We bring to your attention this incisive article by Boaventura de Sousa Santos on the history and contradictions of the World Social Forum (WSF) founded in 2001 as well as introductory text by Michel Chossudovsky pertaining to the corporate funding of the WSF.

.

The World Social Forum (WSF) and the Corporate Funding of Social Activism

by Michel Chossudovsky

The World Social Forum operating under the banner of  “Another World is Possible” was founded in 2001 at its inaugural venue of Porto Alegre. Brazil.

From the outset in 2001, the WSF has been upheld as an international umbrella representing grassroots people’s organizations, committed to reversing the tide of globalization and confronting neoliberalism. Its stated intent is to challenge corporate capitalism and its dominant neoliberal economic agenda.

De Sousa Santos raises two important questions:

“Could the WSF be a truly world, progressive forum if the big NGOs (non-governmental organizations)  were in control to the detriment of the small ones and grassroots social movements?”

“Could there be, behind the ideology of consensus, the iron hand of some entities, individuals, or positions?

Who are these Big NGOs which have put forth an ideology of consensus dominated by “some entities”?

While the stated objective of the WSF is to fight neoliberalism, the unspoken truth is that from the very outset, the WSF has been funded by the protagonists of neoliberalism, namly corporate foundations. And the so-called Big NGOs have in this regard been co-opted.

The objective from the outset in 2001 was to subdue, control and manipulate the People’s movement.

The Ford Foundation (which has links to the CIA) provided funding under its “Strengthening Global Civil Society” program during the first three years of the WSF starting in 2001.

When the WSF was held in Mumbai in 2004, the Indian WSF host committee declined support from the Ford Foundation. This in itself did not modify the WSF’s relationship to the donors. While the Ford Foundation formally withdrew, other foundations positioned themselves.

The WSF (among several sources of funding) today is supported by a consortium of corporate foundations under the advisory umbrella of Engaged Donors for Global Equity (EDGE). 

This organization, which previously went under the name of The Funders Network on Trade and Globalization (FTNG), played a central role in the funding of successive WSF venues. From the outset in 2001, it had an observer status on the WSF International Council.  

In 2013, the Rockefeller Brothers representative Tom Kruse co-chaired EDGE’s program committee. At the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Kruse was responsible for “Global Governance” under the “Democratic Practice” program. Rockefeller Brothers grants to NGOs are approved under the “Strengthening Democracy in Global Governance” program, which is broadly similar to that put forth by the US State Department.

A representative of the Open Society Initiative for Europe currently (2016) sits on EDGE’s Board of directors. The Wallace Global Fund is also on its Board of Directors. The Wallace Global Fund is specialized in providing support to “mainstream” NGOs and “alternative media”, including Amnesty International, Democracy Now (which supported Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president of the US).

In one of its key documents (2012), entitled Funders Network Alliance In Support of Grassroots Organizing and Movement-Building  (link no longer available) EDGE acknowledged its support of social movements which challenge “neoliberal market fundamentalism.” including the World Social Forum, established in 2001:

“From the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas (1994) to the Battle in Seattle (1999) to the creation of the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (2001), the TINA years of Reagan and Thatcher (There Is No Alternative) have been replaced with the growing conviction that “another world is possible.” Counter-summits, global campaigns and social forums have been crucial spaces to articulate local struggles, share experiences and analyses, develop expertise, and build concrete forms of international solidarity among progressive movements for social, economic and ecological justice.”

But at the same time, there is an obvious contradiction: another world is not possible when the campaign against neoliberalism is financed by an alliance of corporate donors firmly committed to neoliberalism and the US-NATO military agenda.

The Consortium of Donors (EDGE) confirmed its commitment (at the 2016 Montreal WSF) as follows:

“…to develop an intersectional space for funders and various movement partners – organizers thought leaders and practitioners – to build alignment by cultivating a shared understanding of the visions, values, principles and pathways of a “just transition.”  (See http://edgefunders.org/wsf-activities/)

“Just Transition” implies that social activism has to conform to a “shared vision” with the corporate foundations, i.e. nothing which in a meaningful way might upset the elite structures of global capitalism.

From the standpoint of the corporate donors “investing in the WSF” constitutes a profitable (tax deductible) undertaking. It ensures that activism remains within the confines of  “constructive dialogue” and “critique” rather than confrontation. Any deviation immediately results in the curtailment of donor funding:

“Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as “making the World safe for capitalism”, reducing social tensions by helping to comfort the afflicted, provide safety valves for the angry, and improve the functioning of government (McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (1961-1966), President of the Ford Foundation, (1966-1979))

The limits of social dissent are thereby determined by the “governance structure” of  the WSF, which was tacitly agreed upon with the funding agencies at the outset in 2001.

How best to control grassroots dissent against global capitalism?

Make sure that their leaders can be easily co-opted and that the rank and file will not develop “forms of international solidarity among progressive movements” (to use EDGE’s own words), which in any meaningful way might undermine the interests of corporate capital.

The mosaic of separate WSF workshops, the relative absence of plenary sessions, the creation of divisions within and between social movements, not to mention the absence of a cohesive and unified platform against the Wall Street corporate elites, against the fake US sponsored “global war on terrorism”, which has been used to justify US-NATO’s  “humanitarian R2P interventions (Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Ukraine, etc).

The corporate agenda is to “manufacture dissent”.“The limits of dissent” are established by the foundations and governments which ultimately finance this multimillion dollar venue.

What ultimately prevails is a ritual of dissent which does not threaten the New World Order. Those who attend the WSF from the grassroots are often misled by their leaders. Activists who do not share the WSF consensus will ultimately be excluded:

“By providing the funding and the policy framework to many concerned and dedicated people working within the non-profit sector, the ruling class is able to co-opt leadership from grassroots communities, … and is able to make the funding, accounting, and evaluation components of the work so time consuming and onerous that social justice work is virtually impossible under these conditions” (Paul Kivel, You Call this Democracy, Who Benefits, Who Pays and Who Really Decides, 2004, p. 122 )

“Another World is Possible” is nonetheless an important concept, which characterizes the struggle of the peoples movements against global capitalism Worldwide.

While  there have been several important accomplishments of the WSF, largely as a result of the commitment of grassroots activists, the stated goal of fighting neoliberalism was scrapped from the very outset. What remained was the rhetoric of fighting neoliberalism.

Among the two major accomplishments are the participation of the WSF in the February 2003 Worldwide protest against the US led war on Iraq. The WSF has also supported progressive movements and governments, particularly in Latin America.

Activism is being manipulated:  “Another World is Possible”  cannot, however, be achieved under the auspices of a WSF which from the outset was funded by global capitalism and organized in close liaison with its corporate and government donors.

This is the key issue which has to be addressed.

Reinventing the WSF ? Or

Rebuilding Real Social Activism? The latter requires as a very step the ditching of the corporate donors, followed by the building of a real Worldwide grassroots social movement committed to fighting neoliberalism with independent sources of funding. No easy task.

Michel Chossudovsky, November 14, 2017

***

Reinventing the World Social Forum?

by Boaventura De Sousa Santos 

The World Social Forum (WSF) met for the first time in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2001. This was an event of extraordinary importance. It signaled an alternative form of globalization to the globalization being promoted by global capitalism, at a time when capitalism was increasingly assuming it is most exclusive and antisocial version: neoliberalism.

the WSF “put on the international agenda the struggles of the movements and social organizations fighting all over the world against the many faces of social exclusion: economic, racial, ethno-cultural, sexist, religious, etc.”

The WSF was, at the same time, both a symptom and a potentiality of the hope harbored by the oppressed social groups. It emerged as a world vocation in Latin America, because the subcontinent was then the world region where the popular classes were more consistently translating hope into forms of progressive government.

Such hope, both utopian and realistic, had been recently reignited in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, from 1998 onwards, and would go on sparking with the new governments of Lula da Silva (Brazil) and Nestor Kirchner (Argentina), in 2003, and, in the following years, Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Manuel Zelaya (Honduras), Fernando Lugo (Paraguay), and Pepe Mujica (Uruguay). With the WSF, a decade of hope was inaugurated and, starting from the subcontinent, projected throughout the whole world. Only in the subcontinent did it make sense to speak of “21st-century socialism,” even if the concrete political practices had little to do with the discourses.

The great novelty of the WSF and its most precious asset was that it facilitated relations of mutual knowledge among the social movements and organizations involved in all kinds of struggles in different countries and according to historically very distinct political cultures. At the beginning, such an objective was well served by a culture of free and consensual discussion, as well as by the refusal of the WSF, as such, to make any political decisions. Which does not mean that, from the very beginning, there was no political debate among the more committed activists, a debate that became increasingly intense in the course of time.

Political Issues of Debate in WSF

Here are some of the main issues. Could the WSF be a truly world, progressive forum if the big NGOs (non-governmental organizations) were in control to the detriment of the small ones and grassroots social movements? If those in more need for the solidarity of the WSF could not afford to participate? If the dominant forces in the WSF did not fight against capitalism, rather fought, at most, against neoliberalism? Could there be, behind the ideology of consensus, the iron hand of some entities, individuals, or positions? If no political decisions were allowed, what would the point be of continuing to meet and repeat ourselves? Since there were no structures to organize the debates, those who felt troubled by these issues gradually withdrew. Nonetheless, the genius of the WSF was to go on attracting, over more than ten years, new movements and organizations.

However, by the end of the first decade of 2000 the international conjuncture had changed in ways that were dramatically opposed to the objectives of the WSF. Undermined by their own internal contradictions, the progressive governments of Latin America were in crisis. U.S. imperialism, which had been focusing on the Middle East for a decade, came back in force to the continent. The first signal was the forced resignation, in 2009, of President Manuel Zelaya, a democratically elected president. [Ed.: see Bullet No. 290] It became the first test of a new kind of institutional coup under democratic guise. It would repeat itself in Paraguay in 2012 [Ed.: see Bullet No. 657] and Brazil in 2016 [Ed.: see Bullet No. 1249]. Neoliberalism, fully backed now by global financial capitalism, invested strongly against every policy of social inclusion. The financial crisis provoked the social crisis and, as a result, the movements had to focus on national and local struggles. Actually, these struggles were increasingly more difficult because of repression and persecution. Under the excuse of the “war on terror,” the paranoia of surveillance and security rendered extremely difficult even the international mobility of activists, as witness Montreal 2016, when more than 200 visas were refused to activists of the global South.

Under such circumstances, what would the viability and usefulness of the WSF be?

At a time when not only social policies but also democracy itself are at risk, would the continuity of the WSF be sustainable, a WSF reduced to a mere forum of debate and self-prevented from making decisions at the exact moment when neofascist forces were taking power? Such questions indicated an existential crisis of the WSF.

The crisis reached its utmost at the meeting of the International Council (IC) in Montreal, when this organ refused to take a position against the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff. I left the meeting feeling that the WSF was at a crossroads: either it would change or it would perish. For the past months, I have been thinking that it would agonize and slowly perish. Lately, however, as I watch the dynamism of the preparation of the WSF of Salvador (March 13-17, 2018), I concluded that the possibility of change is there, and that the WSF may yet adjust to the dramatic conditions and challenges of the present time.

What Are the Necessary Changes?

