endured, there were no checkpoints blocking her way to Bethlehem.

Our traditions tell us that Mary’s joy at the birth of her son was tempered by foresight. She knew her child would grow and endure great suffering. Likewise, the joy that Palestinian parents experience when greeting new life these days must, no doubt, be accompanied by similar concerns. Not only must they question how they will provide for their new child, but they must face down their fears of bringing up a son or daughter under occupation, with its dangers and hardships. From the violence, pressures, and humiliation encountered daily by Palestinians in the West Bank at the hands of the Israeli military and settlers, to the grinding poverty and despair facing those trapped in Gaza, life under hostile foreign rule can drain joy out of even the most blessed events.

There is a traditional Christmas carol that asks the question “What child is this?” – the answer, of course, being “Jesus, the son of Mary”. But given the universal message conveyed by the Christmas story we also understand that the child is for us, a reminder of our responsibility to care for the helpless and the unrecognized. And so when we think of the vulnerable children born today not only in Palestine, but those born anywhere where life is at risk (including here at home), we are not to ask “What child is this?” – because we know that they are ours – to acknowledge and protect, like the shepherds and kings, enabling all of these children to grow, receive health care, and be educated so that they can grow and help change our world. Because all these children are ours, we have a responsibility to protect and care for them.

And so, Mr. Pence, as you reflect on the Christmas story, I ask you to open your eyes and heart to understand the Palestinian reality and to pay attention to their needs. They, too, are God’s children and are worthy of your compassion and commitment.

***

James J. Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute.

Featured image is from the author.

The US-backed Saudi monarchy and its allied Gulf oil sheikdoms have dramatically escalated their bombing campaign against Yemen, the poorest nation in the Middle East, killing scores of civilians within the last few days.

In the bloodiest of the airstrikes, Saudi warplanes targeted a crowded marketplace in Yemen’s southwestern Taiz province on Tuesday, killing 54 civilians.

While coverage of the bloodbath by the US and Western media has been scarce, Yemen’s Al Masirah television network published photos on its website showing the market’s bombed-out shops and the dismembered remains of slaughtered civilians. It reported that body parts had been thrown hundreds of yards from the blast sites.

Among the dead were at least eight children. Another 32 people were wounded in the bombing, including six children.

On the same day, warplanes attacked a farm in the al-Tuhayta district of Yemen’s western Hodeida province killing an entire family of 14, including women and children.

Yemeni sources reported that Saudi and allied warplanes carried out more than 45 airstrikes on Wednesday targeting several Yemeni cities and killing at least another six civilians, including a family of five whose house was targeted in the port city of Hodeida.

According to the Al Masirah television network the number of Yemenis killed and wounded in Saudi airstrikes since the beginning of December had risen to 600 before the latest round of casualties beginning on Tuesday.

This bloody new phase in the more than 1,000-day-old war by the wealthy and reactionary Arab monarchies against impoverished Yemen is driven by the House of Saud’s frustration over its inability to shift the military stalemate and made possible by the unrestrained support from Riyadh’s Western allies, principally the US and Britain.

The stepped up bombing campaign has come partly in response to the failure of a Saudi-backed coup by the former Yemeni dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh against his erstwhile allies, the Houthi rebel movement. The abortive effort ended in Saleh’s death and the routing of his supporters earlier this month.

Riyadh has also been shaken by the firing of missiles from Yemen targeting both the international airport and the House of Saud’s royal palace. Both missiles were brought down without causing any casualties.

Washington has long relied upon the Saudi monarchy as a pillar of reaction in the Arab world, arming it to the teeth and in the process reaping vast profits for US arms corporations.

During his trip to Saudi Arabia in May, US President Donald Trump signed a $110 billion arms deal with the Saudi regime. While the agreement represented the single largest arms deal in US history, it represented a continuity with the policy pursued by the Democratic administration of Barack Obama, which had struck a $29 billion agreement to sell F-15s the Saudis—representing the previous largest single US arms deal—and had a total of $100 billion worth of weaponry slated for sale to the kingdom.

In addition to providing the warplanes, bombs and missiles being used to slaughter Yemeni civilians, Washington is a direct accomplice and participant in the assault on Yemen, a flagrant war crime that has produced the greatest humanitarian catastrophe on the face of the planet. US Air Force planes are flying refueling missions that keep Saudi fighter bombers in the air, while US intelligence officers are assisting in the targeting of airstrikes and US warships are backing a Saudi sea blockade that is part of a barbaric siege of the country aimed at starving its population into submission.

While an estimated 13,600 civilians have lost their lives to the US-backed Saudi military campaign launched in March of 2015, that death toll has been massively eclipsed by the number of lives lost to hunger and disease resulting from the destruction of basic water and sanitary infrastructure, along with factories, farms, medical facilities and other vital resources, and the blockading of food, medicine and humanitarian supplies.

Almost three years into the war, 21.2 million people, 82 percent of the population, are in need of humanitarian assistance, lacking access to food, fuel and clean water,. An estimated 8 million people are on the brink of starvation, while soaring food prices have placed essential commodities out of reach for all but the wealthiest layers of Yemeni society.

The International Committee of the Red Cross announced last week that the number of cholera cases had topped 1 million, the worst epidemic in modern history, while the country has also been hit by an outbreak of diphtheria, a disease that has been almost entirely eradicated in the rest of the world.

The apocalyptic scale of the human suffering in Yemen has moved some in the West to make timid criticisms of the Saudi regime. Thus, French President Emmanuel Macron reportedly called Saudi King Salman on December 24 to advocate a “complete lifting’ of the blockade of Yemen. Macron made no move, however, to amend the 455 million euro arms deal struck with Riyadh by his predecessor, François Hollande, providing weapons being used to murder Yemeni civilians.

Similarly, the United Nations humanitarian coordinator Jamie McGoldrick pointed to the latest mass casualties resulting from Saudi bombings to condemn the “complete disregard for human life that all parties, including the Saudi-led coalition, continue to show in this absurd war.”

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of deaths have been caused by illegal Saudi aggression. The war, from the standpoint of both Riyadh and Washington, moreover, is not “absurd,” but rather part of a broader regional strategy being pursued by US imperialism to prepare for a military confrontation with Iran, which has emerged as an obstacle to the drive to assert American hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East.

Finally, the New York Times published an editorial Thursday saturated with hypocrisy and deceit. Titled “The Yemen Crucible,” it accuses the Trump administration of applying “a double standard” to the catastrophe in Yemen by denouncing alleged Iranian arms support for the Houthi rebels, while “having nothing bad to say” about the Saudi bombing campaign.

The Times, a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party establishment, raises the possibility that Iran “could be in violation” of a UN Security Council resolution barring it from the export of missiles and other weapons, and guilty of “escalating a crisis” that could lead to war with Saudi Arabia.

Referring to the recent performance of the US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, who appeared at a US military hangar in Washington with what was claimed to be debris from an Iranian-supplied missile fire by the Houthi rebels at Riyadh, the newspaper acknowledged that the presentation recalled the “weapons of mass destruction” speech delivered by then US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council in preparation for the US invasion of Iraq.

Of course the Times supported that war of aggression in 2003 and became one of the main propagandists of the “weapons of mass destruction” lie used to justify it.

The editorial utters not a word of criticism of US arms sales to the Saudi regime—much less about the Obama administration’s initiation of Washington’s support for the war on Yemen—and concludes with claims of seeing signs that the Trump administration is exerting “constructive influence on the Saudis.”

These lies and omissions make clear that if and when Washington embarks on a potentially world catastrophic war against Iran, the “newspaper of record” will once again provide its services as a propaganda organ for American militarism.

Featured image is from Yemen Press.

Featured image: Pentagon drones striking areas around the world including Somalia

Coal mining had been a lucrative business in the northeastern Oriental region of Morocco for many decades where in the city of Jerada thousands of workers were employed in the extractive industry.

During the 1930s, the earliest trade unions in the North African state were organized there to represent miners who worked under extremely dangerous and exploitative conditions.

The Moroccan Workers Union (UMT) came into existence and was affiliated with the largest labor federation in France at the time, the General Confederation of Labor (CGT). Paris had Morocco under a protectorate which was tantamount to colonial status.

Nonetheless, by the end of the 1990s, the mines in Jerada were closed when it was decided that the operations were no longer profitable. Approximately 9,000 workers lost their jobs spawning the flight from the city leaving many unemployed and impoverished people behind.

Nonetheless, the closed mines of Jerada became a source of potential income within the informal economy. Independent scavenging of the abandoned facilities where coal and other minerals could be acquired to be sold on the underground market attracted many young people.

Two brothers, aged 23 and 30, became trapped while emergency services personnel proved unable to rescue them. News of their presumed and confirmed deaths prompted anger on a mass level sparking large-scale demonstrations which advanced economic demands.

An article published by The New Arab said of the situation that:

“The unrest began on Friday (Dec. 22), when relatives of the victims and local residents railed against perceived inadequacies in the local emergency services’ rescue efforts. According to Moroccan media outlets, the rescue operation took as long as 36 hours. Protests continued on Saturday and Sunday and came to a head at the funeral of the brothers on Monday (Dec. 25), which was attended by thousands. After a general strike, protesters headed down to the city’s center and demanded improvements to living conditions in Jerada.” (Dec. 26)

The slogans advanced in the Jerada protests were similar to those which emerged in the Rif region where mass unrest took place around Hoceima earlier in the year. These northern areas of Morocco were bearing the brunt of the decline in the mining industry and therefore creating serious political problems for the monarchy under King Mohammad VI.

Morroco demonstrations in Jerada during late December 2017

Meanwhile in Egypt, there are other challenges which are a direct by-product of the post-colonial African crises. Blue Nile basin states from throughout North Africa extending to the Horn of Africa and the eastern coast has accepted a redirection of the flow of water resources needed for the construction of the ambitious Great Renaissance Dam project in Ethiopia.

Successive administrations in Cairo have opposed the project. Former President Mohamed Morsi had threatened to go to war with Addis Ababa in 2013 if Egypt did not maintain its levels of usage of Nile waters. Ethiopia called its bluff saying it was not afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood leader who was soon overthrown by Field Marshal Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi.

As the Field Marshal took off his military uniform in exchange for civilian clothes to run successfully for president absent of by then the outlawed Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), a political arm of the Brotherhood, the same differences remain over the amount of Blue Nile water which will be available to Egypt.

The Republic of Sudan, which was party to the revised colonial-era British agreement, signed in 1959 between Cairo and Khartoum, left Ethiopia to fend for itself as it never formally recognized the arrangement. At present Sudan is siding with Ethiopia and the other Nile basin nations against Egypt.

By November 2017, talks had broken off between President el-Sisi and Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn. The Egyptian leader said that the question of the Blue Nile was a matter of life and death for Cairo.

According to the Financial Times:

“Work on the dam is already advanced — it is 62 per cent built, says Ethiopia. The Ethiopians are due to start testing the first two turbines next year, with construction in theory set to be completed by the end of 2018. But the three riparians have yet to overcome their mistrust of each other and agree on mechanisms to contain the impact on downstream countries both during the filling period and once the dam comes into operation.” (Dec. 26)

Consequently, the potential for further conflict remains. Ethiopia views the Renaissance Dam as essential in its strategic economic blueprint.

Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project

Despite the unrest in Morocco and the disagreements over access to water levels from the Blue Nile, perhaps the most widely covered story within North Africa for the year was the report by the Cable News Network (CNN) documenting human trafficking in neo-colonial dominated Libya. This of course is the same CNN which served as a champion of the Pentagon and NATO-led war on Libya during 2011.

The imperialist destruction of Libya in 2011 along with the elimination of its leadership in the personage of Col. Muammar Gaddafi and the obliteration of state institutions of the Jamahiriya as well as the imposition of a series of regimes which have failed to maintain any real authority in the country, has created the conditions for the enslavement of Africans by serving as a base for the destabilization of both North and West Africa.

Human trafficking through Libya across the Mediterranean to southern Europe is a direct result of the imperialist militarism which bombed the country into its current state of underdevelopment and impoverishment. Prior to 2011, Libya was the most prosperous nation in Africa serving as a beacon of growth and a proponent of Pan-Africanism.

Whether in Morocco, the Nile Basin or Libya, the underlining failure to achieve stability, national and regional unity along with economic development makes a compelling case for unity and political integration. How these goals are to be achieved is the mandate of those who clamor for leadership positions. Ultimately it is the people of these geo-political regions which will be tasked with finding a solution to the perpetual crises of decentralized and competitive existence which hampers the realization of genuine democracy and independence.

Rectification and Industrialization in the Sub-Continent: Zimbabwe, South Africa and the Southern African Development Community (SADC)

After the resignation of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe on November 21 amid a factional struggle for control over the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union Patriot Front party (ZANU-PF) and the state, former Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa took over as leader. Mugabe had led both ZANU-PF since the mid-1970s and later an independent Zimbabwe beginning in April 1980.

There have been several major contributions of the Zimbabwe liberation process to the overall African revolutionary struggle. Most notable the capacity to wage a protracted armed struggle against the dreaded settler-colonial regime of Ian Smith and some two decades after achieving state power initiating a sweeping land redistribution program that created hundreds of thousands of independent African farmers.

At a December Extraordinary Congress of ZANU-PF the party sought to outline its new course in the post-Mugabe era. Economic development seems to be the major concern of the proceedings.

The Mnangagwa cabinet has been trimmed down from the size of Mugabe’s and it was repeatedly stated during the inauguration of the current president that Zimbabwe was now open for business. Yet the sanctions which have served to severely undermine the economy since 2000 have not been lifted by the United States and Britain.

Many are keeping an eye on whether there will be significant changes made in the land reform policy. Despite the propagandistic attacks on the character of Zimbabwe agricultural production since 2000, scientific studies conducted by Professor Ian Scoones of the Institute for Development Studies in Britain indicates that: “Since 2000, land reform has resulted in the transfer of around 8 million hectares of land across 4,500 farms to over 160,000 households, representing 20 per cent of Zimbabwe’s total land area, according to official figures. If the ‘informal’ settlements, outside the official ‘fast-track’ program are added, the totals are even larger.”

(http://www.ids.ac.uk/news/zimbabwe-s-land-reform-ten-years-on-new-study-dispels-the-myths)

Scoones’ work challenges several myths which are enunciated by those who have an ideological aversion to radical economic policy as well as other Afro-pessimists. These areas of distortion include:

“Land reform has been a total failure; the beneficiaries have been largely political ‘cronies’; there is no investment in the new resettlements; agriculture is in complete ruins creating chronic food insecurity; and the rural economy has collapsed.”

The notion that Zimbabwe was once the “breadbasket of the region” fails to say when this was the case. Was it during the period of white settler-colonial rule? Unfortunately, the western-oriented corporate and state-controlled media never asks or answers this question. Such proclamations which are devoid of substance and specificity contain undercurrents which suggest that Africans were better off under European rule.

Tobacco has long been a major export from Zimbabwe. A recent article published by the state-run Herald newspaper discusses previous problems with transport and marketing. (Dec. 28)

However, this same article goes on to say:

“Recent statistics from the Tobacco Industry Marketing Board (TIMB) indicate that 100,000 tobacco growers have registered so far, showing intent towards the crop. The upward shift from the 73,658 who had registered last year at the same time, gives rest to speculation by critics who predicted a possible plunge in figures. These are signs that farmers are still willing to play their part in generating foreign currency for the country, despite the inconveniences they have been meeting. Tobacco buyers and the Ministry of Agriculture, Lands and Rural Resettlement should repay the resilience shown by these growers by improving the conditions they encounter when they come to sell their crop.”

Other changes are taking place in neighboring Republic of South Africa where just days after the ZANU-PF Extraordinary Congress, the African National Congress (ANC) held its National Elective Conference at the University of Johannesburg. Some 4,700 delegates attended the event which consisted of three long days of reports, deliberations and voting for a new leadership of the ruling party which took state power after democratic elections were held in April 1994.

African National Congress National Elective Conference delegates from Dec. 2017

The current Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa was elected as the ANC leader. Ramaphosa comes out of the trade union movement as a co-founder and former Secretary General of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). He was the chief negotiator during the process of writing a new transitional constitution during the early 1990s.

Ramaphosa later left politics to enter the business world. It is said that he commands vast resources attained through the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) program of the ANC government.

Nonetheless, like Zimbabwe, South Africa has undergone challenges to its national economy in recent years. There has been massive disinvestment by the mining and banking sectors which are largely still controlled by foreign capital. Revelations of an interest-rate fixing scheme by the banks prompted the government to launch an investigation.

The rand has taken severe blows over the last three years amid a broader global crisis deriving from the precipitous decline in commodity prices which has negatively impacted emerging economies throughout Africa and the world. These factors are compounded by an unprecedented drought directly stemming from climate change.

Zimbabwe and South Africa are two of the most important economic states within the regional Southern African Development Community (SADC). At present President Jacob Zuma of South Africa is the chair of SADC. This regional body played an instrumental role in facilitating the transition of power within ZANU-PF during late November. Therefore it is essential that South Africa and Zimbabwe maintain its close relationship aimed at the much needed strategic industrialization plans for SADC.

Pentagon Escalates Interventions in Africa: AFRICOM and the Role of Somalia and Djibouti

Since taking office in January 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump has heightened the Pentagon war in Somalia. Over the last decade Washington through three successive administrations has sought to remake the Horn of Africa within its own image.

Trump in one of his infamous executive orders lifted the so-called “restrictions” put in place by the previous regime of President Barack Obama in regard to military operations in Somalia. In effect there have really been no restrictions on Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) activity in Somalia over the last decade.

Thousands of people have been killed in a genocidal war aimed at eliminating resistance to U.S. domination in Somalia. In 2007, the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) was deployed with U.S., European Union and United Nations funds utilizing troops from Uganda, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya, Sierra Leone, among others countries.

This involvement by AMISOM did not limit the ability of both the Pentagon and the Royal Air Force (RAF) from engaging in surveillance and bombing operations initially against the Union of Islamic Court which was eventually integrated into the imperialist-backed federal government in Mogadishu, and during the recent years targeting Al-Shabaab. U.S. troops, intelligence officers and advisors have been killed in the line of duty in Somalia.

In an article published by the Associated Press on December 28 it notes the enhanced aggressive policy of the Trump administration reporting:

“The U.S. military says a new airstrike in Somalia has killed four members of the al-Shabaab extremist group and destroyed a vehicle carrying explosives near the capital. The statement from the U.S. Africa Command says the airstrike Wednesday evening (Dec. 27) about 25 kilometers (15 miles) west of Mogadishu prevented the bomb from being used against residents of the capital. Al-Shabab was blamed for the massive truck bombing in Mogadishu in October that killed 512 people.”

This same dispatch goes on to emphasize:

“The U.S. has carried out 35 drone strikes in Somalia this year against al-Shabab and a small but growing presence of Islamic State group-linked fighters. The Trump administration early this year approved expanded military operations in the Horn of Africa nation. The new U.S. statement says they assess that no civilians were killed in the strike.”

It is interesting to observe that Al-Shabaab which has been said to have links with al-Qaeda is now ostensibly in alliance with the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). In making such statements, the Pentagon war machine seeks to garner support from the U.S. and world opinion.

The often regurgitated falsehood that “no civilians were killed” is a frequent mantra that has been reiterated from the days of the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s right through the occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and the Pentagon operations in Libya, Syria and Yemen in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Anticipations are that these airstrikes will be increased due to the apparent “battle fatigue” of the African governments which are supplying troops to AMISOM. As funds dwindle and casualties mount, the almost futility of the Somalia project becomes even more apparent. Already some 1,000 AMISOM troops have been withdrawn with more slated for 2018. The purported plan is to turn over these operations to the Somalian National Army which itself has not been able to wage an effective military campaign against Al-Shabaab. The army is haunted by divisions and other administrative problems even though enormous resources have been allocated for training and equipment.

A UN news report published on December 27 sums up the view of the “international community” as it relates to Somalia. This article reads in part:

“In a year which saw millions of Somali civilians displaced by armed conflict and thousands more killed and wounded in violence, the United Nations envoy to the country has called for sustained cooperation to tackle a number of pressing challenges. ‘No one should underestimate the many challenges ahead, and the serious issues that continue to retard and even threaten further progress,’ said Michael Keating, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Somalia. ‘These include pervasive corruption, most obviously in politics, and powerbrokers’ willingness to use violence, or the threat of violence, against opponents,’ he added. Noting that the militants have retained the capacity to mount such devastating attacks, Mr. Keating also emphasized that the terrorist group thrives, among other things, on the absence of functional local government and on the many conflicts around the country.”

The humanitarian crisis in Somalia continues as well with millions suffering from food deficits, lack of potable water and medical support. These are the real issues that should be addressed rather than placing emphasis on the supposed roles of ISIS, which is a residual effect of imperialist politico-military strategy emanating from the failed wars in Iraq, Syria and Libya.

Another Horn of Africa state, Djibouti, serves as a base of operations for AFRICOM on the continent. Thousands of Pentagon troops remain at Camp Lemonnier as a strike force for potential problems in the rest of the region and extending as far as the Arabian Peninsula where Washington is waging a proxy war against the Islamic Republic of Iran in Yemen.

Over ten years of military intervention in the Horn of Africa has also been an abysmal failure for imperialism. Not until African states establish their own independent military force which has the capacity to tackle internal and external threats, the imperialist capitals of Washington, London, Brussels and their allies will continue to dominate the air, land and waterways of the continent.

Reconstruction Must Be Self-Determined

From the North African states of Morocco, Egypt and Libya extending through the Horn of Africa to the sub-continent, the AU member-states are facing similar crises. These problems will not be resolved with the maintenance of the status-quo and its reinforcement.

If the situation is to be reversed beginning in 2018, the African continent and its people must break the dependency of the 19th and 20th century configurations of economic power and the international division of labor and political relationships. AFRICOM has not brought greater stability to Africa. In actuality the just the opposite has been the reality.