Proposal 1

During the forthcoming WSF in Salvador, a plenary assembly will be convened with only one item on its agenda: alteration of the Charter of Principles. Proposals will be accepted up to the previous day. The assembly board composed of three members of the local Salvador committee and two members of the IC will be in charge of organizing the vote. The Popular University of Social Movements (PUSM), of which I am a representative, is preparing to present the following proposal:

“According to its terms, the WSF proclaims to be an organization and a process committed to defending and strengthening democracy, and claims competence to make political decisions whenever democracy is in danger. Concrete political decisions are made by the movements and organizations in charge of promoting each meeting of the WSF, whatever their geographic or thematic scope. The political decisions are valid within the geographic and thematic scope in which they are made.”

Proposal 2

The current IC moves to suspend itself and open itself to a refoundational debate to be concluded in the plenary assembly of Salvador. The proposal being prepared by the PUSM addresses the following items:

• The IC is hereupon to be composed of permanent members (those who are already and have declared to wish to continue to be permanent members) and an equal number of members elected at the Salvador WSF from among organizers and participants, bearing in mind diversity of countries, cultures, and struggles. Such will be the composition of the IC until the next WSF. The following WSF will have sovereignty to vote other proposals.
• The IC is an organ for reflection, guidance, and facilitation. It has competence to decide, among several proposals, the venue of the next meetings of the WSF.

Proposal 3

The decisions of the WSF will be made at the plenary assemblies of the different Forums and will concern the scale and topic that presided over the meeting.

The Salvador WSF is perhaps more needed today than the Porto Alegre one was at the time. Will there be conditions not to squander this (last?) opportunity?

Boaventura de Sousa Santos is an activist in the WSF from the very beginning, a member of The International Council as a representative of the Popular University of the Social Movements, author of The Rise of the Global Left: The World Social Forum and Beyond (2006). London: Zed Books.

First published in the Bulletin Intercoll, Novembre 2017.

Featured image is from the author.

Several years ago there was a temporary media buzz generated by an October 2011 article in The Lancet Infectious Disease journal, which is a pro-vaccine, pro-pharmaceutical industry medical journal that is published in Britain. The article showed that flu vaccinations were far less effective than had been previously believed. In fact, the study suggested that the trivalent flu vaccine currently being pushed at that time approached worthlessness.

The article’s principle author was Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, a widely published infectious disease researcher who, prior to his current faculty position at the University of Minnesota, had served in various capacities with the CDC and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), including a high-profile role as the MDH’s Chief of the Acute Disease Epidemiology Section. For 15 years of that association with the MDH Osterholm served as Minnesota state epidemiologist. Osterholm has published over 300 articles and is highly respected in his field.

The Disconnect Between Real, Unbiased Science and Profit-focused Corporate Propaganda

The Lancet study, in the reports that I listened to on NPR and read about in various print media reports, was deceptively reported as showing that the trivalent flu vaccines should still be regarded as “moderately effective” for flu prevention rather than being brought into question as the minimally effective vaccine that the article suggested. What could explain the disconnect between the science and the propaganda?

Seeing no sign of a public retraction from Osterholm or his co-authors about the glaring misperceptions, I began to wonder if they were even aware that they had stooped to the depths that so many other medical, psychiatric and pharmaceutical industry researchers have gone to when their articles are published in mainstream medical journals. Misleading statistics that have appeared in medical journals are also used in drug commercials and by drug sales representatives when they try to convince us physicians to prescribe their company’s synthetic drugs.

What I am talking about is the common statistical trick of the trade called the Relative Risk Reduction [RRR], a statistic that intentionally inflates embarrassingly low or even statistically insignificant results that had been obtained from dubious research studies.

What the public deserves to be informed about, but usually doesn’t receive, is the far more meaningful Absolute/Actual Risk Reduction [ARR] numbers, which, compared to the RRR, are often so small and unconvincing that any rational thinker would regard the study as a failed one. Hence, the cunning invention of the misleading RRR. I will deal with the important mathematical differences further below.

The Deceptive Relative Risk Reduction Statistic

A lot of medical research these days is done by academic scientists that may not be clinicians. The vast majority of these researchers, estimated to represent over 80% of the medical research that is currently being done, are in the employ of the for-profit drug and medical device industries. The research articles that list them as authors are frequently written by ghost-writers who are salaried by the corporations that designed and funded the study. And what should worry everybody is the fact that the self-interested corporations have exclusive control over how the research is utilized. Whoever pays the piper, calls the tune.

The researchers involved in such studies are naturally highly motivated to help rapidly get to market the products they are working on, with the additional hope that any positive results that they can generate will increase the value of any stock holdings that may be part of their compensation package. Additional contracts with the pharmaceutical company will be more likely if negatives are not found. I hasten to add that there is nothing wrong with making money in an ethical and honest manner, but a lot of medical research intentionally overstates the positives of the products that are being marketed and minimizes, or even hides, the negatives of their new drugs, vaccines or medical devices.

One of the problems alluded to above is the widespread use of the grossly misleading statistic called the Relative Risk Reduction (RRR). It is important for consumers of new drugs or medical devices to understand the differences between the RRR and the ARR. Usually, if the differences are mentioned at all, they are only noted in the fine print.

The Lancet article that revealed the lack of efficacy of flu shots did indeed report a “60% efficacy rate”, and that phrase was prominently reported in the media, which pointed out the commonly-accepted past estimates of 90% efficacy. The problem was that both the 60% and the 90% figures were intentionally misleading RRR stats. But what wasn’t reported in the media coverage was the fact that the actual risk reduction (ARR) for the flu shots was a miniscule 1.5%. If that figure had been used, people would have balked at consenting to the shot. And, as any honest, non-co-opted, thinking person can see, the difference between the misleading figure of 60% and the real figure of 1.5% is huge – and, as ever, represents just another cunning statistical trick that is used to promote highly profitable products, that, incidentally, can also be toxic.

Blowing the Whistle on Deceptive Advertising in Medicine

Seeing the truth of the matter and hearing the misleading media interpretation, I knew that some somebody needed to blow the whistle. Hence this article.

One of the reasons to be truthful about flu vaccine efficacy is the fact that the benefits for the elderly have been consistently exaggerated over the years, both in the medical literature and in the advertisements by medical clinics, trade associations, departments of health and the CD – and now drugstores. Many studies have failed to show any reduction in mortality for elderly recipients of the flu shots, despite increased vaccination rates in that group (from 15% to 65% over the past 30 years). (Ref: The Lancet Infectious Diseases, October 2007)

Doing the Math

To make my point about the deceptiveness of the RRR statistic to those who are non-scientists or non-mathematicians, here is the essential math that needs to be pointed out:

In the Lancet study, there were only 357 victims of influenza among the non-vaccinated pooled sample of 13,195 that were studied. That means that only 2.7 persons out of every 100 non-vaccinated persons (2.7%) got symptoms compatible with the flu, meaning that 97.3% of unvaccinated people did not get the flu despite not getting the shot. Good odds that many people would accept if they had known the actual risks (ARR) of forgoing the shot.

The study also states that 1.2% of the vaccinated population still got flu symptoms even after having received the shot. So 98.8% of people who were vaccinated did not get the flu (virtually identical to the 97.3% of non-vaccinated people that didn’t get the flu or the flu shot).

Simple subtraction tells us that only a tiny percentage of flu shot recipients, 1.5% (98.8 – 97.3 = 1.5), benefited from getting the shot and that approximately 98% would not have become sick with the flu whether or not they were vaccinated. Again, a risk many people would be willing to take if they were told the truth!

Here is more about how the RRR statistical trick is calculated, using the flu vaccine study results:

Relative risk reduction is calculated by dividing the 1.5% number above by 2.7%, which equals a seemingly large number of 55%, (which was rounded up to get the talking point figure of 60%). To get the more meaningful ARR of 1.2%, one subtracts 1.5% from 2.7%. Therefore the calculated benefit (the “absolute/actual risk reduction”) for getting the flu shot is a miniscule figure.

Knowing that there are a number of studies that show that taking adequate doses of the far cheaper and safer vitamin D3 during the winter months can give definite protection from the flu, one realizes that there are alternatives to being vaccinated.

Another important point that needs to be emphasized is the fact that the 98 % of the vaccinated population who weren’t going to get the flu anyway were unnecessarily being injected with mercury, the most toxic ingredient in the intra-muscular viral influenza shot. The following potentially dangerous ingredients of vaccines such as the pneumovax shots that are acknowledged to be in other vaccines are formaldehyde, aluminum, immune system-stimulating adjuvants like squalene, mycoplasma contaminants, viral contaminants, DNA fragments, trace minerals and who knows what else?

Fosamax and Many Other Osteoporosis Drugs Prospered Because of Statistical Trickery – Until The Drug-makers Started Getting Sued

Fosamax, manufactured and marketed by Merck & Co (of Vioxx infamy) was the first of a number of popular and highly profitable, allegedly “osteoporosis prevention” drugs that, in addition to many other as yet unknown or unappreciated long-term adverse effects, interfered with a patient’s fragile, complex and incompletely understood bone metabolism.

scan: Reuters, December 9, 2013

The drug had been proven to increase bone “density” in some patients, but increasing density did not necessarily mean increases bone “strength”. The most dramatic adverse effect of this class of drugs was the disastrous osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures, for which Merck has been inundated with lawsuits (4,400 as of June 2016). GlaxoSmithKline which markets Boniva, has also been inundated with lawsuits.

The infamous proclamations that Merck made deceptively asserting that “Fosamax reduces hip fractures by 50%” was based on the misleading “relative” hip fracture relative risk reduction (RRR) calculation that came from the original 4-year clinical trial. What was intentionally not mentioned in Merck’s massive marketing campaign was that the actual risk reduction (ARR) for Fosamax was only 1% (not 50%), which is a minuscule figure unlikely to benefit the vast majority of the elderly women who took the drug continuously for 4 years.

The Fosamax hip fracture study was conducted on a group of older women who were regarded as being at high risk for future fractures. In the Fosamax-treated patients, 1 out of every 100 patients suffered hip fractures after 4 years – an incidence of 1% – whereas 2 out of every 100 non-drugged patients suffered hip fractures, an incidence of 2%.

To come up with the misleading RRR calculation, the deceptive statistician (or the commonly sociopathic Big Pharma corporate type) divides 1% by 2% and comes up with a 50% reduction – relatively speaking. But in order to deceive us physicians in order to convince us of the value of prescribing such a worthless drug and dangerous drug, the actual miniscule risk reduction figure – 1% – had to be kept well-hidden.

The Merck, et al deceptive statistics also means that 98% of non-drug treated patients did not get a hip fracture after 4 years of Fosamax treatment, and 99% of Fosamax drug-treated patients likewise did not get a hip fracture, thus receiving no benefit from taking the toxic and costly drug. 80% of media ads deceptively claimed that “Fosamax cut the risk (of hip fractures in elderly women) by 50%” And not many of us physicians saw through the clever subterfuge!!

I have to admit that I was as fooled as the rest of us Big Pharma-brain-washed physicians until I finally figured out the mathematical trickery. In my defense, I was always suspicious that the 50% figure was a lie, and I never did prescribe Fosamax. In fact I have ever consistently boycotted Merck and any other Big Pharma corporation that has tried to deceive me (ie, all of them).

Again it must be emphasized that 98 – 99% of elderly patients in the Fosamax clinical trial no hip fractures, whether they were in the drug group or in the placebo group. But the treated group risked experiencing disastrous adverse effects, some of which are incurable and incur terrible suffering and medical expenses, including Osteonecrosis of the Jaw/Dead Jaw Syndrome, Atypical Femoral Fractures, Esophageal Cancer, Atrial Fibrillation, and Severe Musculoskeletal Pain, all consequences that the untreated group were not at risk for.

An important reality is that the pharmaceutical companies use the RRR deception routinely, whether they are marketing medications, surgical procedures, medical devices, psychiatric diagnostic assessments or even non-drug psychotherapeutic treatments such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, etc.

Fully Informed Consent: Is it a Thing of the Past?

Being fully informed about all the pros and cons of any diagnostic assessment, drug treatment, medical device usage or surgical procedure used to be the sole obligation of the involved health care provider. Nowadays it seems that such health information is being taken over by the propaganda techniques of cunning mega-corporations who can afford to pay the billions of dollars for propagandizing patients and their physicians, for lobbying Congresspersons and presidents to enact favorable legislation and to pay the costs of the inevitable and expected lawsuits for damages done when the injured patient hadn’t been given fully informed consent before being victimized by the “treatment”. Nowadays patients are propagandized to demand advertised drugs from their doctors.

Only in America would one expect it be legal to allow the mainstream to promote dangerous pharmaceuticals directly to prospective. Oops, New Zealand (?) is doing it too, but the US and NZ are the only two nations on the planet that allow Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) marketing of prescription drugs. In every other developed nation DTC marketing of prescription drugs is against the law.

There is hardly a glimmer of good news in American medicine today, in that the spirit of Hippocrates (he who first declared the “First Do No Harm” code of medical ethics) seems to be on its death bed – ever since the sociopathic, profits-before-people Big Pharma seduced Big Medicine and spoiled the previously honorable practice of medicine that I once loved.

Our patients have been rapidly losing trust and respect for America’s corporate-style practice of medicine, which has been consciously morphing into an unaffordable, hard-hearted, dog-eat-dog, let-the-buyer-beware, bankrupting imitation of “greed-is-good” Wall Street.

If Hippocrates suddenly appeared on the scene today, I doubt that he would recognize what he once tried to dignify 2,500 years ago.

***

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. In the decade prior to his retirement, he practiced what could best be described as “holistic (non-drug) and preventive mental health care”. Since his retirement, he has written a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, an alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns mostly deal with the dangers of American imperialism, friendly fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, and the dangers of Big Pharma, psychiatric drugging, the over-vaccinating of children and other movements that threaten American democracy, civility, health and longevity and the future of the planet. Many of his columns are archived at 

http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2; 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls; or at 

https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

Needs your Attention!

Inside Syria Media Center tried to analyze what is now going on in Eastern Ghouta.

Our military correspondents investigated the issue. The results raise a number of questions.

The mainstream media are trying to convince everyone that an appalling famine in East Ghouta was caused by Assad’s blockade.

 

Meanwhile, humanitarian aid is regularly delivered there, but the terrorists do their best to prevent civilians and their children from obtaining it.

The East Ghouta’s terrorists are exploiting a sense of empathy of the international community. They don’t want to get UN and Assad’s humanitarian aid. Instead, they prevent any aid to be delivered into the Damascus district.

To arouse the storm of indignation from all over the world with the aim to break the siege they draw the pictures of starving and exhausted children.

So, the Western real goal is to force the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) to stop the siege so that the terrorists could regroup. How they are going to achieve it?

Fake accounts and photos are practiced to inflame a catastrophe.

It seems that one should be careful so that not to get to the fakes of fraudsters! The brainwashing is all the rage right now!

Take a look at this photo uploaded by ‘mostafa.mohamadi’ on November 3, 2017.

You should remember this crook’s account. The photo is a typical example of fake and here you are the proof:
A boy in the picture looks extremely unnatural. His surprisingly clean face does not match the color of the dirty hands holding the poster. It is unclear what is he doing in the crowd on the street with a poster in his hands in the place where there is no any rally or protest. The contours around the child’s shoulders are very explicit and clear, suggesting the image of the boy was superimposed. This can be judged if you download an image from the original, set a 1000% zoom and consider carefully the place of photomontage.

Some discrepancy could be revealed by using Image Metadata Viewer and also ELA-analysis. If you change the brightness and work with such a tool as photo-forensics, you will see the banner drawn at the boy least of all.

Somebody should #StopLyingAboutGhouta, stop lying about the alleged crimes of the SAA and Assad and objectively cover the events.

Unfortunately, somebody went even further. The Official account of the Syrian Opposition, AMC news portal and “the Irish Solidarity with the struggle of the Syrian people for freedom, dignity, and justice, and horror and outrage at the slaughter they are enduring” (that is @SyriaIrl) scream that Assad bombs aid convoy. Wasn’t it a convoy hit by the militants in Aleppo in 2016?

Nur and Alaa: “The Bana al-Abed” script from Aleppo is used.

The terrorists continue to use children as an effective method to achieve their goals. First, the jihadists used defenseless boys and girls as suicide bombers, then as human shields hiding behind them from air strikes, and now the terrorists use children in the information war to weaken the siege of Assad’s troops and to run away, to slip as soon as possible if their plan to de-blockade East Ghouta does come true.

One of the striking examples of well-organized campaign imposed on the international community was ‘Bana al-Abed’ show launched when Aleppo had being recaptured in late 2016. At that time the phenomenon of Bana couldn’t become an obstacle on the way to clear Aleppo from the militants encircled.

And now it won’t work with the fake Nur and Alaa’s account which not only uses Bana’s experience but also is connected with the Iran Arab Spring movement.

This kind of opposition was the first Nur and Alaa follower on Twitter and the movement in the story was organized and followed practically the same pattern as with the other one information campaign to support the terrorists named #AssadBesiegesGhouta.

A website is formed first at GoogleSites’ platform

https://sites.google.com/site/hezbollahisaterrorist/ and https://sites.google.com/site/assadbesiegesghouta/).

Second, social networks’ accounts are created and well-known persons call for supporting the relevant hashtag (like #HezbollahIsTerrorism, #Assad_Besieges_Ghouta).

What is the Real life in East Ghouta?

Here you are the photos from the East Ghouta made on November 1, 2017. The daily life of local residents in the terrorists’-rule areas continued. It is hard, dangerous, but far from the monstrous hunger dictated by the Western media.

Thanks to many people in this situation that are doing their best to help Syrian children and locals from Eastern Ghouta.

#StopLyingAboutGhouta

***

Sophie Mangal is a special investigative correspondent at Inside Syria Media Center where this article was originally published. 

«La Nato è stata tradizionalmente flessibile di fronte ai desideri dei suoi membri, e aperta a dissociazioni da specifiche aree politiche, come la pianificazione nucleare»: lo afferma un articolo apparso sul sito dell’Ican, coalizione internazionale di organizzazioni non-governative insignita meritoriamente del Premio Nobel per la Pace 2017.

L’Italia avrebbe dunque il permesso Nato di aderire al Trattato Onu sulla proibizione delle armi nucleari. «Sono oltre 200 – spiega l’articolo – i parlamentari italiani che hanno firmato l’impegno a lavorare per la firma e la ratifica del Trattato da parte del governo» e, tra questi, «il maggiore gruppo proviene dal principale partito di governo, il Partito democratico».

Ci sarebbe quindi un’Italia che – dopo aver violato il Trattato di non-proliferazione, ospitando e preparandosi a usare armi nucleari statunitensi – adesso, grazie a una iniziativa capeggiata da parlamentari Pd, è pronta a firmare e ratificare il Trattato Onu. Questo, all’Articolo 4 (par. 4), stabilisce: «Ciascuno Stato parte che abbia sul proprio territorio armi nucleari, possedute o controllate da un altro Stato, deve assicurare la rapida rimozione di tali armi».

Ci sarebbe quindi un’Italia che, grazie a una Nato «flessibile», rimuove dal proprio territorio le bombe nucleari Usa B-61 e rifiuta l’installazione delle nuove B61-12, ritirandosi inoltre dal gruppo di paesi che – stabilisce la Nato – «forniscono all’Alleanza aerei equipaggiati per trasportare bombe nucleari, su cui gli Stati uniti mantengono l’assoluto controllo, e personale addestrato a tale scopo»; un’Italia che, restando nella Nato, si ritira contemporaneamente dal Gruppo di pianificazione nucleare dei paesi membri presieduto dagli Stati uniti. Inoltre – aggiunge l’articolo – «l’Italia è disponibile a svolgere un ruolo dirigente all’interno della Nato per chiarire che non c’è contraddizione intrinseca fra il Trattato Nord Atlantico e la proibizione delle armi nucleari».

A tal fine, «l’Italia è ora ben posizionata per promuovere all’interno della Nato il colloquio sul Trattato per la proibizione delle armi nucleari». Ci sarebbe quindi un’Italia che, oltre a realizzare il proprio disarmo nucleare, promuoverebbe la denuclearizzazione della Nato, l’alleanza che, nella strategia adottata all’unanimità quindi anche dall’Italia, considera «le forze nucleari strategiche, particolarmente quelle degli Stati uniti, suprema garanzia della sicurezza».

Dando per scontata la buona fede di chi ha pubblicato l’articolo in base a informazioni ricevute, va detto chiaramente che un’Italia e una Nato di questo tipo non esistono. La battaglia da affrontare per la realizzazione del Trattato Onu sulla proibizione delle armi nucleari è durissima. Gli ostacoli che si frappongono a tale obiettivo sono giganteschi, a partire dai potenti e pervasivi interessi del complesso militare-industriale dell’intera area Nato.

Il governo italiano, insieme agli altri 28 del Consiglio nord-atlantico, ha respinto in toto e attaccato il Trattato Onu. I parlamentari del Pd, che hanno firmato l’impegno Ican insieme a quelli del M5S e altri, dovrebbero quindi condurre una battaglia politica contro il loro stesso governo e il loro stesso partito in prima fila nel riarmo anche nucleare della Nato. Chi è disponibile, dimostri di volerlo fare. Ciò però non basta. «Il disarmo non è materia da addetti ai lavori ma deve diventare patrimonio di tutti», dice don Renato Sacco, coordinatore nazionale di Pax Christi Italia (il manifesto, 11 novembre).

Occorre «una mobilitazione dal basso, della società civile ma anche delle parrocchie e comunità cattoliche, per spingere il governo a sottoscriverlo».

Manlio Dinucci

Conflicting reports have sprung up about a supposedly violent riot in the Eritrean capital of Asmara that allegedly took place late last week.

All that’s known for certain is that a crowd gathered to unsuccessfully protest the closing down of an Islamist school over the weekend that had long flouted the government’s orders to secularize some of its rules and curricula, though what came next is in dispute. The opposition said that soldiers opened fire and killed 28 people while wounding approximately 100 more, though the state says that nothing of the sort took place and that the low-intensity protest was peacefully disbanded. Unverified YouTube footage has since emerged showing a riotous crowd with the sound of gunfire in the background, but it’s uncertain if this was from last weekend’s event and whether the gunfire was directed against civilians, or even if actual rounds were used and not blanks or rubber bullets. In any case, this story soon reached the international media and quickly made rounds on the major outlets, with the implied message being that the “dictatorial regime” of President Isaias Afwerki was killing “peaceful protesters” just for the fun of it.

This narrative is a common one because the secretive and national security-focused state is oftentimes maligned by the Mainstream Media in being labelled the “North Korea of Africa”, and this is because the President has remained in office since the country’s 1993 independence from Ethiopia and the military holds enormous power. The reason for the security forces’ influential role in society is because

Eritrea remains at tense odds with Ethiopia, and their unresolved border dispute could lead to a repeat of the mutually disastrous 1998-2000 war at any moment. Both sides support armed opposition groups against one another, which the respective target government describes as terrorists while labeling their own proxies as freedom fighters. Ethiopia feels uneasy with Eritrea’s independence because Addis Ababa fears that it set a precedent for other regions of the ultra-diverse country to secede as well, while Eritrea for that very same reason implicitly believes that it can only retain its independence if Ethiopia remains weakened and divided.