A look inward with the prospects of curbing and arresting external imperialist influence is the only practical solution to the problems of sustainable development. These are the tasks of both the popular classes and the state in the coming period.

All images in this article are from the author.

Featured image: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley supplies what she says is Iran’s destabilizing influence in Yemen during a news conference at Joint Base Anacostia-Boling in Washington, D.C., Dec. 14. (Source: DoD photo by EJ Hersom)

On December 12, America’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, gave a press conference on the grounds of Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington, D.C. The subject of this briefing: the threat posed by Iranian-supplied missiles employed by the Houthi rebels of Yemen in their ongoing fight against a Saudi Arabian-led coalition.

As a backdrop for this dramatic presentation, Haley had assembled various components and debris recovered from two previous missile attacks by the Houthi on Saudi Arabian targets.

“If we do nothing about the missiles fired at Saudi Arabia, we will not be able to stop the violence,” Haley warned. “There is clear evidence that the missiles that landed on Saudi Arabia come from Iran,” she said, adding: “The evidence is undeniable. The weapons might as well have had ‘Made in Iran’ stickers all over it.”

The facts of the matter, however, are quite different.

According to Haley, the weapons in question were Iranian-made Qiam-1 missiles, possessing a range of up to 800 kilometers. Haley was parroting the claims of the Saudi Arabian government, which had previously released a press statement about the Houthi missile attacks and their links to Iran. The Commanding General of U.S. Central Command, Lieutenant General Jeffrey Harrigian, backed up the Saudi claims, without providing any new evidence. Haley’s press conference, with its dramatic show and tell, was the first time the Saudi Arabian claims had been backed up by anything remotely resembling proof. Moreover, Haley’s comments were designed to set up a report by a panel of United Nations experts, who had travelled to Saudi Arabia to examine the missile parts in question and ascertain their origin. The findings of that report, scheduled to be released two days after Haley’s press conference, were mixed. “Design characteristics and dimensions of the components,” it read “inspected by the panel are consistent with those reported for the Iranian designed and manufactured Qiam-1 missile.” However, the panel also noted that “as yet has no evidence as to the identity of the broker or supplier.” Haley’s press conference was designed to eliminate any uncertainty on the matter.

A closer look, however, reveals the opposite. Rather than the Iranian-manufactured Qiam-1 missiles Haley and the Saudi Arabian government claimed, the debris presented by Haley were of a modified Soviet-manufactured SCUD-B missile; the airframe and engine are original Soviet-made components, and many of the smaller parts on display bear Cyrillic (i.e., Russian) markings. The transformation to the Burkhan 2-H design required the Houthi engineers to increase the size of the fuel and oxidizer tanks, and lengthen the airframe accordingly. This is done by cutting the airframe, and welding in place the appropriate segments (this also required that the fuel supply pipe, which passes through the oxidizer tank, be similarly lengthened.) The difference in quality between the factory welds and the new welds is readily discernable. The increased fuel supply permits a longer engine burn, which in turn increases the range of the missile. The Burkhan 2-H uses a smaller warhead than the SCUD B; as such, the guidance and control section had been reconfigured to a smaller diameter, and an inter-stage section added to connect the warhead/guidance section with the main airframe.

The warhead of the Burkhan 2-H, unlike the SCUD-B, is designed to separate from the main body of the missile during the final phase of its descent; this aids in accuracy and survivability, since most anti-missile radars (such as that used by the Patriot system used by Saudi Arabia) cannot readily distinguish between the smaller warhead and the larger mass of the airframe, sending the interceptors to the latter while the former falls unimpeded to its target. The bottle-nose shape produced by this smaller warhead, however, increases the missile’s overall drag coefficient, which reduced its range. To compensate for this, the Burkhan 2-H eliminates the tail fins found on the SCUD-B missile. This, however, creates stability and trajectory control issues at launch, for which the Burkhan-2 adjusts for by incorporating a more sensitive and responsive guidance and control system, which in turn is linked to similarly responsive actuators controlling the SCUD-B style jet vanes that steer the missile via thrust vectoring.

The reality is that the Burkhan 2-H is neither a completely indigenously-produced Houthi missile, nor is it an Iranian-manufactured Qiam-1. Instead, the Burkhan 2-H is a Soviet SCUD-B that has been significantly modified using Iranian design concepts and critical components (the guidance and control and thrust vector actuators stand out.) The ability to carry out the necessary modifications is not beyond the technical capability of the Houthi, who have assimilated most of the Yemeni missile engineers under their control. While the design aspect of this modification program appears to be Iranian, the actual technical modifications are more akin to a similar missile modification effort undertaken by Iraq in the 1980’s to 1990’s, where SCUD-B missiles were modified to become the longer-range Al Hussein missile used during the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War. Iraq and Yemen had a significant program of cooperation before the Gulf War, where Iraqi missile experts collaborated with their Yemeni counterparts to modify Yemen’s SCUD-B missiles to Al Hussein configuration. Iraq’s defeat at the hands of a US-led coalition, followed by the UN-directed dismantling of its long-range missile program, aborted this effort before it could be consummated, but not before a considerable amount of coordination had taken place, including a survey of the specific engineering resources needed to carry out the necessary modifications.

The missile debris in question actually contradicts the finding of the UN panel, which held that the missiles launched against Saudi Arabia had been transferred to Yemen in pieces and assembled there by Houthi missile engineers; it is clear that the missiles in question had been in the possession of Yemen well before the Saudi Arabian-led intervention of 2015, and that their source was either Soviet or North Korean. The modification kits, on the other hand, appear to be of Iranian origin, and were transported to Yemen via Oman. The UN panel claims not to have any evidence of “external missile specialists” working alongside the Houthi; indeed, the simplicity of the Burkhan 2-H modification concept is such that anyone already familiar with the SCUD-B missile system would be able to implement the required processes without outside assistance.

The fact that what is being discussed is the modification of existing Yemeni missiles, and not the provision of a new missile system, means that the already tenuous claims made by the Saudi Arabian and American governments that the Houthi missile attacks on Saudi Arabia represented a de facto violation of UN Security Council resolution 2231 (and, by extension, the Iran nuclear agreement) simply does not hold water. The entire Saudi-US effort in this regard was little more than a not-so-sophisticated propaganda exercise designed to bolster the Trump administration’s efforts to cobble together some sort of international consensus on doing away with the Iranian nuclear agreement. To this end, the Saudis and their American co-conspirators seem to have had little success.

As bad as that result may have been, it paled in comparison to what this entire charade could not obviate—that there has been little progress, if any, in the capability of nations armed with modern weaponry and advanced intelligence gathering systems to locate and interdict a mobile, relocatable ballistic missile force. The efforts of the Saudi Arabian-led coalition to neutralize the Houthi ballistic missile capability have been a dismal failure—there is no evidence of a single Houthi-controlled mobile missile launcher having been destroyed by coalition forces, despite hundreds of air sorties having been flown for just that purpose. The Houthi have displayed the capability to launch missiles targeting the most sensitive of Saudi Arabia’s political and economic infrastructure at will. Moreover, the unique characteristics of the Burkhan 2-H missile—a small, separating warhead, combined with a reduced radar cross section (by eliminating the tail fins of the SCUD-B) and a more responsive guidance and control system—have made it virtually impossible to intercept using the US-made Patriot anti-missile system. In many ways, the Saudi-led efforts against the Houthi mirrors the Great SCUD Hunt carried out by the United States during the Gulf War, where the Iraqis were able to continue launching missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia up until the end of the war, without the loss of a single mobile missile launcher. Moreover, the inability of the Patriot missile to successfully intercept Iraqi-modified SCUD missiles seems to be the case today, with Saudi Patriot batteries impotent in the face of the Burkhan 2-H.

If a relatively unsophisticated foe such as the Houthi, using Iranian-modified Soviet and North Korean missiles derived from 40-year-old technology, can evade an enemy force using the most modern combat aircraft backed up by the most sophisticated intelligence gathering systems available, and successfully launch ballistic missiles that threaten the political and economic infrastructure of the targeted state, what does that say about the prospects of any U.S.-led coalition taking on the far more advanced mobile missile threats that exist in North Korea and Iran today? The fact of the matter is that no military anywhere has shown the ability to successfully interdict in any meaningful way a determined opponent armed with mobile ballistic missile capability. If the Saudi experience in Yemen is to teach us anything, it is that any military plan designed to confront nations such as North Korea, Iran and Russia that are armed with sophisticated mobile ballistic missiles had better count on those capabilities remaining intact throughout any anticipated period of hostility. No amount of chest-thumping and empty rhetoric by American political and/or military leaders can offset this harsh reality. This is the critical lesson of Yemen, and the United States would do well to heed it before it tries to foment a crisis based upon trumped-up charges.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West’s Road to War (Clarity Press, 2017).

The gloating over the forthcoming New Year celebrations has already commenced.  The first big city to feature on the roundups in each news segment as the year is ushered in tends to be Sydney, self-proclaimed global city in the antipodes, ever keen to rub its vulgar confidence into the noses of rival Melbourne.  And, for that matter, every other city since costly fireworks and light displays matter in the image table.

In the time zones where the new year festivities feature with clockwork regularity, Sydney is the first flash, the initiator of the world into another fairly meaningless measurement known as a year, humanity’s effort to combat all swallowing eternity.  Organisers are interviewed confident that the display will be the “greatest ever”. 

The problem with such an absolutist catch-all cliché as “greatest ever” is that it surely cannot happen each year.  This improbability hardly bothers those behind putting together the event, whose job prescription eschews originality.  The Sydney NYE committee, organisers and propagandists, find it entirely feasible that each event is surely greater than the other, and spread this gospel through media outlets without irony.  Such optimism, such naked advertising! 

This, after all, is an occasion to forget the year that was, to forget woe, crimes against humanity and barrel scraping politicians, appalling decisions and missteps and perhaps most importantly, forget the scruples about the environment and the heating planet.

Everything touching on these celebrations resembles self-promotion at its most cringe worthy, so much so it deserves the tag of grotesque.  Even newspapers join the ride, casting aside editorial judgment in favour of back slapping confidence.  “After a year that many were happy to leave behind,” went the Sydney Morning Herald at the start of 2017, “an estimated 1.5 million people packed the foreshore on Saturday for a double bill of fireworks climaxing with the world famous midnight pyrotechnics extravaganza.”  These lines are already being copied to be re-run on the first day of 2018.

That account was more overawed than shocked at the sheer profligacy on display.  The Roman Emperors equated displays of extravagance with the worthiness of power.  The modern city bureaucrat equates firework displays with the desperate need to have a mention in every significant news outlet in the world.  There were seven tonnes of fireworks used at the Sydney Harbour bridge show the last time, including 12,000 shells, 25,000 shooting comets and some 100,000 or so individual pyrotechnic effects.  Millions had been expended ($7 million in one count).

These are not costs all are oblivious to.   Even some of the blinded can attain a glimmer of sight.  In 2015, a glummer assessment from the Australian Financial Review noted that the Sydney Harbour fireworks display would “cost ratepayers more than $900,000 – or $45,000 per minute – this year, up 40 per cent on the cost five years ago.”