To return back to last weekend’s scandalous event, the negative international attention drawn to Eritrea will make it more difficult for Asmara to successfully lobby for the lifting of UNSC sanctions against it, which were originally imposed in 2009 because of its suspected ties to the Al Shabaab terrorist group in Somalia. Since then, Eritrea has cautiously crawled out of relative “isolation” by silently joining the Saudi-led War on Yemen in providing bases – and some reports allege, even troops – to the pro-Hadi coalition, but just like the government in neighboring Sudan, Asmara needs American support in order to feel entirely secure, at least for the time being. Now, however, Eritrea saw the power that religious opposition to the authorities can have in this almost evenly divided Christian-Muslim country, and it must tread carefully to avoid the weaponized perception that the secular government is “violating Muslims’ rights” otherwise it might soon fall victim to the same jihadist forces that it’s accused of supporting abroad.

The post presented is the partial transcript of the CONTEXT COUNTDOWN radio program on Sputnik News, aired on Friday Nov 10, 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 Assenna.com.

Twenty-five years ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists and more than 1700 independent scientists, including the majority of living Nobel laureates in the sciences, penned the 1992 “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” (see supplemental file S1). These concerned professionals called on humankind to curtail environmental destruction and cautioned that “a great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided.” In their manifesto, they showed that humans were on a collision course with the natural world.

They expressed concern about current, impending, or potential damage on planet Earth involving ozone depletion, freshwater availability, marine life depletion, ocean dead zones, forest loss, biodiversity destruction, climate change, and continued human population growth. They proclaimed that fundamental changes were urgently needed to avoid the consequences our present course would bring.

The authors of the 1992 declaration feared that humanity was pushing Earth’s ecosystems beyond their capacities to support the web of life. They described how we are fast approaching many of the limits of what the ­biosphere can tolerate ­without ­substantial and irreversible harm. The scientists pleaded that we stabilize the human population, describing how our large numbers—swelled by another 2 billion people since 1992, a 35 percent increase—exert stresses on Earth that can overwhelm other efforts to realize a sustainable future (Crist et al. 2017). They implored that we cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and phase out fossil fuels, reduce deforestation, and reverse the trend of collapsing biodiversity.

On the twenty-fifth anniversary of their call, we look back at their warning and evaluate the human response by exploring available time-series data. Since 1992, with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse (figure 1, file S1). Especially troubling is the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change due to rising GHGs from burning fossil fuels (Hansen et al. 2013), deforestation (Keenan et al. 2015), and agricultural production—particularly from farming ruminants for meat consumption (Ripple et al. 2014). Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century.

Israel has instructed its overseas embassies to lobby their respective host countries in support of Saudi Arabia and its apparent efforts to destabilise Lebanon, a recently leaked diplomatic cable shows.

The cable appears to be the first formal confirmation of rumours that Israel and Saudi Arabia are colluding to stoke tensions in the region.

Sent by the Israeli foreign ministry and disclosed by Israel’s Channel 10 news this week, the cable demanded that diplomats stress Iran and Hezbollah’s engagement in “regional subversion”.

That closely echoes accusations Riyadh levelled against Tehran and the Lebanese faction in recent days.

Analysts have noted that diplomatic moves by Israel to intervene directly in a seemingly internal Arab matter are “very rare”.

Yossi Alpher, a former adviser to Ehud Barak when he was Israeli prime minister, called the cable “extremely presumptuous”.

“Do the Saudis really need Israel to put in a good word for them in capitals around the world?” he told Al Jazeera.

But others believe Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, who also heads the foreign ministry that issued the cable, may be looking to gain from an uptick in uncertainty in the region.

War of words

The cable comes as Saudi Arabia has dramatically escalated its rhetoric against Iran and Hezbollah.

On Thursday, the Saudi foreign ministry told its nationals to leave Lebanon immediately after it accused Hezbollah earlier in the week of “declaring war” on the kingdom.

That followed the resignation of Saad Hariri as Lebanon’s prime minister. A politician with close personal and business ties to Saudi Arabia, Hariri announced his departure while in Riyadh.

He accused Iran of building “a state within a state” in Lebanon through Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia group which is represented in the parliament and has a strong military wing.

There are widespread suspicions that Riyadh ordered Hariri to step down as a way to destablise Lebanon, whose complex and fragile political set-up has struggled to contain sharp sectarian divisions.

Saudi Arabia has also implicated Hezbollah in the launching of what it says was an Iranian-made rocket from Yemen that was intercepted over Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia has been waging a war in Yemen against the Houthis, a Shia minority, and has accused Iran of fomenting and supporting the Houthis.

The diplomatic cable

The leaked cable instructed Israeli diplomats “to stress that the Hariri resignation shows how dangerous Iran and Hezbollah are for Lebanon’s security”.

The diplomats were told to appeal to the “highest officials” in their host countries to press for Hezbollah’s expulsion from the Lebanese government.

“Hariri’s resignation proves wrong the argument that Hezbollah participation in the government stabilises Lebanon,” the cable said.

It further called on Israeli diplomats to back Saudi Arabia in its war in Yemen, emphasising that the missile directed at Riyadh required “more pressure on Iran and Hezbollah”.

Menachem Klein, a politics professor at Bar Ilan University, near Tel Aviv, said that it was likely Netanyahu expected and wanted the cable to go public.

“If you send a diplomatic cable and start lobbying every foreign capital, you have to expect that it won’t remain private for long,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Netanyahu’s aim was to make clear to the Saudis that he can help. The message is, ‘We have special relations with Western countries and we can help you advance your political goals against Iran and Hezbollah, which we share’.”

Risking confrontation

But some say Israel risks being jostled by Saudi Arabia into an unnecessary and dangerous confrontation with Hezbollah as the result of what Israeli commentator Amos Harel this week described as Riyadh’s “ambitious attempt to reach a new regional order”.

In a column in Israeli daily Haaretz this week, Daniel Shapiro, a former US ambassador to Israel, argued that the Saudis were trying to move the battlefield from Syria to Lebanon after their failure to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

A six-year civil war there has dragged in a range of proxies.

Both Israel and Saudi Arabia have meddled in different ways in Syria during the war, with the barely concealed intention of weakening the Assad government and assisting rebel forces dominated by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group (ISIL) and al-Qaeda affiliates.

However with Russian help, Assad has shored up his rule across much of the country in recent months, and the last major strongholds of the rebel groups have collapsed.

Neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia can afford to get more directly involved in Syria, given Russia’s involvement.

Shapiro warned Israel to be wary of Riyadh’s efforts to push it prematurely into a confrontation with Hezbollah, which could rapidly escalate into a regional war.

Threat to nuclear accord

A diplomatic source with long experience in the Middle East said the cable might ultimately prove to be just such a misstep.

“The Israelis will certainly be listened to because they have the best military intelligence in the region,” said the source, speaking to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity.

“Europe, in particular, is very concerned about the growing numbers of refugees coming their way from the region, many of them through Lebanon. Any information Israel provides about changes to the delicate balance of power in Lebanon, or the likelihood of a war, will ring alarm bells.”

The source said Israel would be hoping to capitalise on these concerns by persuading European countries to toughen their stance towards Iran, especially in relation to the Iranian nuclear accord.

Signed between Iran and the P5 1 countries, the deal led to the loosening of Western diplomatic sanctions on the Iranian regime two years ago.

“Both Israel and the Saudis want to see the nuclear deal collapse, but Israel is better placed than Riyadh to demonise Iran,” said the source.

Lebanon vulnerable?

Analysts have suggested that renewed sectarian conflict in Lebanon – a possible outcome of Hariri’s resignation – could also leave it more vulnerable to Israeli aggression.

In September, in a sign that Israel may be preparing for a confrontation on its northern border, the Israeli army held its biggest military drill in 20 years, simulating an invasion of Lebanon.

A map showing the type of full-scale attack by the Hezbollah terrorist group that the army will simulate during its ‘Light of the Grain’ exercise, the army’s largest in 20 years, on September 4, 2017. (Israel Defense Forces)

Hezbollah, however, is widely assumed to be armed with tens of thousands of rockets and missiles. So far, that has acted as a deterrent to a repeat of Israel’s bombardment and invasion of Lebanon in 2006.

Still, Israel and Saudi Arabia appear interested in cementing their alliance and shifting attention towards Lebanon – and away from Syria.

Israel has launched more than 100 air strikes on Syrian government and military targets in recent years, according to Reuters news agency estimates, largely on the grounds that it was preventing the transfer of weapons technology from Iran to Hezbollah.

A field hospital established by the Israeli army in the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights has treated wounded Islamist fighters and returned them to Syria, the UN has documented.

The UN has also observed the Israeli army passing “boxes” to Islamist fighters that were widely assumed to contain weapons.

Noam Sheizaf, an Israeli journalist, noted that Israel has become increasingly open about its attacks in Syria, taking responsibility for them to a degree not seen before.

“The risk of escalation lies in the fact that everyone wants someone else to fight Iran for them. Israel wants the US to do it, while the Saudis want Israel to attack Iran or proxies like Hezbollah,” he said.

‘Coalition-building’

Sheizaf told Al Jazeera the cable appears to be “part of Israeli efforts at coalition-building with Saudi Arabia and most of the Gulf states”.

He said:

“Israel understands that the Saudis lost to Iran in Syria and Yemen, and now they need an ally with the military and diplomatic power that Israel can provide.”

Netanyahu indicated as much in recent comments when he said Israel was working “very hard” to establish an alliance with “modern Sunni states” to counter Iran.

Jeff Halper, an Israeli analyst, suggested that Israel had even grander ambitions.

“As strange this sounds, the cable shows how Israel is becoming the unlikely leader of the Sunni world,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Saudi Arabia has found it can’t even defeat the Houthi rebels in Yemen. It needs the things Israel can offer – Israel’s military might, its legitimacy in Europe and the US, its influence in the US Congress. Israel has the kind of clout internationally the Saudis want but simply don’t have.”

The battle for al-Bukamal heated up last weekend as ISIS terrorists conducted a successful counter-attack against the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Hezbollah in the border city.

According to local sources, ISIS re-established control over a major part of the city on Sunday after two days of intense fighting in its vicinity and inside it. ISIS reportedly used at least 10 anti-tank guided missiles against pro-government combat units and had deployed additional reinforcements from other areas in Syria and Iraq.

Hazem al-Barghash, a member of the ISIS Shura Council – a top body of the terrorist group, and three ISIS military commanders – Hani al-Thalgi, Abu Munzer al-Shishani and Abu Mohamad al-Safi – died in the city.

Experts link the fierce ISIS resistance with the presence of more influential ISIS members in the area. The Hezbollah-linked media even reported that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was allegedly spotted in the area.

Another issue, which led to problems faced by government troops in al-Bukamal, is a lack of the coordination between the assault groups advancing from the T2 pumping station and forces deployed near al-Mayadin city. The Tiger Forces and other pro-government units deployed near al-Mayadin de-facto started their push towards al-Bukamal only on Sunday when the situation became very complicated.

Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry denied reports that ISIS retook al-Bukamal and called these reports propaganda. The ministry said that the SAA has been in full control of the city since Friday and now are securing the area and destroying the remaining centers of resistance.

However, no photos or videos confirming a full control over the city still exist. The city remains besieged but is still not under full control of the allies.

Clashes also continued in northeastern Hama and in an area west of the Ithriyah-Khanasser highway where the SAA captured Hasnwi and Abu al-Ghurr from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and entered the village of Rashadiyah. The situation remains tense.

On Saturday, the Israeli media started disseminating reports that the US and Russia have reached an agreement, which would push Iranian-backed forces from an area close to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The reports appeared on the same day when Russia and the US issued a joint statement on Syria after a brief conversation between Trump and Putin on the sideline of the APEC conference in Vietnam. The released statement does not refer directly to Iran, Iranian-backed forces or Hezbollah and indeed includes nothing new about the attitudes of the sides. The Israeli media reports are just another move in the ongoing media campaign against the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance after Tel Aviv failed to achieve the Russian support in limiting the Shia influence in Syria. Even if Moscow wants to make some trade-off with Israel, it has own limitations in this effort. The conflict is deeply integrated into the military and diplomatic standoff in the Middle East. The region is on the verge of the war, which may involve Israel, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah and Iran.

Last weekend, the BBC released a report claiming that Iran is establishing permanent military base inside Syria. It’s located outside El-Kiswah, 14 km south of Damascus. Israel has repeatedly claimed that it “will not let that happen.” However, the only Israeli option to fulfill this promise is a military action.

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

Featured image is from South Front.

Annual reports from the MoD’s internal watchdog, the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator (DNSR), have been abruptly classified as secret. Published for the last ten years, the reports have repeatedly warned of the dangers of spending cutbacks, staff shortages and accidents.

But now the MoD says that the reports will be kept under wraps in the interests of “national security”. This has prompted a tirade of accusations that it is trying to hide “embarrassing” concerns about nuclear safety, and avoid public scrutiny.

DNSR annual reports since 2006 have been released by the MoD after an early challenge under freedom of information law. They have frequently highlighted the safety risks of a growing shortage of suitably qualified and experienced nuclear engineers.

The report for 2014 warned that the lack of skilled staff was “the principal threat to the delivery of nuclear safety”. It also cautioned that “attention is required to ensure maintenance of adequate safety performance” for ageing nuclear submarines.

Similar concerns were highlighted in DNSR reports for 2013, 2012 and previous years. The 2007 report flagged up 11 “potentially significant risks” at military nuclear sites, and the 2006 report warned that “crew fatigue” could cause hazards during the transport of nuclear warheads by road.

But the latest concerns for 2015 and 2016 have been concealed by the MoD. The entire text of the last two DNSR annual summaries has been redacted from wider reports published by Defence Safety Authority because they “would or would likely impact national security.”

“Nuclear safety has not been compromised,” says a recent note on the MoD’s website. “No further detail or comment will be made on those elements redacted.”

Nuclear safety warnings in MoD reports

The MoD’s move has been attacked by Fred Dawson, an MoD nuclear expert for 31 years until he retired as head of radiation protection policy in 2009.

“The obvious conclusion to draw is that there is something to hide,” he told The Ferret.

He accused the MoD of ditching previous commitments to openness and transparency.

“The absence of any part of the reports being placed in the public domain will reduce what little public confidence there is in the MoD’s bland assurances,” he said.

John Large, an independent nuclear engineer who has advised governments, argued that the MoD was currently facing serious logistical, technical and resource problems.

“By redacting and excluding anything nuclear, these recent reports reveal the MoD’s contempt and utter disregard for public concerns about nuclear safety,” he said.

The DNSR had withdrawn into the MoD’s “inner sanctum of secrecy”, he warned. “These reports attempt to airbrush out the facts by turning a blind eye like Nelson.”

Large called for the MoD’s nuclear activities to be independently regulated by a civilian watchdog.

“In operating and maintaining its nuclear systems the MoD is not at all accountable to independent scrutiny and regulation,” he said.

According to Dr Phil Johnstone, who has been researching nuclear issues at the University of Sussex, there were “serious concerns” about sustaining skills for the defence nuclear programme.

“Has the situation now become so embarrassing that this year it cannot be disclosed?” he asked.

His colleague at Sussex University, professor Andy Stirling, added:

“If national security is used as an excuse for concealing uncomfortable truths about safety, then questions are raised over whether a system supposedly aimed at protecting the UK is becoming more of a threat.”

The SNP’s Westminster defence spokesperson, Stewart McDonald MP, insisted that safety must be paramount at nuclear sites.

 “Any suggestion that there are concerns because of resource shortages is totally unacceptable,” he said.

“These reports raise yet more questions for the MoD about what it is that needs to be kept secret now after years of increased transparency.”

David Cullen, from the monitoring group, Nuclear Information Service, pointed out that the publication of previous DNSR reports had not caused security problems.

“It is totally unacceptable for them to hold it back just because it is embarrassing or inconvenient,” he said.

“Without this information parliament and the public cannot hold them to account, which is bad for safety standards.”

The Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament thought the secrecy was very worrying.

“It suggests that there has been a lack of progress on issues which have been raised in previous reports,” said campaign chair, Arthur West.

The MoD maintained that its nuclear programmes were “fully accountable” to ministers and faced regular independent scrutiny.

“We recognise there is a legitimate public interest in the safety of this programme, but we would not publish information that could be exploited by potential adversaries, compromising our national security,” said an MoD spokesman.

The withheld information could be used by enemies to undermine the UK’s nuclear capabilities, he warned.

“The MoD cannot accept any compromise of our capabilities in the current security climate,” he added.

“Withholding these assessments will not prevent effective management and independent assessment of the defence nuclear programme. Overall, the programme achieves the required standards of nuclear and radiological safety.”

Featured image is from the author.

In recent columns posted on my website, I brought attention to two dramatic and dangerous developments between the two major nuclear powers.  

One was the public statement of the deputy commander of the Russian military’s Operation Command at a recent Moscow security conference.  

Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznihir, Deputy Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces, stated at the Moscow International Security Conference that the Operations Command of the Russian General Staff has concluded that Washington is preparing a nuclear first strike on Russia.

The other is the report that the US is collecting Russian DNA for the US Air Force weapons laboratory, the implication being that the US intends to research if a bio-weapon can be created that only targets Russians.   

As far as I can ascertain, neither of these startling developments were reported in the US media. One would think that the White House would have been on the telephone to Putin giving reassurances that the US is not planning a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. One would think that the publication of US contracts for Russian DNA and Putin’s public statement about it would have immediately resulted in President Trump ordering a halt to the Russian DNA project.

But not a peep.

Instead, the morons ruling us are content to send two back-to-back messages to Russia that we intend to wipe out Russia.  

Can you imagine anything more reckless and irresponsible than to convince a nuclear power that you have targeted them for destruction?

Where are the American and European media? The presstitutes are busy at work repeating endlessly the military/security complex and DNC’s lies about “Russiagate.” Alternatively, the presstitutes are focused on what the NFL’s national anthem policy will be.

We are experiencing the total failure of the leadership of a country.

While threatening Russia, the military/security complex and the presstitutes are simultaneously creating an ominous Russophobia among the US and European populations.  

President Trump said after his recent unofficial meeting with President Putin that he believed Putin that there was no Russian government interference in the US election. This set off a cacophony of denunciations by presstitutes, dumbshit politicians, and corrupt military/security officials.

See Stephen Lendman.

Recently I pointed out that these highly visible threats to Russians are mindless considering the military inferiority of the United States. The Saker concluded that I was correct in my assessment.    

The Saker has now provided considerable detail documenting Russian military superiority. If the morons in Washington persist in their insane aggression against Russia, the US will completely disappear from the face of the earth and likely also its dumbshit European vassals. Here is The Saker’s presentation. 

Meanwhile, the effort to keep Americans and Europeans totally ignorant of everything that is really happening, substituting Washington’s controlled explanations for actual reality, continues. For telling the truth, the news service RT has been forced to register as a “foreign agent” under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). 

In other words, the First Amendment, along with the rest of the US Constitution, has been repealed by Washington’s assertion of raw power, not limited by law or even morality.  

According to the report (above):

“This month, an organization calling itself the European Values Think-Tank, based in the Czech Republic and funded by the US embassy and foundations associated with billionaire George Soros, published just such a list, including the names of 2,300 RT guests, grouped into US and UK politicians, journalists, academics and celebrities. These individuals are, according to the think tank, ‘useful idiots’ for a ‘hostile foreign power.’”

I am not being facetious when I tell you “don’t expect to live much longer.”

We are ruled by mindless, insane, psychopaths who believe that the US is invulnerable. These dumbshits are likely to get us all blown off the face of the earth. If you are not concerned that the US government is picking a fight with Russia (and China, North Korea, and Iran as well), something is wrong with you.

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

The scandal surrounding Priti Patel, who was forced to resign as Britain’s international aid minister last week after secret meetings with Israeli officials during a “family holiday”, offers a small, opaque window on the UK’s powerful Israel lobby.

Patel’s off-the-books meetings with 12 Israelis, including prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, were organised by a British lobbyist in violation of government rules requiring careful documentation of official meetings. That is to prevent conflicts of interest and illicit lobbying by foreign powers.

Government protocol was flouted again when Patel headed to the Golan Heights, occupied Syrian territory, escorted by the Israeli army. There she was shown an Israeli military field hospital that patches up Syrians, including Al Qaeda-affiliated fighters, wounded in Syria’s civil war.

Afterwards, Patel pressed for the Israeli army, one of the most powerful in the world, to receive a chunk of Britain’s overseas aid. Meanwhile, she has sought to cut aid to the Palestinians, including to vital projects in Gaza. A clue as to how she reached such absurd “humanitarian” priorities is provided in the figure of Stuart Polak, mentor on her Israel “holiday”.

The honorary president of Conservative Friends of Israel, Lord Polak has recruited four-fifths of Conservative MPs, and almost every government minister, to a group whose explicit goal is to advance Israeli interests in Britain. The prime minister, Theresa May, is regarded as one of Israel’s most fervent supporters in Europe.

That should be a cause for public indignation – no other foreign state enjoys such unabashed, high-level political support.

Another window on Israel’s meddling opened briefly last week. The BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, took to Twitter to relay a damning comment from an unnamed “senior” member of Patel’s party. In a clear reference to Israel, the source observed:

“The entire apparatus has turned a blind eye to a corrupt relationship that allows a country to buy access”.

A short time later, presumably under pressure, Kuenssberg deleted the tweet. The BBC has not reported the comment elsewhere and the senior Conservative has not dared go public. Such, it seems, is the intimidating and corrupting influence of the lobby.

More than a decade ago, two leading American academics wrote a study of the Israel lobby’s role in the United States, Israel’s chief patron for half a century. It was a sign of the lobby’s influence that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt could not find a publisher at home. They had to turn to a British journal instead.

The Israel lobby’s strength in western capitals has depended precisely on its ability to remain out of view. Simply to talk about the lobby risks being accused of perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish cabals.

But Mearsheimer and Walt described a type of pressure group familiar in the US – and increasingly in European capitals. Everyone from Cuba to health insurers and arms manufacturers operate aggressive lobbyists in Washington to secure their interests.

What is special about the Israel lobby in the US – an amalgam of hawkish Jewish leadership organisations and messianic Christian evangelicals – is the fear it exploits to silence critics. No one wants to be labelled an anti-Semite.

Rarely identified or held to account, the lobby has entrenched its power.

That is what Britain’s heir to the throne, Prince Charles, was talking about three decades ago – even if he misidentified it as a “Jewish” rather Israel lobby – in a forgotten letter found in the public archives and publicised at the weekend.

“Surely some US president has to have the courage to stand up and take on the Jewish lobby in the US? I must be naive, I suppose!” he wrote to a family friend in 1986.

Today, as recent events illustrate, the lobby is struggling to stay in the shadows. Social media and Palestinians with camera phones have exposed a global audience to systematic abuses by the Israeli army the western media largely ignored. For the first time, Israel supporters sound evasive and dissembling.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s strident efforts in the US Congress through 2014 and 2015 to prevent a nuclear accord with Iran dragged the lobby even farther into the light.

The Israel lobby’s dirty tricks in the UK were exposed earlier this year too. An Al Jazeera TV documentary showed Conservative party officials colluding with the Israeli embassy to “take down” Alan Duncan, a foreign office minister who supports the Palestinian cause.

It is noteworthy that Ms Patel’s downfall came about because of social media. Israeli officials like police minister Gilad Erdan were so unused to scrutiny or accountability themselves that they happily tweeted photos with Patel. Erdan is a key player in the lobby, running a “smear unit” to target overseas critics of Israel.

We may never know why Patel so grossly flouted ministerial rules or what she quietly promised in those meetings in Israel. Colleagues have hinted that, in a pattern familiar from US politics, she hoped to win over the lobby and its wealthy donors for a future leadership bid.

There is no way to know, given the lobby’s penchant for secrecy, whether Patel simply proved less adept at treading a path marked out by former Conservative and Labour party leadership hopefuls. But it is also possible that the lobby is discovering changes to the political and cultural environment are making its work much harder.

There is growing hysteria about foreign interference in US and European politics. Is it not time for western states to show as much concern about the malign influence of Israel’s lobbyists as they do about Russian hackers?

A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

Featured image is from Kobi Gideon/GPO.

Nuclear power is now going through a difficult time and the world community is becoming more and more concerned by it. After the tragic events of 1986 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, as well as at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant (where an anthropogenic accident occurred in 2011 due to an earthquake and tsunami), the safety of the operation of nuclear power plants in all countries has been receiving increasingly more attention. The European Union even convened an emergency meeting in Brussels to discuss the safety standards for nuclear reactors operating on the European continent.

According to a study by the European Commission, nuclear power generates 27% of electricity in the EU. According to the European Nuclear Society (ENS), about 200 nuclear power units are currently operating or are being constructed in Europe. Strict monitoring measures are applied to all operating and developing NPPs not only from the countries that build these facilities, but also from international organizations.

Unfortunately, despite these measures, today information campaigns conducted by individual countries against the use of nuclear power plants often appear and are clearly aimed not at strengthening security measures in the nuclear energy sector, but at narrowly self-serving politicized goals.

A striking example of this, in particular, is the campaign launched by Lithuania against the construction of the Ostrovets nuclear power plant in Belarus. The main reason for the campaign is the desire of the Lithuanian conservatives to please Washington by using anti-Russian sentiments to reduce the influence of Russia and its closest ally, Belarus, in the European energy market. It’s no secret that Lithuania itself wanted to build its own nuclear power plant in Visaginas with the help of Japanese and American corporations. For a long time, Lithuania expected that the project would include its neighbors – Latvia, Estonia and Poland, but the funds for the implementation of this project were lacking.

It is noteworthy in this respect that, while artificially inflating the ‘Russian threat’ in the field of nuclear power, many European states prefer to keep silent about the real danger for Europe which stems from the actions of the United States in this sphere.

In 2012, the head of the US Department of State Hillary Clinton went to the Czech Republic, where she heavily lobbied the US company Westinghouse as a potential builder and operator of two new reactors at the Temelin NPP. After the deal with the Czechs (with active assistance of Washington), Westinghouse signed a contract with the Bulgarian government to build a new AP1000 reactor at the nuclear power plant in Kozloduy. In 2014, Kiev signed an agreement on the replacement of usual Russian fuel in Ukrainian nuclear power plants with US analogues produced by Westinghouse.

Striving to ensure the priority for US companies in the European energy market, Washington does not always do the right thing on the international arena. The US acts at the expense of European security, which is fraught with a nuclear catastrophe.

A few days ago a serious breakdown took place at the South-Ukrainian NPP. In the course of the new accident, one of the power units of the nuclear power plant was shut down. The fuel elements provided by Westinghouse, which are different from those manufactured in Russia, were loaded into the disconnected power unit of the South Ukrainian NPP, built according to USSR regulations and designed exclusively for Russian fuel standards. Westinghouse products are now used not only at the two power units of the South-Ukrainian NPP, but also at the Zaporizhia NPP.

Ukrainian nuclear power plants are not going through their best period of development and are already working on the brink of their capabilities. The question of their repair and modernization in Kiev has yet to be discussed. The nuclear industry in Ukraine is in a dangerous state, and the risk of an incident like the Chernobyl tragedy is much higher than is commonly believed, the Washington Times reported.

‘This is bigger than just Ukraine alone. The future of Europe is at stake,’ the newspaper states.

However, even the prospect of a Chernobyl-like tragedy does not serve to make the Ukrainian leadership wary of its actions.

In accordance with the political course of the Ukrainian government dictated by Washington, Kiev renounces Russian nuclear fuel, for which all the nuclear power plants that Ukraine currently uses are designed. Ukrainian NPPs are not meant for other types of fuel, and such “experiments” are fraught with certain consequences and emergency situations – this is what obviously caused the emergency situation at the nuclear power plant which provides energy to the Odessa, Kherson and Nikolayev regions.

We remind the reader that the first “experiment” of this kind on the transfer of fuel from the Russian toWestinghouse was delivered to the Czech nuclear power plant Temelin, which, like Ukrainian NPPs, was developed according to Soviet technical regulations. After the American fuel rods started “leaking” inside the reactor, careful Czechs realized that, rather than facing the prospect of getting a second Chernobyl 22 kilometers from the city of České Budějovice, it would be prudent to abandon Washington’s nuclear fuel. However, this incident did not have a sobering effect on the Ukrainian authorities and they decided to continue the suicidal “experiment” at the Ukrainian nuclear power plants with fuel from Westinghouse on the ‘advice’ from Washington.

At the same time, we should not forget that while unsuccessfully trying to compete with the enterprises of the Russian Federation, Westinghouse has repeatedly been associated with various accidents and scandals – its fuel has proven to be unreliable and even dangerous. To prevent a tragedy that may be caused by the use of American fuel elements (technically incompatible with the stations previously built by the USSR), representatives of the Russian nuclear industry have repeatedly suggested creating a special group for the IAEA, but these steps were blocked by the US.

Forbes wrote about the way Washington is promoting Westinghouse’s business interests in Eastern Europe, creating risks to the safety of nuclear power plants. The publication describes how the actions of Washington deceive countries that have decided to participate in joint projects with Westinghouse under the pretext of reducing energy dependence on Russia. In particular, Forbes says that there has already been a depressurization of US fuel cartridges in the reactor of the third power unit of the South-Ukrainian NPP, where nuclear fuel from the American-Japanese company Westinghouse has been used since 2015.

“Westinghouse is more than a brand name American power company. It’s a battering ram used by Washington to promote energy security,” Forbes writes.

The source of the publication, who preferred to remain anonymous, claimed that Westinghouse is seeking to get a share in the fuel services market in Eastern Europe, since this is the only way to prevent the bankruptcy of this company.

And in March, the Westinghouse Electric Corporation filed for bankruptcy because of losses reaching almost $ 7 billion.

Now that the American nuclear brand has lost its former glory, Ukraine, in fact, remains one on one with reactors rendered useless by unsuitable fuel. And, given the concern of the West with the unprecedented level of corruption in Kiev, no one will take the risk of allocating money for the security “in the center of Europe”. And without this, Forbes notes, a ‘second Chernobyl’ is becoming a viable terrifying possibly not only for the nearest countries neighboring Ukraine, but also for Europe as a whole, thanks to the toxic presence of the legacy of the American administration. And if not the fate of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, where fuel was thrown out during the explosion, the scenario of the Three Mile Island NPP in Pennsylvania, where the active zone of the reactor melted and will remain in this state forever, is predicted by a number of experts.

Vladimir Odintsov is an expert politologist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“

Featured image is from the author.

Fakenews:

• Saudi Arabia ends its blockade of Yemen’s ports and airports – Daily Mail
• Saudi-led coalition says will reopen Yemen ports – Anadolu
• Yemeni ports to reopen for aid, says Saudi Arabia – Deutsche Welle
• …

From the last link:

Saudi Arabia reacting to UN famine warnings says ports in Yemen it controls will reopen for aid deliveries. Riyadh shut them down last week after a missile attack blamed on Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

The above headlines are false. The Saudi government announced the re-opening of some Yemeni ports and airports. All of these are in the south and under control of Saudi proxy forces who are fighting the Houthi-Saleh alliance in north-west Yemen. Some 70% of the population lives in the north-western areas which will continue to be under an extreme blockade. The most important port in their area is Hodeida which will stay closed. Back in March the U.S. Pentagon tried to get control of the port. But fighting for it would have destroyed the piers and thereby the supply route for some 20 million people. The most important airport is in Sanaa. The Saudi/U.S./UK alliance blocks even UN flights with medical supplies from using it.

The Saudis now “request” the UN to send an expert commission to Riyadh to “discuss” procedures for future control of the ports that are not held by its proxies. Such a process will take weeks if not months. The Saudis will, like the Pentagon earlier, demand total control over the ports which their opponents will of course not give. Any such fighting will only worsen the situation.

Thanks to local smugglers some food and other goods will still be able to pass through the blockade. But these will be way too few and too expensive for the vast majority of Yemenis. When the recent blockade was announced, food and gas prices in Yemen doubled overnight. Public service employees have not been paid for more than 15 months. People simply can no longer afford to keep their children alive:

In Sana’a, Nor Rashid sold her family’s cow to pay for the transport costs to get her four year-old daughter, who weighs 16lbs, to the city’s feeding centre in Al-Sabaeen hospital. She has other children who are also sick but she cannot afford to pay for the medical care if she brings them in for treatment too. “It’s because of the lack of government wages,” she said. “Usually we go to the person in the village with a wage to ask for help and borrow money if someone needs to go to the hospital. But since the wages stopped we have no support.”

The UN warns, rightly, that the blockade is causing a mass famine. This famine is not a side effect of the war – it is a weapon:

To starve Yemeni civilians is an overt act by Riyadh, enraged by a humiliating failure to achieve a Saudi military victory.

The media claim that only 10,000 civilians have been killed in the two and a half years of the war. The number is laughable. Neither the UN nor others have published any detailed account. The 10,000 number seems to be plugged from hot air.  Compare, for example, the dates and content of these two reports:

Al Jazeerah – 31 Aug 2016: UN: At least 10,000 killed in Yemen conflict

The United Nations has significantly revised the estimated death toll from Yemen’s 18-month civil war to up to 10,000 people
…
Speaking from the capital Sanaa on Tuesday, Jamie McGoldrick, the UN humanitarian coordinator, said the new figure was based on official information from medical facilities in Yemen.