The hefty $45,000 figure was arrived at after considering the initial “kids’ fireworks” component at 9 pm (children of all ages need convincing) lasting eight minutes, with the midnight extravaganza for the older ones going for a longer 12 exorbitant minutes.

Behind every bread and circus act is a political figure wanting to sooth and pacify, if for not for any other reason that old fashion tried bribery.  Even before the concept of the ballot was invented, the approval of one’s rulers has been sought at intervals, if for nothing else than keeping citizens (or subjects) orderly and satisfied. 

While Australians are known for occasional attacks of puritanical wowserism (the country’s head scratching drinking laws, its classifications scheme for film and television count as notable examples) no one wants to be accused of being an anti-fireworks warrior on the city council.

The AFR documented the response of a City of Sydney spokesperson, who claimed that the fireworks on the New Year’s Eve was “money well spent”.  Going back to August, not a single councillor was willing to demur to expanding the budget for fireworks.  There would be an influx of spectators; money would be spent, or thrown about, revenue generated for the city’s coffers.  Other enterprises would also benefit: extortionate room costs from ideal vantage points, inflated prices for share-rides.

Not all are convinced by this bounty. In 2015, Lisa Nicholls petitioned the Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to “donate Australia’s New Year’s Eve fireworks money to our struggling farmers”.  Far from the metropolitan centre of celebratory Sydney were those “who put food on your table and clothes on your back”.  They risked “losing everything” after another year of crippling drought. 

“How can we sit back on New Year’s Eve,” urged the petition, “and watch millions of dollars literally go up in smoke for a few minutes of our viewing pleasure when this money could do so much towards helping these farmers, the backbone of our country, to fight another day?” 

At its close, the measure had received 33,704 supporters.  Ah, those unsatisfied spoilsports and irascible party poopers.

Such shows of indulgence must come with warnings of care.  This has been a year of the spectacular mowing down incident, the murderous vehicle assault, the endangered tourist.  Urban terrorism is alive and well, as are the placebo reassurances of the police.  It’s all to do with bollards, come the officials.  But this is a show for which no cost will be spared.  The punters will be out.  The pyrotechnics shall go on.  Most of all, the City councillors will be happy.  

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

As 2017 draws to a close, it is difficult to be optimistic about what will be coming in the new year. The American President, whose margin of victory was certainly based on his pledge to avoid unnecessary wars, has doubled down on Afghanistan, refuses to leave Syria even though ISIS has been defeated, and is playing serious brinksmanship with a psychopathic and unpredictable regime in Pyongyang. The White House has also bought into the prevailing largely fabricated narrative about a Russia and has decided to arm Ukraine with offensive weapons, which has already resulted in a sharp response from Moscow and will make détente of any kind between the two leading powers all but impossible in the upcoming year.

But, as I have observed before, the red hazard light that continues to be blinking most brightly relates to Washington’s relationship with Iran, which has unnecessarily deteriorated dramatically over the past year and which brings with it collateral problems with Russia and Turkey that could trigger a much wider conflict. I say unnecessarily because all the steps taken to poison the relationship have come out of Washington, not Tehran. The Trump administration refused to certify that the Iranians had been in compliance with the nuclear agreement negotiated in 2015 and has since escalated its verbal attacks, mostly at the United Nations, claiming that the regime in Tehran is the major source of terrorism in the world and that it is seeking hegemony over a broad arc of countries running westward from its borders to the Mediterranean Sea.

The only problem with the allegations being made is that none of them is true and, furthermore, Iran, with limited military resources, poses no serious threat to gain control over its neighbors, nor to attack the United States or Europe. The invective about Iran largely derives from Israel and Saudi Arabia, which themselves have hegemonic ambitions relating to their region. Israel’s friends in the US Congress, media and White House have not surprisingly picked up on the refrain and are pushing for military action. Israel has even threatened to bomb any Iranian permanent presence inside neighboring Syria.

A recent detailed analysis by former US intelligence officers has demonstrated just how the claim that Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism is almost completely fabricated. The analysis explains how these false narratives are contrived and how they become part of the Washington background noise. The White House’s recent National Security Strategy Report for 2018 stated that “Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, has taken advantage of instability to expand its influence through partners and proxies, weapon proliferation, and funding.” But another US government report, the annual Country Reports on Terrorism 2016 cites no actual terrorist incidents initiated by Iran in that year. In fact, the most recent terrorist incident attributed to Tehran was in 2012, and that was retaliatory against Israel, which was at the time assassinating its scientists and technicians and attacking its computer systems.

America’s UN Ambassador Nikki Haley’s has recently claimed that it is hard to find a “terrorist group in the Middle East that does not have Iran’s fingerprints all over it.” But in reality, the overwhelming majority of terrorist groups in the region, to include ISIS, Al-Qaeda and al-Nusra, are Sunni Muslims, who believe Iran’s Shi’ism is heretical, and are both tied to and funded by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United States. The Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) is indeed an ethnic Iranian terrorist group, but it has been funded and supported by Washington and Tel Aviv to carry out attacks inside Iran.

The reality is that terrorism, defined by the United Nations as “criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public,” is most employed at the state level by the United States and its allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, not by Iran. All have used violence directed against civilians in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon, and all three have supported organizations that fit the definition of terrorists. Iran may indeed be guilty of actions that much of the world disapproves of, but it is not the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism as has been alleged.

Featured image is from the author.

First published in August 2016, this article documents US war plans directed against China, Russia and North Korea. In relation to ongoing threats against North Korea, it should be understood that from a strategic point of view, North Korea is a stepping stone towards  China and Russia.

From a geopolitical and geographic standpoint, North Korea is a buffer state, with Russia and China on its Northern borders. 

Highlights;

The Contemporary Context involves a scenario of a nuclear attack on Russia. “Kill the Russians”: The New Cold War is no longer Cold

And below is RAND Corporation scenario of a future war against China. The study entitled War with China: Thinking the Unthinkable was commissioned by the US Army. 

Michel Chossudovsky,  December 29, 2017

***

Introduction

It is important to focus on Southeast Asia and East Asia in a broader geopolitical context. China, North Korea as well as Russia are potential targets under Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”, involving the combined threat of missile deployments, naval power and pre-emptive nuclear war.

We are not dealing with piecemeal military endeavors. The regional Asia-Pacific military agenda under the auspices of US Pacific Command (USPACOM) is part of a global process of US-NATO military planning.

US military actions are carefully coordinated. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Asia Pacific region. In turn, the planning of military operations is coordinated with non-conventional forms of warfare including regime change, financial warfare and economic sanctions.

To  order Michel Chossudovsky’s book from Global Research click image 

The current situation is all the more critical inasmuch as a US-NATO war on Russia, China, North Korea and Iran is part of the US presidential election debate. War is presented as a political and military option to Western public opinion.

The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states. America’s hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through acts of war, support of terrorist organizations, regime change and economic warfare.

While, a World War Three Scenario has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than ten years, military action against Russia and China is now contemplated at an “operational level”. U.S. and NATO forces have been deployed in essentially three major regions of the World:

1. The Middle East and North Africa. Theater wars and US-NATO sponsored insurgencies directed against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen  under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism”
2. Eastern Europe including Poland and Ukraine, with military maneuvers, war games and the deployment of military hardware at Russia’s doorstep which could potentially lead to confrontation with the Russian Federation.
3. The U.S. and its allies are also threatening China under President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”.
4. Russia is also confronted on its North Eastern frontier,  through the deployment of NORAD-Northcom
5. In other regions of the World including Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, US intervention is geared towards regime change and economic warfare directed against a number of non-compliant countries: Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua.

In sub-Saharan Africa, the thrust has largely used the pretext of “Islamic terrorism” to wage counterterrorism ops under the auspices of the US Africa Command (USAFRICOM).

In South Asia, Washington’s intent is to build an alliance with India with a view to confronting China.

Pivot to Asia and the Threat of Nuclear War 

Within the Asia Pacific region, China, North Korea and Russia are the target of a preemptive nuclear attack by the US. It is important to review the history of nuclear war and nuclear threats as well US nuclear doctrine as first formulated in 1945 under the Truman administration.

HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI

“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark…. This weapon is to be used against Japan … [We] will use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. …  The target will be a purely military one… It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.” (President Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945)

“The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..” (President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945).

[Note: the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; the Second on Nagasaki, on August 9, on the same day as Truman’s radio speech to the Nation]

(Listen to Excerpt of his speech, Hiroshima audio video)

Hiroshima after the bomb

Is Truman’s notion of “collateral damage” in the case of nuclear war still relevant? Publicly available military documents confirm that nuclear war is still on the drawing board  of the Pentagon.

Compared to the 1950s, however, today’s nuclear weapons are far more advanced. The delivery system is more precise. In addition to China and Russia, Iran and North Korea are targets for a first strike pre-emptive nuclear attack.

US military documents claim that the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons are harmless to civilians. B61 mini-nuke depending on the model has a variable explosive capacity (one third to almost 12 times a Hiroshima bomb).

NUCLEAR DOCTRINE AND POLITICAL INSANITY

Let us be under no illusions, the Pentagon’s plan to “blow up the planet” using advanced nuclear weapons is still on the books.

The tactical nuclear weapons were specifically developed for use in post Cold War “conventional conflicts with third world nations”.  In October 2001, in the immediate wake of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld envisaged the use of the B61-11 tactical nuclear bomb in Afghanistan. The targets were Al Qaeda cave bunkers in the Tora Bora mountains.

Rumsfeld stated at the time that while the “conventional” bunker buster bombs “‘are going to be able to do the job’, … he did not rule out the eventual use of nuclear weapons.” (Quoted in the Houston Chronicle, 20 October 2001, emphasis added.)

The use of the B61-11 was also contemplated during the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq as well as in the 2011 NATO bombings of Libya.

In this regard, the B61-11 was described as “a precise, earth-penetrating low-yield nuclear weapon against high-value underground targets”, which included Saddam Hussein’s underground bunkers:

 ”If Saddam was arguably the highest value target in Iraq, then a good case could be made for using a nuclear weapon like the B61-11 to assure killing him and decapitating the regime” (Defense News, December 8, 2003).

B61-11 tactical nuclear bomb. In 1996 under the Clinton administration, the B61-11 tactical nuclear weapon was slated to be used by the US in an attack against Libya.

All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort”, have been scrapped. “Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”. During the Cold War, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevailed, namely that the use of nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union would result in “the destruction of both the attacker and the defender”.

In the post Cold war era, US nuclear doctrine was redefined. There is no sanity in what is euphemistically called US foreign policy.

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable…

Nuclear War is Good for Business

Spearheaded by the “defense contractors” (Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, British Aerospace  et al), the Obama administration has proposed a one trillion dollar plan over a 30 year period to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, bombers, submarines, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) largely directed at Russia and China.

War with Russia: From the Cold War to the New Cold War

Blowing up Russia, targeting Russian cities is still on the Pentagon’s drawing board.  It is also supported by enabling legislation in the US Congress.