Al Jazeerah – 17 Jan 2017: Death toll in Yemen conflict passes 10,000

The United Nations’ humanitarian aid official in Yemen has said that the civilian death toll in the nearly two-year conflict has reached 10,000, with 40,000 others wounded.The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ Jamie McGoldrick said that the figure is based on lists of victims gathered by health facilities …

The same low number is claimed by the same official in August and in January while a devastating war has been ongoing throughout that time frame. That does not make sense. To provide a cynic laugh attack, or out of stupidity, the later Al Jazeerah report says:

The announcement marks the first time a UN official has confirmed such a high death toll in Yemen

Up to July 2017 the U.S.-Saudi coalition had flown more than 90,000 air-sorties over Yemen. Most of those will have involved weapon releases. Are we to believe that only 10,000 civilians have been killed by all these bombs and the additional artillery, sharpshooters and suicide attacks? That would be inconsistent even with western reports of the  known mass incidents during the war. 100,000 dead civilians caused by the war so far is a more likely number than the never changing 10,000.

On November 1 a Saudi bomb attack killed at least 29 people in a busy market in Saada. The Yemeni missile launch against the airport of Riyadh on November 4 was in response to that deadly Saudi attack. The Saudis claim that these Yemeni missiles are from Iran and the U.S. military is, without providing evidence, supporting that fairy tale:

[R]emnants of [the missile] bore “Iranian markings,” the top U.S. Air Force official in the Mideast said Friday.

“The Saudis found a sticker on the wreckage. It said Made in Iran.”

In a video message the former Yemeni president explained that these missiles were from the large stash he bought before the ongoing war broke out.  According to IHS Janes these missiles are of North Korean origin (pdf) and were modified by the experienced Yemeni army missile forces.

In concert with Saudi propaganda’s curious claims now pop up in U.S. media. Suddenly Afghan Shia fighters (Fatemiyoun) or Hizbullah from Lebanon are said to be fighting in Yemen. These claims make no sense. Explain, for example, the geography in this recent New York Times piece:

Not only did Iran send smaller units of the Fatemiyoun to cross Syrian borders and fight in Yemen, …

How and why would Afghan Shia, who do not speak Arabic, enter the blockaded Yemen? There are millions of unemployed Yemenis in the besieged areas. They hate the Saudis. The Houthi surely have no lack of foot-soldiers.

In yesterday’s TV interview the kidnapped Lebanese Premier Saad Hariri insinuated that he would be released by the Saudis if Hizbullah ends operations in Yemen. AP summarized:

[Hariri] singled out Hezbollah’s involvement in Yemen as the main cause of the kingdom’s ire.

But there is no reasonable evidence at all that any Hizbullah are in Yemen. In 2015 a Saudi diplomat claimed to “have reports” of Hizbullah trainers in Yemen without providing any of them. In 2016 the Saudi state owned Al Arabia TV posted a short video of which it claims that it shows a Hizbullah trainer teaching Houthis. No date or place or other information about the recording was released. In the two and a half years of the war on Yemen no reports from the ground emerged of any Hizbullah involvement or of wounded or killed Lebanese or Iranian or Afghan fighters.

The Houthis are no Hezbollah and they are not stooges of the Iranian government. Their alliance with Yemeni army troops loyal to former President Saleh gives them tactical and technical capabilities. Their weapons are either from old stocks or purchased from the large weapon markets in Yemen. The dealers buy these weapons from the groups the Saudi employ and generously equip and supply. Those Saudi controlled forces are the main suppliers of their designated enemies.

The Saudis are starving a whole country – with avid support of the “humanitarian” western world. The UN bureaucracy and leadership was bought off and is complicit. The Saudi tyrant kidnaps and blackmails the Prime Minister of a third country. All this because he fails to overcome the barefooted Houthi fighters in Yemen against which he started a senseless war. The Saudis invent Iranian involvement and the media avidly repeat their claims without any evidentiary support.

Literally millions are in imminent danger of dying. Meanwhile greedy “western” politicians are ass-kissing the Saudi freak of a clown prince and his senile father. They support whatever lunatic claim the Saudis make about their perceived enemies.

The next time you see one these creatures please punch its face.

On Saturday, November 11, at least 60,000 fascist demonstrators from Poland, Hungary and Slovakia gathered in Warsaw, the Polish capital, on Poland’s “Independence Day” to stage what has been described as the biggest far-right demonstration since the fall of Nazism. Some estimates suggested as many as 100,000 participants.

The rally was organized by a variety of far-right groups, including the Polish National-Radical Camp, the National Movement and the All Polish Youth, all of which are anti-Semitic and white supremacist. The historical antecedents of these forces were responsible for violent anti-Semitic pogroms in the 1930s, and helped the Nazis hunt down Jews during the German occupation, even when they themselves were persecuted by the Nazis.

Slogans at the rally effectively called for an ethnic purge of Europe. Banners read: “White Europe of Brotherly Peoples,” “Europe will be White or Depopulated,” “Pure Poland, White Poland!” “Death to the Enemies of the Fatherland,” “Pray for Islamic Holocaust,” and “Refugees, Get Out!” Marchers waved Polish flags and carried burning torches. Some also displayed the falanga, the main symbol of Polish fascism.

Thousands of fascists and ultra-nationalists travelled from other countries to attend the march, including from Sweden, Hungary and Slovakia. The well-known American white supremacist Richard Spencer was invited to speak at the rally but was apparently banned by the Polish government from traveling to the country.

Nothing about this demonstration was spontaneous or accidental. It was a carefully planned provocation and show of strength by the Eastern European far-right, aimed at intimidating everyone opposed to the right-wing shift in European and international politics and the ever more feverish war preparations. It was consciously staged in a city that was all but destroyed in 1944 by the German Wehrmacht, and whose Jewish population was wiped out in Auschwitz and Treblinka. Poland suffered some five million losses under Nazi occupation, three million of them Jews, and was the main site of the industrial extermination of European Jewry.

The fascist forces that have now unabashedly and provocatively shown themselves in Warsaw have been strengthened and even armed, by both right-wing governments in Europe, and US imperialism.

The slogan of the demonstration was “We Want God,” the words from an old religious Polish song that US President Donald Trump quoted during his July visit to Warsaw. As the WSWS noted at the time, Trump was deliberately whipping up fascist sentiments and religious bigotry in a speech that implied support for anti-Semitism, nationalism, Catholicism and white supremacy.

Moreover, during this visit, Trump signaled the full support of the White House for Polish Law and Justice (PiS) government plans to build a so called Intermarium (between the seas) alliance of states in Eastern Europe, directed against both Russia and Germany. Historically, attempts to build such an alliance were always centered in Poland, which has thus sought to become a regional power, while relying on fascist and ultra-nationalist formations in Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, Romania, and Slovakia. It is these forces to whom Trump appealed in his speech, and they understood it very well.

Even before the Trump administration took office, the US government had worked to strengthen the far right throughout Eastern Europe, most notably in Ukraine. The US-orchestrated coup in Kiev in February 2014 critically relied on the country’s fascist forces. They have been given almost free reign in the ongoing civil war that has ravaged the country ever since. Formations such as the Azov Battalion, which played a major role in the coup, have been employed to fight separatist troops in eastern Ukraine and terrorize the local population. Like so many far-right groups in the region, the Azov battalion openly advocates a resurrection of the Intermarium alliance.

The Law and Justice government in Warsaw has done its part to strengthen the far right ever since it won a parliamentary majority in the fall of 2015. It has constantly promoted xenophobia, anti-Semitism, nationalism and militarism. Moreover, there are an estimated 400,000 people involved in paramilitary organizations dominated by far-right ideologies in Poland, a country with a population of less than 40 million. The Defense Ministry has undertaken to arm these forces and integrate them into a paramilitary militia that is being established parallel and, to some extent, in opposition to, the country’s regular armed forces.

It is thus no accident that the Polish Interior Minister Mariusz Błaszczak praised the demonstration:

“It was a beautiful sight. We are proud that so many Poles have decided to take part in a celebration connected to the Independence Day holiday.”

Other sections of the Polish government, including the Foreign Ministry, issued similar statements.

Polish President Andrzej Duda condemned the demonstration, arguing that there was no room for xenophobia and nationalism in Poland. Under conditions of growing social and political opposition to the PiS government, Duda has tried to distance himself from the government’s policies over the past year. But he too is responsible. Not only has he played a key role in propping up the PiS-government by playing the role of a mediating buffer between the government and the opposition. He was also one of the first to proclaim the building of an Intermarium-style alliance as official governmental policy when elected president in the summer of 2015.

The resurgence of the far-right in Eastern Europe, which was the site of some of the greatest crimes in the history of humanity, perpetrated by the German National Socialists and their local fascist allies, is a stark warning to the international working class. As in the 1930s, the bourgeoisie is preparing for war and the suppression of social revolution by building up the far right.

The European Union has taken a major step toward developing the capacity to wage war in the future independently of and, if necessary, against the United States.

Foreign and defence ministers from 23 of the 28 EU member states signed a framework document on a common defence policy in Brussels on Monday. Along with Britain, which will leave the EU in 2019, only four smaller countries—Denmark, Ireland, Malta and Portugal—did not sign on to the deal. However, they can do so at any time.

With the “agreement on permanent structured cooperation” (PESCO), the EU states committed themselves to close cooperation in the development and purchase of weapons, and in making available troops and equipment for joint military interventions.

“PESCO is an ambitious, binding and inclusive European legal framework for investment in the security and defence of the EU’s territory and citizens,” the document states. The key issue is to make Europe more efficient, capable of acting and quicker, said a representative of the German defence ministry.

The agreement signifies an escalation of European militarism. The first of 20 conditions to which all parties must commit is a regular increase in military spending. At least 20 percent of this must be directed to the purchase of new weapons. For its part, the EU intends to contribute €500 million annually and €1 billion after 2021 to joint arms projects.

Details concerning the form of cooperation will be worked out over the coming weeks. There are currently 47 proposals for joint projects. These include a joint crisis response corps, the establishment of multinational combat units, a joint “centre of excellence” for European training missions, precautionary plans for military interventions in various regions around the world, a “military Schengen” zone, which would allow the swift deployment of troops and heavy weaponry without bureaucratic hurdles, joint satellite reconnaissance, a European medics commando, and joint logistics hubs. Ten of these 47 projects are to be initiated in December.

The driving forces behind PESCO are Germany and France. In recent months, Berlin, Paris and Brussels have promoted the project by holding six workshops. French President Emmanuel Macron, in a speech delivered at the Sorbonne University in Paris in September, declared,

“By the beginning of the next decade, Europe must have a joint intervention force, a common defence budget and a joint doctrine for action.”

German Defence Minister Ursula Von der Leyen said the signing of PESCO was “a great day for Europe.” The parties were taking “a further step towards an army for Europe.”

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel described the agreement as “historic.” It was a “major step towards independence and the strengthening of the EU’s security and defence policy.” He anticipated that PESCO would result in a major increase in military capabilities.

Europe currently spends half of the money the US does on its military, he said, but achieves a capacity of only 15 percent. Closer cooperation could bring about an improvement.

Berlin, Paris and Brussels are seeking to portray EU military cooperation as complimentary to, rather than at odds with, NATO. The PESCO agreement itself states:

“The strengthened military capacity of EU states will also be of use to NATO. It will strengthen the European pillar and serve to answer repeated demands for stronger transatlantic burden-sharing.”

Von der Leyen also sought to deny any opposition to NATO. The transatlantic alliance would always be responsible for national and collective defence, she said, while the EU, with its “networked security,” would carry out tasks that are not part of NATO’s remit, such as “assistance” to African states.