The US House of Representatives H.Res. 758 Resolution

On 18 November 2014,  a major resolution H. Res. 758 was introduced in the House of Representatives. Its main thrust consists in portraying Russia as an “Aggressor Nation”, which has invaded Ukraine and calling for military action directed against Russia.

In the words of Hillary Clinton, the nuclear option is on the table.  Preemptive nuclear war is part of her election campaign.

Source: National Security Archive

According to 1956 Plan, H-Bombs were to be Used Against Priority “Air Power” Targets in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe.

Major Cities in Soviet Bloc, Including East Berlin, Were High Priorities in “Systematic Destruction” for Atomic Bombings.  (William Burr, U.S. Cold War Nuclear Attack Target List of 1200 Soviet Bloc Cities “From East Germany to China”, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 538, December 2015

Excerpt of list of 1200 cities targeted for nuclear attack in alphabetical order. National Security Archive

The above declassified document provides an understanding of the magnitude of a first strike nuclear attack with more than 1000 Russian cities targeted.

The Contemporary Context involves a scenario of a nuclear attack on Russia. 

“Kill the Russians”: The New Cold War is no longer Cold

A former CIA Official is calling for the “Killing of Russians”.  The US media and the the State Department applaud:

 

Pivot to Asia: China is threatened by the US military in the South China Sea and the East China Sea

WAR WITH CHINA IS CURRENTLY ON THE DRAWING BOARD OF THE PENTAGON AS OUTLINED IN A RAND REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE US ARMY

 

 

According to the Rand report:

Whereas a clear U.S. victory once seemed probable, it is increasingly likely that a conflict could involve inconclusive fighting with steep losses on both sides. The United States cannot expect to control a conflict it cannot dominate militarily.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1140/RAND_RR1140.pdf

Attack China Preemptively (“In Self Defense”)

The report is notoriously ambiguous. It focusses on how a war can be avoided while analyzing the circumstances under which a preemptive war against China is a win for the US:

The need to think through war with China is made all the more important by developments in military capabilities. Sensors, weapon guidance, digital networking, and other information technologies used to target opposing forces have advanced to the point where both U.S. and Chinese military forces seriously threaten each other. This creates the means as well as the incentive to strike enemy forces before they strike one’s own. In turn, this creates a bias toward sharp, reciprocal strikes from the outset of a war, yet with neither side able to gain con- trol and both having ample capacity to keep fighting, even as military losses and economic costs mount.

The presumption of this report is that China is threatening us, which justifies pre-emptive warfare. There is no evidence of  a Chinese military threat.  Within the realm of trade and investment, China’s constitutes a potential competitor to US economic hegemony.  According to James Petras: 

To counter China’s economic advance, the Obama regime has implemented a policy of building economic walls at home, trade restrictions abroad and military confrontation in the South China Seas – China’s strategic trade routes.

The purpose of the RAND report is that Chinese policymakers will read it. What we are dealing with is a process of military intimidation including veiled threats:

While the primary audience for this study is the U.S. policy community, we hope that Chinese policymakers will also think through possible courses and consequences of war with the United States, includ ing potential damage to China’s economic development and threats to China’s equilibrium and cohesion. We find little in the public domain to indicate that the Chinese political leadership has given this matter the attention it deserves.

The Report outlines “Four Analytic Scenarios” on how a war with China could be carried out:

The path of war might be defined mainly by two variables: intensity (from mild to severe) and duration (from a few days to a year or more). Thus, we analyze four cases: brief and severe, long and severe, brief and mild, and long and mild. The main determinant of intensity is whether, at the outset, U.S. and Chinese political leaders grant or deny their respective militaries permission to execute their plans to attack opposing forces unhesitatingly.

The concluding comments of the report underscore the potential weakness of China in relation to US-allied forces “…they do not point to Chinese dominance or victory.”

The report creates an ideological war narrative. It is flawed in terms of its understanding of modern warfare and weapons systems. It is largely a propaganda ploy directed against the Chinese leadership. It totally ignores Chinese history and China’s military perceptions which are largely based on defending the Nation’s historical national borders.

Much of the analysis focusses on a protracted conventional war over several years. The use of nuclear weapons is not envisaged by the RAND report despite the fact that they are currently deployed on a pre-emptive basis against China. The following assertions are at odds with US nuclear doctrine as defined in the 2002 nuclear posture review, which allows the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater:

It is unlikely that nuclear weapons would be used: Even in an intensely violent conventional conflict, neither side would regard its losses as so serious, its prospects so dire, or the stakes so vital that it would run the risk of devastating nuclear retaliation by using nuclear weapons first. We also assume that China would not attack the U.S. homeland, except via cyberspace.

While the US, according to the report, does not contemplate the use nuclear weapons, the report examines the circumstances under which China might use nukes against the US to avoid defeat. The analysis is diabolical:

Thus, it cannot be entirely excluded that the Chinese leadership would decide that only the use of nuclear weapons would prevent total defeat and the state’s destruction. However, even under such desperate conditions, the resort to nuclear weapons would not be China’s only option: It could instead accept defeat. Indeed, because U.S. nuclear retaliation would make the destruction of the state and collapse of the country all the more certain, accepting defeat would be a better option (depending on the severity of U.S. terms) than nuclear escalation. This logic, along with China’s ingrained no-first-use policy, suggests that Chinese first use is most improbable. (p. 30)

In other words, China has the option of being totally destroyed or surrendering to the US. The report concludes as follows:

In a nutshell, despite military trends that favor it, China could not win, and might lose, a severe war with the United States in 2025, especially if prolonged. Moreover, the economic costs and political dangers of such a war could imperil China’s stability, end its development, and undermine the legitimacy of the state. (p 68)

Southeast Asia

Washington’s objective is to draw South East Asia and the Far East into a protracted military conflict by creating divisions between China and ASEAN countries, most of which are the victims of Western colonialism and military aggression: Extensive crimes against humanity have been committed against Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia. In a bitter irony, these countries are now military allies of the United States. Below are selected clips confirming extensive US war crimes and crimes against humanity:

---

US WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

Indonesia 

Up to one million killed in Indonesia, the CIA acknowledges 105,000, The lists of Communist sympathizers (and their family members) were established by the CIA 

Korea

Vietnam

THE LIST OF US CRIMES IS EXTENSIVE: 37 “VICTIM NATIONS” SINCE WORLD WAR II

---

China and ASEAN 

Bilateral economic relations with China are slated to be destabilized. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a US hegemonic project which seeks to control trade, investment, intellectual property, etc in the Asia Pacific region.

The RAND report states in so many words that maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea and East China Sea would have a devastating impact on Asian countries, extending from India to Japan:

 The possibility of a Sino-U.S. war drawing in other powers and many states cannot be excluded: In addition to Japan, perhaps India, Vietnam, and NATO would be on the U.S. side; Russia and North Korea would be on China’s side. Fighting could spread beyond the region. War aims could expand, and as they did, so would the costs of losing. Even if nuclear weapons were not used, China might find other ways to attack the United States proper.  (p. 65)

US Deployments in the Asia-Pacific. China is encircled with US Military bases

Source Antiwar.com

THAAD MISSILE DEPLOYMENT IN SOUTH KOREA DIRECTED AGAINST CHINA

THAAD missiles are deployed in South Korea, against China, Russia and North Korea.  Washington states that THAAD is solely intended as a Missile Shield against North Korea.

THAAD System

THE JEJU ISLAND  MILITARY BASE DIRECTED AGAINST CHINA 

Less than 500km from Shanghai

THE REMILITARIZATION OF JAPAN UNDER PRIME MINISTER ABE’S GOVERNMENT

Japan is firmly aligned behind the US. It is a partner in the Jeju Island military base. Recent reports confirm Japan’s deployment of surface to ship missiles in the East China sea.

Japan is planning to deploy a new type of missile to the East China Sea, where Tokyo is engaged in a tense territorial dispute with Beijing. The decision marks a significant milestone in the drive by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to remilitarize Japan. The planned missile system will be designed locally, by the country’s expanding defence industry, rather than being supplied by the United States or another ally.

This article was first published by GR on September 18, 2017

Trump calls for escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Why? Is it part of the “Global War on Terrorism”, going after the bad guys, or is it something else? 

Unknown to the broader public, Afghanistan has significant oil, natural gas and strategic raw material resources, not to mention opium, a multibillion dollar industry which feeds America’s illegal heroin market. 

These mineral reserves include huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium, which is a strategic raw material used in the production of high tech batteries for laptops, cell phones and electric cars.

The implication of Trump’s resolve is to plunder and steal Afghanistan’s mineral riches to finance the “reconstruction” of a country destroyed by the US and its allies after 16 years of war, i.e  “War reparations” paid to the aggressor nation?  

Screenshot: The Independent.

An internal 2007 Pentagon memo, quoted by the New York Times suggests that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium.” (New York Times, U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan – NYTimes.com, June 14, 2010, See also BBC, 14 June 2010, see also Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2010).

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment…

“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said… “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”

“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines. (New York Times, op. cit.)

What this 2007 report does not mention is that this resource base has been known to both Russia (Soviet Union) and China going back to the 1970s.

While the Afghan government of President Ashraf Ghani has called upon President Donald Trump to promote US. investments in mining, including lithium, China is in the forefront in developing projects in mining and energy as well as pipeline projects and transport corridors.

China is a major trading and investment partner with Afghanistan (alongside Russia and Iran), which potentially encroaches upon US economic and strategic interests in Central Asia

China’s intent is to eventually integrate land transportation through the historical Wakhan Corridor which links Afghanistan to China’s Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region (see map below).

Afghanistan’s estimated $3 trillion worth of unexploited minerals, Chinese companies have acquired rights to extract vast quantities of copper and coal and snapped up the first oil exploration concessions granted to foreigners in decades. China is also eyeing extensive deposits of lithium, uses of which range from batteries to nuclear components.

The Chinese are also investing in hydropower, agriculture and construction. A direct road link to China across the remote 76-kilometer border between the two countries is in progress. (New Delhi Times, July 18, 2015)

Afghanistan has extensive oil reserves which are being explored by China’s National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).

Source Mining News, August 2010

“War is Good for Business” 

The US military bases are there to assert US control over Afghanistan’s mineral wealth. According to Foreign Affairs, “there are more U.S. military forces deployed there [Afghanistan] than to any other active combat zone”, the official mandate of  which is “to go after” the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS as part of the “Global war on Terrorism”.

Why so many military bases? Why the additional forces sent in by Trump?

The unspoken objective of US military presence in Afghanistan is to keep the Chinese out, i.e hinder China from establishing trade and investments relations with Afghanistan.

More generally, the establishment of military bases in Afghanistan on China’s Western border is part of a broader process of military encirclement of the People’s Republic of China.–i.e naval deployments in the South China sea, military facilities in Guam, South Korea, Okinawa, Jeju Island, etc. (see 2011 map below)

Pivot to Asia

Under the Afghan-US security pact,  established under Obama’s Asian pivot, Washington and its NATO partners have established a permanent military presence in Afghanistan, with military facilities located close to China’s Western frontier.  The pact was intended to allow the US to maintain their nine permanent military bases, strategically located on the borders of China, Pakistan and Iran as well as Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

US military presence, however, has not prevented the expansion of trade and investment relations between China and Afghanistan. A strategic partnership agreement was signed between Kabul and Beijing in 2012. Afghanistan has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Moreover, neighboring Pakistan –which is now a full member of the SCO–, has established close bilateral relations with China. And now Donald Trump  is threatening Pakistan, which for many years has been the target of  America’s “undeclared drone war”.

In other words, a shift in geopolitical alignments has taken place which favors the integration of Afghanistan alongside Pakistan into the Eurasian trade, investment and energy axis.

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and China are cooperating in oil and gas pipeline projects. The SCO of which Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are full members is providing a geopolitical platform for the integration of Afghanistan into the Eurasian energy and transport corridors.

China is eventually intent upon integrating Afghanistan into the transport network of Western China as part of the Belt and Road initiative.

Moreover, China’s state owned mining giant, Metallurgical Corporation of China Limited (MCC) “has already managed to take control of the huge copper deposit Mes Aynak, which lies in an area controlled by the Taliban.  Already in 2010, Washington feared “that resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth which would upset the United States”… After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more” (Mining.com)

China and the Battle for Lithium

Chinese mining conglomerates are now competing for strategic control of the global Lithium market, which until recently was controlled by the “Big Three” conglomerates including Albemarle’s Rockwood Lithium (North Carolina), The Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile and FMC Corporation, (Philadelphia) which operates in Argentina. While the Big Three dominate the market, China now accounts for a large share of global lithium production, categorized as the fourth-largest lithium-producing country behind Australia, Chile and Argentina. Meanwhile China’s Tianqi Group has taken control of Australia’s largest lithium mine, called Greenbushes. Tianqi now owns a 51-percent stake in Talison Lithium, in partnership with North Carolina’s Albemarle.

This thrust in lithium production is related to China’s rapid development of the electric car industry:

China is now “The Center Of Lithium Universe”. China is already the largest market for electric cars. BYD, Chinese company backed by Warren Buffett, is the largest EV manufacturer in the world and Chinese companies are producing the largest amount of lithium chemicals for the batteries. There are 25 companies, which are making 51 models of electric cars in China now. This year we will see over 500,000 EVs sold in China. It took GM 7 years to sell 100,000 Chevy Volts from 2009. BYD will sell 100,000 EVs this year alone! (Mining.com, November 2016 report)

The size of the reserves of Lithium in Afghanistan have not been firmly established.

Analysts believe that these reserves which are yet to be exploited will not have a significant impact on the global lithium market.

Featured image: OxyContin is a derivative of opium from poppies. (Photo: Rach)

First published by Global Research on October 26, 2017

In the October 30 edition of the New Yorker, reporter Patrick Radden Keefe writes a thorough examination of the role of one pharmaceutical company, Purdue Pharma, in abetting the high number of deaths due to opioid overdoses in the United States. The connection is through the firm’s patent on one highly addictive pain killer, OxyContin. Although there are many factors that fuel the opioid crisis in the United States — including social injustice and economic inequality issues — Keefe’s thoroughly researched article is a telling reminder that the biggest drug pushers in the United States are legal ones: our pharmaceutical companies.

Keefe writes,

Since 1999, two hundred thousand Americans have died from overdoses related to OxyContin and other prescription opioids. Many addicts, finding prescription painkillers too expensive or too difficult to obtain, have turned to heroin. According to the American Society of Addiction Medicine, four out of five people who try heroin today started with prescription painkillers. The most recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that a hundred and forty-five Americans now die every day from opioid overdoses.

Andrew Kolodny, the co-director of the Opioid Policy Research Collaborative, at Brandeis University, has worked with hundreds of patients addicted to opioids. He told me that, though many fatal overdoses have resulted from opioids other than OxyContin [such as fentanyl and heroin], the crisis was initially precipitated by a shift in the culture of prescribing—a shift carefully engineered by Purdue. “If you look at the prescribing trends for all the different opioids, it’s in 1996 that prescribing really takes off,” Kolodny said. “It’s not a coincidence. That was the year Purdue launched a multifaceted campaign that misinformed the medical community about the risks.”

In fact, Keefe makes the comparison in his article between drug companies that emphasize sales by persuading doctors to prescribe certain medications and heroin dealers. In the case of OxyContin, the pills are legal, while heroin is considered a Class A illegal drug. However, heroin and OxyContin are both opiates, or derivatives of opium, which in its unprocessed form is — of course — illegal. Purdue Pharma, which is privately owned by the Sackler family, according to Keefe, has made billions of dollars off of OxyContin.

Until recently, Purdue Pharma enlisted its hundreds of sales representatives to convince doctors that OxyContin was not addictive. It also sent physicians who advocated for OxyContin on lavish trips to speak at medical conferences, where they would praise the drug, and employed other strategies to try and ensure the continued maximum prescribing of the drug. As Keefe notes:

“Between 2006 and 2015, Purdue and other painkiller producers, along with their associated nonprofits [front groups for advocating for specific drugs], spent nearly nine hundred million dollars on lobbying and political contributions—eight times what the gun lobby spent during that period.”

The importance of the sales force cajoling doctors cannot be overemphasized, as Keefe reports:

Within five years of its introduction, OxyContin was generating a billion dollars a year. “There is no sign of it slowing down,” Richard Sackler told a team of company representatives in 2000. The sales force was heavily incentivized to push the drug. In a memo, a sales manager in Tennessee wrote, “$$$$$$$$$$$$$ It’s Bonus Time in the Neighborhood!” May [a former sales rep for Purdue Pharma], who was assigned to the Virginia area, was astonished to learn that especially skillful colleagues were earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in commissions. One year, May’s own sales were so brisk that Purdue rewarded him with a trip to Hawaii. As prescriptions multiplied, Purdue executives—and the Sackler family members on the company’s board—appeared happy to fund such blandishments. Internal budget plans described the company’s sales force as its “most valuable resource.” In 2001, Purdue Pharma paid forty million dollars in bonuses.

In the preface to a photo essay on opioid overdose deaths that appears in the print edition of the New Yorker, writer Margaret Talbot states,

Opioids, in fact, now kill more than fifty thousand Americans a year, ten thousand more than AIDS did at the peak of that epidemic — more, too, than gun homicides and motor-vehicle accidents. Opioid overdoses are now the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of fifty.

Again, it is important to remember that the surge in opioid overdoses is not solely due to pharmaceutical firms, including Purdue Pharma. The opioid crisis is much too complicated and nuanced to attribute to any single factor. As just one example, the industrial economic collapse of many towns and smaller cities in the Midwest and Appalachia have contributed to that area being particularly hard hit.

However, there is a lesson in the role Purdue Pharma has played in contributing to the crisis. The so-called “war on drugs” allows companies such as Purdue Pharma to make billions of dollars by pushing pills through misrepresentation of the product, while a ruinous “war” is waged on those who sell and use drugs that are classified as illegal. This is one reason that you can expect Donald Trump’s solution to the opioid crisis to be as unenlightened, harmful and feckless as the “war on drugs” itself has been.

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

This article was originally published by BuzzFlash at Truthout.

First published by GR on October 29, 2017

The past year the US and global ‘real’ economies have enjoyed a moderate recovery. Much of that has been due to China stimulating its economy to ensure real growth in anticipation of the Communist Party’s convention, which has just ended. China’s president Xi and central bank (Peoples Bank of China) chair, Zhou, have announced, post-convention, that China’s real growth will slow and have warned a global ‘Minsky Moment’ (i.e. financial crisis) may be brewing. China will now try, once again, to tame its shadow bankers and speculators who have been feeding China’s debt and bubbles, and prepare for the global financial instability that is brewing.

The global financial bubbles–in stocks, bonds, currencies (crypto and real), derivatives, real estate, etc.– have been fueled since 2008 by capitalist central banks–led by the US Federal Reserve and followed even more aggressively by the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan. Central bank ‘free’ money has boosted stock and other financial asset prices into bubble territory and produced historic capital gains profits for corporations, professional investors, and the wealthiest 1% households in the US and worldwide.

The world’s approximately 1500 billionaires’ wealth now totals more than $6 trillion–and that is only the officially admitted figure. More is not accounted for in the dozens of tax havens worldwide in which they park their money aware from public and tax collectors’ view. US and other governments meanwhile are feverishly trying to pass even more tax cuts for billionaires and multi-millionaires, so they can keep even more $ trillions for themselves. Financial speculation has become the primary means by which the super-rich enrich themselves even more–with the help of central bankers and elected and their paid-for government tax cutters.

Central banks have enabled their wealth acceleration by providing virtually free money for them to invest in financial markets through borrowing (debt) and leverage. Government tax cutters also let them keep more and more of the free money, profits, and their financial capital gains. Financial bubbles are the consequence. More and more financial writers have begun to write articles in the mainstream business press forewarning of the growing bubbles that are the engines of the the super-rich wealth acceleration.

The central banks and their policy of free money have created their own contradictions however. They have enriched the rich as never before, but have enabled and fueled the bubbles that threaten it all. After 8 years of pumping free money into private banks, corporations, and investors, the US central bank has this past year begun a desperate effort to raise interest rates and try to slow the flow of liquidity from the ‘free money firehose’ since 2008 that have produced a tripling of corporate profits, a quadrupuling of US stock prices, bitcoin and crypto currency bubbles, and $6 trillion of corporate bond debt issuance, passed on to shareholders in dividend and stock buyback payouts. But the massive money and capital income growth has produced financial asset bubbles that are now growing alarmingly as well. So the Fed over the past year has tried to raise interest rates a little to slow down the bubbles. It will be too little, however, as I have argued elsewhere the central bank cannot raise rates much higher without precipitating a financial credit crunch that will generate the next recession. So the Fed talks tough on rates but does very little. The central banks of Europe and Japan do even less. Global banks and investors are addicted to the free money from the central banks and that policy will change little apart from token adjustments and talk.

The Fed’s (and all central banks’) dilemma is that raising rates and selling off its balance sheet (that will also raise rates) will cause the dollar to rise in global markets, cause in turn currency collapse in emerging markets that will sharply reduce US multinational corporations’ profits offshore. The Fed will not jeopardize US multinational corporations’ offshore profits therefore by raising rates too much. Higher rates will also shut down the US construction sector, already weak (new residential housing is declining), and reduce US consumption spending that is also barely growing, based on debt and savings reductions instead of real wage growth. So the Fed is engaged in a charade of raising rates. And whomever Trump reappoints to the Fed chair after Janet Yellen won’t matter. The same free money policies will continue. The system is addicted to free money and low rates for years to come–and that will continue feeding financial bubbles.

The Fed, like all central banks today, has become an institution whose main task is to continue subsidizing capital and capital incomes. As the Fed raises rates tokenly, other State institutions (Congress, Presidency) are also embarking on massive tax cuts for corporations and investors to offset the moderate hikes in interest rates coming from the Fed. More than $10 trillion in corporate-investor tax cuts occurred under Bush-Obama. More is coming under Trump.

In the 21st century, advanced capitalist economies are increasingly being subsidized by their states–monetarily by their central banks with free money and fiscally by their governments with more and more tax cuts. Both left (central banks) and right (legislatures) the State is increasingly engaged in reducing capital costs and thus subsidizing capital incomes. This is the primary emphasis of ‘neoliberal’ policy in the 21st century global and US capitalist economy.

The weaker capitalist sectors–Europe and Japan–are engaged in even more aggressive central bank free money provisioning. Europe’s central bank has just announced a ‘sleight of hand’, fake change in monetary policy: reducing its monthly free money injection (which has been benefiting mostly going to Germany and France bankers and corporations), while extending the period over which it will continue its program. It will provide less per month but for longer. Just moving the money around, as they say. Not really reducing anything.

The Bank of Japan has been even more generous to its bankers, investors and businesses. The Bank of Japan has refused to engage in a free money/higher rates charade (US) or language manipulation to fake a reduction in the free money flow (Europe). Japan’s central bank has announced it will continue buying and subsidizing corporate bonds, private stocks, and other financial assets, at an historic pace, thus contributing to propping up financial markets with no end in sight. Not suprisingly, Japan stock and financial markets are also on a tear, rising to levels not seen in 20 years. Similarly, financial asset markets have begun to escalate as well in Europe.

As I have indicated in my just released book, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Rope'(see book icon on this blog, jackrasmus.com, and the several book reviews), capitalist central banks are the original primary culprits of the free money policies adopted by all advanced capitalist economies–a policy that has been fueling debt and leverage, and stoking financial asset markets now entering bubble territory once again–i.e. creating the ‘Minsky Moment’ of financial instability about which China’s PBOC central bank chair, Zhou, has just forewarned.

Two big decisions will occur in the US in the first week of November: Trump will announce his new nominee for the chair of the US Federal Reserve Bank and the right wing-dominated US House of Representatives will define the Trump corporate-investor tax cuts further.

Whomever leads the Fed, there will be no real change in policy set in motion decades ago by Greenspan, continued by his protege, Ben Bernanke, and extended by Janet Yellen. Free money will continue to flow from the Fed (and even freer by the central banks of Europe and Japan). Whether Powell, Taylor, Cohn or whomever are appointed, the policy of free money will continue. Rates will not be allowed to rise much. The private bankers and investors want it that way. And their ‘bought and paid for’ politicians will ensure it continues. Meanwhile, the Trump tax cuts will additionally subsidize corporations and investors at an even greater rate with Trump’s multi-trillion tax cuts. The Trump tax cuts (which follow more than $10 trillion under Obama and Bush) will enable US Corporations to continue paying record dividends and stock buybacks to enrich their shareholders. The $6 trillion in dividends and stock buybacks since 2010 will be exceeded by even trillions more. Income inequality trends in the US will therefore continue to accelerate unabated.

It is true the global economy has ‘enjoyed’ a brief and mild growth spurt in 2017, as noted previously. That growth has been driven by China’s stimulus and by business inventory investing in anticipations of Trump tax and other deregulation (also cost reduction) policy driven changes. But the growth of the summer of 2017 will soon slow significantly. Now China will purposely slow, as policy shifts to rein in its own financial bubbles and in part prepare for a global ‘Minsky Moment’ crisis that is coming.

Meanwhile, the Trump bump in US economic growth will also fade in 2018, driven up until now largely by inventory investing by business that won’t be realized in sales and revenue in 2018. Working-middle class household consumption has been based on debt and savings reduction instead of real wage income recovery this past year. That is not a basis for longer term growth. US autos and housing are already fading. Simultaneously, escalating costs of healthcare insurance premiums will cut deeply into consumer spending in 2018. And government spending will also slow, as Congress cuts social programs in order to offset deficits created by the massive tax cuts for corporations and investors.

In Europe, political instability forces will keep a lid on economic recovery there (a ‘hard’ Brexit, Catalonia independence uncertainty, new breakaway regions in Italy soon also voting for independence, the rise of right wing governments in eastern europe, etc.). In Japan, business interests will continue to ignore prime minister Abe pleas to raise wages, as they have for years, while Japan gives the green light to become the global financial center for crypto-currency speculative investing.

Consequently, odds are rising there will be a recession in the US, and globally, by late 2018 or early 2019. That will likely be accompanied soon, before or after, by a new ‘Minsky Moment’ of financial instability that will exacerbate the real economic downturn.

In recent weeks, as host of my Alternative Visions radio show on the Progressive Radio Network, I have been focusing discussion on the growing financial bubbles and instability in the US and global economy that has been growing beneath the surface. I’ve also been dissecting the fundamental weaknesses in the US real economy that have gone unnoticed (or noted) by the mainstream press and economics establishment. The US real economy is thus no where as healthy as the 3% official GDP growth rates maintain. It can slow rapidly even in terms of official GDP numbers once it becomes clear that Trump tax cuts won’t create jobs or wage growth, and that tax cut driven deficits will mean no meaningful infrastructure fiscal spending by Congress.

The following, most recent of my Alternative Visions radio show, of October 27, 2017, thus addresses further these various preceding themes (as did my prior radio shows did in October). To listen to the show(s):

Go to

http://prn.fm/alternative-visions-china-shifts-course-global-minsky-moment-grows-10-27-17/

Or

http://alternativevisions.podbean.com

This article was originally published by Jack Rasmus.

First published by GR on October 29, 2017

The past year the US and global ‘real’ economies have enjoyed a moderate recovery. Much of that has been due to China stimulating its economy to ensure real growth in anticipation of the Communist Party’s convention, which has just ended. China’s president Xi and central bank (Peoples Bank of China) chair, Zhou, have announced, post-convention, that China’s real growth will slow and have warned a global ‘Minsky Moment’ (i.e. financial crisis) may be brewing. China will now try, once again, to tame its shadow bankers and speculators who have been feeding China’s debt and bubbles, and prepare for the global financial instability that is brewing.

The global financial bubbles–in stocks, bonds, currencies (crypto and real), derivatives, real estate, etc.– have been fueled since 2008 by capitalist central banks–led by the US Federal Reserve and followed even more aggressively by the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan. Central bank ‘free’ money has boosted stock and other financial asset prices into bubble territory and produced historic capital gains profits for corporations, professional investors, and the wealthiest 1% households in the US and worldwide.

The world’s approximately 1500 billionaires’ wealth now totals more than $6 trillion–and that is only the officially admitted figure. More is not accounted for in the dozens of tax havens worldwide in which they park their money aware from public and tax collectors’ view. US and other governments meanwhile are feverishly trying to pass even more tax cuts for billionaires and multi-millionaires, so they can keep even more $ trillions for themselves. Financial speculation has become the primary means by which the super-rich enrich themselves even more–with the help of central bankers and elected and their paid-for government tax cutters.

Central banks have enabled their wealth acceleration by providing virtually free money for them to invest in financial markets through borrowing (debt) and leverage. Government tax cutters also let them keep more and more of the free money, profits, and their financial capital gains. Financial bubbles are the consequence. More and more financial writers have begun to write articles in the mainstream business press forewarning of the growing bubbles that are the engines of the the super-rich wealth acceleration.

The central banks and their policy of free money have created their own contradictions however. They have enriched the rich as never before, but have enabled and fueled the bubbles that threaten it all. After 8 years of pumping free money into private banks, corporations, and investors, the US central bank has this past year begun a desperate effort to raise interest rates and try to slow the flow of liquidity from the ‘free money firehose’ since 2008 that have produced a tripling of corporate profits, a quadrupuling of US stock prices, bitcoin and crypto currency bubbles, and $6 trillion of corporate bond debt issuance, passed on to shareholders in dividend and stock buyback payouts. But the massive money and capital income growth has produced financial asset bubbles that are now growing alarmingly as well. So the Fed over the past year has tried to raise interest rates a little to slow down the bubbles. It will be too little, however, as I have argued elsewhere the central bank cannot raise rates much higher without precipitating a financial credit crunch that will generate the next recession. So the Fed talks tough on rates but does very little. The central banks of Europe and Japan do even less. Global banks and investors are addicted to the free money from the central banks and that policy will change little apart from token adjustments and talk.

The Fed’s (and all central banks’) dilemma is that raising rates and selling off its balance sheet (that will also raise rates) will cause the dollar to rise in global markets, cause in turn currency collapse in emerging markets that will sharply reduce US multinational corporations’ profits offshore. The Fed will not jeopardize US multinational corporations’ offshore profits therefore by raising rates too much. Higher rates will also shut down the US construction sector, already weak (new residential housing is declining), and reduce US consumption spending that is also barely growing, based on debt and savings reductions instead of real wage growth. So the Fed is engaged in a charade of raising rates. And whomever Trump reappoints to the Fed chair after Janet Yellen won’t matter. The same free money policies will continue. The system is addicted to free money and low rates for years to come–and that will continue feeding financial bubbles.

The Fed, like all central banks today, has become an institution whose main task is to continue subsidizing capital and capital incomes. As the Fed raises rates tokenly, other State institutions (Congress, Presidency) are also embarking on massive tax cuts for corporations and investors to offset the moderate hikes in interest rates coming from the Fed. More than $10 trillion in corporate-investor tax cuts occurred under Bush-Obama. More is coming under Trump.

In the 21st century, advanced capitalist economies are increasingly being subsidized by their states–monetarily by their central banks with free money and fiscally by their governments with more and more tax cuts. Both left (central banks) and right (legislatures) the State is increasingly engaged in reducing capital costs and thus subsidizing capital incomes. This is the primary emphasis of ‘neoliberal’ policy in the 21st century global and US capitalist economy.

The weaker capitalist sectors–Europe and Japan–are engaged in even more aggressive central bank free money provisioning. Europe’s central bank has just announced a ‘sleight of hand’, fake change in monetary policy: reducing its monthly free money injection (which has been benefiting mostly going to Germany and France bankers and corporations), while extending the period over which it will continue its program. It will provide less per month but for longer. Just moving the money around, as they say. Not really reducing anything.

The Bank of Japan has been even more generous to its bankers, investors and businesses. The Bank of Japan has refused to engage in a free money/higher rates charade (US) or language manipulation to fake a reduction in the free money flow (Europe). Japan’s central bank has announced it will continue buying and subsidizing corporate bonds, private stocks, and other financial assets, at an historic pace, thus contributing to propping up financial markets with no end in sight. Not suprisingly, Japan stock and financial markets are also on a tear, rising to levels not seen in 20 years. Similarly, financial asset markets have begun to escalate as well in Europe.

As I have indicated in my just released book, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Rope'(see book icon on this blog, jackrasmus.com, and the several book reviews), capitalist central banks are the original primary culprits of the free money policies adopted by all advanced capitalist economies–a policy that has been fueling debt and leverage, and stoking financial asset markets now entering bubble territory once again–i.e. creating the ‘Minsky Moment’ of financial instability about which China’s PBOC central bank chair, Zhou, has just forewarned.

Two big decisions will occur in the US in the first week of November: Trump will announce his new nominee for the chair of the US Federal Reserve Bank and the right wing-dominated US House of Representatives will define the Trump corporate-investor tax cuts further.

Whomever leads the Fed, there will be no real change in policy set in motion decades ago by Greenspan, continued by his protege, Ben Bernanke, and extended by Janet Yellen. Free money will continue to flow from the Fed (and even freer by the central banks of Europe and Japan). Whether Powell, Taylor, Cohn or whomever are appointed, the policy of free money will continue. Rates will not be allowed to rise much. The private bankers and investors want it that way. And their ‘bought and paid for’ politicians will ensure it continues. Meanwhile, the Trump tax cuts will additionally subsidize corporations and investors at an even greater rate with Trump’s multi-trillion tax cuts. The Trump tax cuts (which follow more than $10 trillion under Obama and Bush) will enable US Corporations to continue paying record dividends and stock buybacks to enrich their shareholders. The $6 trillion in dividends and stock buybacks since 2010 will be exceeded by even trillions more. Income inequality trends in the US will therefore continue to accelerate unabated.

It is true the global economy has ‘enjoyed’ a brief and mild growth spurt in 2017, as noted previously. That growth has been driven by China’s stimulus and by business inventory investing in anticipations of Trump tax and other deregulation (also cost reduction) policy driven changes. But the growth of the summer of 2017 will soon slow significantly. Now China will purposely slow, as policy shifts to rein in its own financial bubbles and in part prepare for a global ‘Minsky Moment’ crisis that is coming.

Meanwhile, the Trump bump in US economic growth will also fade in 2018, driven up until now largely by inventory investing by business that won’t be realized in sales and revenue in 2018. Working-middle class household consumption has been based on debt and savings reduction instead of real wage income recovery this past year. That is not a basis for longer term growth. US autos and housing are already fading. Simultaneously, escalating costs of healthcare insurance premiums will cut deeply into consumer spending in 2018. And government spending will also slow, as Congress cuts social programs in order to offset deficits created by the massive tax cuts for corporations and investors.

In Europe, political instability forces will keep a lid on economic recovery there (a ‘hard’ Brexit, Catalonia independence uncertainty, new breakaway regions in Italy soon also voting for independence, the rise of right wing governments in eastern europe, etc.). In Japan, business interests will continue to ignore prime minister Abe pleas to raise wages, as they have for years, while Japan gives the green light to become the global financial center for crypto-currency speculative investing.

Consequently, odds are rising there will be a recession in the US, and globally, by late 2018 or early 2019. That will likely be accompanied soon, before or after, by a new ‘Minsky Moment’ of financial instability that will exacerbate the real economic downturn.

In recent weeks, as host of my Alternative Visions radio show on the Progressive Radio Network, I have been focusing discussion on the growing financial bubbles and instability in the US and global economy that has been growing beneath the surface. I’ve also been dissecting the fundamental weaknesses in the US real economy that have gone unnoticed (or noted) by the mainstream press and economics establishment. The US real economy is thus no where as healthy as the 3% official GDP growth rates maintain. It can slow rapidly even in terms of official GDP numbers once it becomes clear that Trump tax cuts won’t create jobs or wage growth, and that tax cut driven deficits will mean no meaningful infrastructure fiscal spending by Congress.

The following, most recent of my Alternative Visions radio show, of October 27, 2017, thus addresses further these various preceding themes (as did my prior radio shows did in October). To listen to the show(s):

Go to

http://prn.fm/alternative-visions-china-shifts-course-global-minsky-moment-grows-10-27-17/

Or

http://alternativevisions.podbean.com

This article was originally published by Jack Rasmus.

Ahn Jin-geol, the Secretary General of People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, participated in the “Companion”, the walking march for the release of all prisoners of conscience in Korea. He said he had a heavy heart and was sick at heart when he saw Lee Kyung-jin, a sister of Lee Seok-ki who is holding a sit-down in front of the Blue House. Moreover, he said that many civil society organizations in Korea had thought they should have gathered more strength to let all prisoners of conscience free.

Celebrating Christmas, Ahn said

“On this day, justice and peace must flow over the country we love. Everyone who is unjustly detained in prison should come out and laugh with their family, friends and acquaintances. But now there are still some immoral forces. Also, I couldn’t keep my stuffiness hidden because the current government could not make a decision reading their countenance.”

Despite freezing weather, Lee Seokki’s sister Lee Kyungjin holds the 16th all night demonstration in front of the Blue House on December 27.

Quoting Martin Luther King Jr, Ahn said

“Just as the famous saying that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, if Han Sang-gyun and Lee Seok-ki are in prison, the justice of the Republic of Korea is still far away.”

Finally, Ahn asserted that if many NGOs and activists face problems they think differently, they criticize or they think they should discuss, all the problems should be discussed between stakeholders. So he said the government can not label them as dangerous things.

Many civil society groups are giving voice of solidarity. Although the special pardon on Christmas had not progressed, we pray that unjustly imprisoned people will be released before the end of this year.

As for the new government’s various activities in order to liquidate the deep-rooted evils across the society, Archbishop Kim Hee-jung of Archdiocese of Gwangju said,

“the fruit of cleaning up old evils is not only punishing people but rearranging laws and system.”

Archbishop Kim Hee-jung said

“The contents of liquidation are not outrageous. In the meantime, we have suffered and seen the outflow of national wealth, and the young in Korea are calling the nation ‘Hell’. We should rearrange the order of the society.”

Furthermore he said,

“Recently, religious groups are carrying on campaign for the release of prisoners of conscience including Lee Seok-ki and Han Sang-gyun. They said the constitutional freedom in our country and they talked about their opinion not military uprising. Especially, the Court and authority didn’t give enough information to the people. It is a matter of killing and saving a person, so I opposed the dissolution of the Unified Progressive Party in order to keep the Constitutional values.”

Celebrating Christmas, Archbishop Kim Hee-jung held a press conference on December 21.

Many leader of religious groups are calling for the release of all prisoners of conscience. Now it’s time for the government to make a decision.

Please support the KCSL!

“We really need your support and partnership. Through your help, we will be able to improve the situation regarding on human rights and peace in Korea. Here’s our banking account.”

KB (국민은행) : 292501-01-212646 Jung Jin Woo (정진우 구명위)

Ahn Jin-geol, the Secretary General of People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, participated in the “Companion”, the walking march for the release of all prisoners of conscience in Korea. He said he had a heavy heart and was sick at heart when he saw Lee Kyung-jin, a sister of Lee Seok-ki who is holding a sit-down in front of the Blue House. Moreover, he said that many civil society organizations in Korea had thought they should have gathered more strength to let all prisoners of conscience free.

Celebrating Christmas, Ahn said

“On this day, justice and peace must flow over the country we love. Everyone who is unjustly detained in prison should come out and laugh with their family, friends and acquaintances. But now there are still some immoral forces. Also, I couldn’t keep my stuffiness hidden because the current government could not make a decision reading their countenance.”

Despite freezing weather, Lee Seokki’s sister Lee Kyungjin holds the 16th all night demonstration in front of the Blue House on December 27.

Quoting Martin Luther King Jr, Ahn said

“Just as the famous saying that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, if Han Sang-gyun and Lee Seok-ki are in prison, the justice of the Republic of Korea is still far away.”

Finally, Ahn asserted that if many NGOs and activists face problems they think differently, they criticize or they think they should discuss, all the problems should be discussed between stakeholders. So he said the government can not label them as dangerous things.

Many civil society groups are giving voice of solidarity. Although the special pardon on Christmas had not progressed, we pray that unjustly imprisoned people will be released before the end of this year.

As for the new government’s various activities in order to liquidate the deep-rooted evils across the society, Archbishop Kim Hee-jung of Archdiocese of Gwangju said,

“the fruit of cleaning up old evils is not only punishing people but rearranging laws and system.”

Archbishop Kim Hee-jung said

“The contents of liquidation are not outrageous. In the meantime, we have suffered and seen the outflow of national wealth, and the young in Korea are calling the nation ‘Hell’. We should rearrange the order of the society.”

Furthermore he said,

“Recently, religious groups are carrying on campaign for the release of prisoners of conscience including Lee Seok-ki and Han Sang-gyun. They said the constitutional freedom in our country and they talked about their opinion not military uprising. Especially, the Court and authority didn’t give enough information to the people. It is a matter of killing and saving a person, so I opposed the dissolution of the Unified Progressive Party in order to keep the Constitutional values.”

Celebrating Christmas, Archbishop Kim Hee-jung held a press conference on December 21.

Many leader of religious groups are calling for the release of all prisoners of conscience. Now it’s time for the government to make a decision.

Please support the KCSL!

“We really need your support and partnership. Through your help, we will be able to improve the situation regarding on human rights and peace in Korea. Here’s our banking account.”

KB (국민은행) : 292501-01-212646 Jung Jin Woo (정진우 구명위)

Global Research’s work is critical in the face of mainstream media disinformation. See our selection below. 

We invite you to subscribe to our free newsletter if you have not already done so, and also to forward our articles and videos to your friends and colleagues. And don’t forget to connect with us through Facebook, Twitter and YouTube and keep spreading awareness.

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

*     *     *

The Quad: US Searches Edge of Asia for Allies to Contain Beijing

By Tony Cartalucci, December 28, 2017

There has been a recent buzz promoted around the so-called Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) – a coalition of sorts counting the United States, India, Australia, and Japan as members. Promoted by familiar corporate-financier funded policy think thanks, the Quad is being portrayed as a step past Washington’s ill-fated “pivot to Asia” to address its waning power in the region.

Day of Infamy for the UN Security Council: Triggering a Devastating Humanitarian Crisis in North Korea

By Carla Stea, December 28, 2017

Ignoring the avalanche of evidence that prior sanctions on the DPRK are causing a devastating humanitarian crisis for the people of North Korea, especially the most vulnerable, on December 22, despite warnings of the catastrophic consequences to the people, the UN Security Council passed a new set of sanctions so draconian and inhumane that they must be compared to Hitler’s Nuremberg laws.

Russia Charges Pentagon with Training Ex-ISIS Fighters

By Bill Van Auken, December 28, 2017

US special operations troops are secretly harboring and training former fighters of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) at the remote American base in Al Tanf, Syria near the strategic nexus of the country’s borders with Iraq and Jordan, according to a report issued by the Russian military command.

Will a War with North Korea be Our Political Leaders’ Greatest Regret? “Could Escalate into a World War, One Million Deaths in the First Day”

By Lisa Fuller, December 28, 2017

Top nuclear security expert Scott Sagan warns that the risk of war is far higher than during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and predicts that one million people could die on the first day – a figure that exceeds the death toll of the entire Rwandan genocide. Even more worryingly, Russia and China are making military preparations, suggesting that a Korean war could quickly escalate into a world war.

Under Trump, US Doubles Drone Strikes in Somalia

By Telesur, December 28, 2017

The United States said Wednesday it had carried out a new drone strike in Somalia, killing 13 extremist al-Shabab militants, bringing the number of drone strikes on the country to 34 this year, more than double the number the previous year.