This is nonsense. Commentators are generally agreed that two key events have encouraged the implementation of long-discussed but repeatedly frustrated plans for a European army: the election of Donald Trump and Brexit.

A first attempt to found a European Defence Community failed in 1954 in the face of French opposition. No further attempt was made for several decades. At the turn of the new century, efforts to establish closer military cooperation failed due to resistance from London, which, as Washington’s closest ally, wanted to prevent the emergence of any alternative to NATO.

Trump’s “America First” policy has sharpened the tensions between the United States and Europe. US policy in the Middle East and Southeast Asia is viewed in Berlin and Paris as an attack on their interests, and America, Europe and China are fighting among themselves for influence in Africa. Only in the preparations for war with Russia are the European powers and the US cooperating closely via NATO. But even here, there are tactical differences on how far the conflict should be pushed.

At the same time, Brexit has removed the most important opponent of a European army from the EU.

The PESCO agreement does not mean that all of the conflicts within Europe have been overcome, and that Germany and France will toe the same line from now on. Even prior to the agreement, sharp differences emerged.

While Paris wanted to restrict the agreement to a small, exclusive group of states with large armies that could intervene decisively in a crisis situation, Berlin pressed for the broadest possible range of participants, with a wide spectrum of tasks. Germany prevailed.

Since unanimous decisions are required, decision-making will be difficult. But Berlin feared that the Eastern European states, which are increasingly dominated by nationalist and anti-EU sentiment, would align with the US.

The huge hike in military spending connected with PESCO will exacerbate class tensions in Europe. The ruling elites are already responding to class tensions in every European country with a major buildup of the apparatus of state repression. This is encouraging right-wing and nationalist forces and tearing the EU apart.

In the final analysis, the growing tensions between the US and Europe are “not simply the product of the extreme nationalist policies of the current occupant of the White House,” as the World Socialist Web Site wrote in its June 2, 2017 Perspective column titled “The Great Unraveling: The crisis of the post-war geopolitical order.”

The column continued:

“Rather, the tensions are rooted in deep contradictions between the interests of the major imperialist powers, which twice in the last century led to world war…

“The events surrounding Trump’s trip to Europe reflect a crisis not only of American imperialism, but of the entire world capitalist system. None of Washington’s rivals—neither the EU, despised at home for its austerity policies, nor the economically moribund, right-wing regime in Japan, nor the post-Maoist capitalist oligarchy in China—offers a progressive alternative. Anyone who asserted that a coalition of these powers will emerge to stabilize world capitalism, and block the emergence of large-scale trade war and military conflict, would be placing heavy bets against history.”

The rearming of Europe confirms this. Only the construction of an international antiwar movement based on the working class and fighting for a socialist programme and the overthrow of capitalism can avert the catastrophe of another world war.

“One day while I was in a bunker in Vietnam, a sniper round went over my head. The person who fired that weapon was not a terrorist, a rebel, an extremist, or a so-called insurgent. The Vietnamese individual who tried to kill me was a citizen of Vietnam, who did not want me in his country. This truth escapes millions.” (Mike Hastie, Former U.S. Army Medic, Vietnam 1970-71.)

On 10^th of November, Donald Trump made a “Presidential Proclamation Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War.” (See below.)

Marking Veterans Day and Military Families Month, he wrote:

“We salute our brave Vietnam veterans who, in service to our Nation and in defense of liberty, fought gallantly against the spread of communism and defended the freedom of the Vietnamese people …

“During this Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War, we embrace our responsibility to help our Vietnam veterans and their families heal from the heavy toll of war.  We remember the more than 58,000 soldiers whose names are memorialized on black granite wall in our Nation’s capital for having borne the heaviest cost of war.”

Moreover:

“To ensure the sacrifices of the 9 million heroes who served during this difficult chapter of our country’s history are remembered for generations to come, I signed into law the Vietnam War Veterans Recognition Act of 2017, designating March 29 of each year as National Vietnam War Veterans Day …”

All countries commemorate and honour those lost in war. What makes the statement, in its entirety, cringe-making, is that it was released as Trump was being hosted in Vietnam, including attending State Dinner hosted by Vietnamese President Trần Đại Quang.

President Donald J. Trump participates in the APEC Summit | November 11, 2017 (Official White House Photo by D. Myles Cullen)

Not one word of regret, sorrow, reconciliation is offered for the Vietnamese dead, an upper figure of 3.8 million, the near equivalent of wiping out the entire population of Panama, Bosnia Herzegovina or Mauritania – or over three times the population of Cyprus or six and a half times that of Luxembourg.

The only mention Vietnam gets is that:

“I am in Vietnam alongside business and political leaders to advance the interests of America …”

To bleed the country dry again, the cynic might think. Oh and he is to: “promote peace and stability in this region and around the world.”

The same sort of “peace and stability” Vietnam experienced at US’ hands between 8^th March 1965 and 30^th April 1975 – though in fact the US had been involved in Vietnam since 1950.

Further, threatening to “totally destroy” North Korea and deliver: “fire, fury and, frankly, power, the likes of which this world has never seen before” in the region, also hardly squares with “peace and stability.”

The devastation wrought against the Vietnamese people years was the result of America’s belief that Communism was threatening to expand across south-east Asia. If it had, what business was it of America? Regions have their own cultures, beliefs, history and should be free to take, or resolve, their own paths, without incurring threat of annihilation by the “Leader of the free world.”

However, such freedoms were not an option, thus 13,789 kilometers from America, eight million tons of bombs were dropped on Vietnam, more than three times the amount used in World War 11.

US Huey helicopter spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam

Chemical weapons, Napalm and Agent Orange were amongst the ordnance. The resultant effects and ongoing birth deformities are alibi to the horror still.

“Napalm (1) is a mixture of plastic polystyrene, hydrocarbon benzene, and gasoline. This mixture creates a jelly-like substance that, when ignited, sticks to practically anything and burns up to ten minutes. The effects of napalm on the human body are unbearably painful and almost always cause death among its victims. “Napalm is the most terrible pain you can ever imagine” said Kim Phúc, a survivor from a napalm bombing.

“Water boils at 212°F. Napalm generates temperatures 1,500°F to 2,200°F.” (Emphasis added.)

Kim Phúc sustained third degree burns to portions of her body. She was one of the only survivors of such extreme measures.

“Agent Orange is fifty times more concentrated than normal agricultural herbicides; this extreme intensity completely destroyed all plants in the area. Agent Orange not only had devastating effects on agriculture but also on people and animals. The Vietnam Red Cross recorded over 4.8 million deaths and 400,000 children born with birth defects due to exposure to Agent Orange.”

Such was the Trumpeted “gallant” fight against the spread of Communism and “(defence) of the freedom of the Vietnamese people …” If any one knows about “the heavy toll of war”, it is the Vietnamese.

Land in neighbouring Laos and Cambodia were also affected.

If you are trying to equate the 50^th anniversary commemorations to a date, this is an annual event, which began on Memorial Day 2012 and ends on Memorial Day 2025. Which ever dates resonate from Vietnam it is hard to see what the 50^th pertains to.

Donald Trump of course, avoided the draft five times, the last time with a heel spur, which is: “a painful inflammation of the fibrous band of connective tissue … that runs along the bottom of the foot and connects the heel bone to the ball of the foot”, thus prevented him marching or walking long distances.

Oddly, it never prevented him playing golf.

---

ANNEX

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

November 10, 2017

Presidential Proclamation Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War

COMMEMORATION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VIETNAM WAR

– – – – – – –

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

A PROCLAMATION

Today, I lead our Nation in somber reflection as we continue the 13-year Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War that began in 2012.  We salute our brave Vietnam veterans who, in service to our Nation and in defense of liberty, fought gallantly against the spread of communism and defended the freedom of the Vietnamese people.

Fifty years ago, in 1967, nearly 500,000 American troops served in South Vietnam, along with approximately 850,000 troops of our allies.  Today, during Veterans and Military Families Month and as the Federal Government observes Veterans Day, I am in Vietnam alongside business and political leaders to advance the interests of America, and to promote peace and stability in this region and around the world.  I cherish this opportunity to recall, with humility, the sacrifices our veterans made for our freedom and our Nation’s strength. 

During this Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War, we embrace our responsibility to help our Vietnam veterans and their families heal from the heavy toll of war.  We remember the more than 58,000 soldiers whose names are memorialized on black granite wall in our Nation’s capital for having borne the heaviest cost of war.  We also pay tribute to the brave patriots who suffered as prisoners of war, and we stand steadfast in our commitment not to rest until we account for the 1,253 heroes who have not yet returned to American soil.

To ensure the sacrifices of the 9 million heroes who served during this difficult chapter of our country’s history are remembered for generations to come, I signed into law the Vietnam War Veterans Recognition Act of 2017, designating March 29 of each year as National Vietnam War Veterans Day.  Throughout this Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War, and every March 29 thereafter, we will honor all those who answered our Nation’s call to duty.  We vow to never again confuse personal disapproval of war with prejudice against those who honorably wear the uniform of our Armed Forces.  With conviction, our Nation pledges our enduring respect, our continuing care, and our everlasting commitment to all Vietnam veterans.

We applaud the thousands of local, State, and national organizations, businesses, and governmental entities that have already partnered with the Federal Government in the Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War.  Because of their remarkable leadership and dedication, countless Vietnam veterans and their families have been personally and publicly thanked and honored in ceremonies in towns and cities throughout our country.  During my Administration, I promise to continue coordinated efforts to recognize all veterans of the Vietnam War for their service and sacrifice, and to provide them with the heartfelt acknowledgement and gratitude that they and their families so richly deserve.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby confirm the commitment of this Nation to the Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War, which began on Memorial Day, 2012 and will continue through Veterans Day, 2025.  I call upon all Americans to offer each of our Vietnam veterans and their families a thank you on behalf of the Nation, both privately and during public ceremonies and programs across our country.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.

DONALD J. TRUMP (2)

***

Notes

1. https://vietnamawbb.weebly.com/napalm-agent-orange.html

2. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/11/10/presidential-proclamation-commemorating-50th-anniversary-vietnam-war

Eminences, Excellencies, Colleagues Nobel Laureates, Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is good to be with you all, and  I would like to take this opportunity to thank you  for your work for Peace and Humanity.

Thank you also for giving me the opportunity to speak about the Peace Process in N. Ireland.

Northern Ireland is a deep ethnic/political conflict, and Religion plays both a negative and positive role in our society. This was brought home to me, when in the early 1970s a young Irish Republican man, told me he was in the Armed Struggle of the IRA  fighting a Just War and that the Catholic Church blesses “Just Wars“. We need to throw out the Just War theory, a phony piece of morality. Instead we can develop a new Theology of Peace and Nonviolence and articulate a clear unambiguous rejection of violence. Religion cannot be used to justify war or armed struggle.

There are many lessons to be learned from the Northern Irish conflict. One lesson is that violence never works, be it State, Relational, Paramilitary violence, or the violence of sectarianism, discrimination or injustice. For many years these methods were used and they plunged our country (one and a half million people) into the darkness of death and further segregation and polarization. A Light in the darkness came when in 1976 thousands of people, 90% women, marched to call for an end to violence and for peace. They called for all inclusive, unconditional talks, including with those using violence, insisting we must talk to our perceived enemies, be reconciled together and find solutions. They insisted the UK Government uphold Human Rights and International Laws and not put aside the Rights of people, or use means which were illegal and counter-productive. In the first few months of this Civil Society movement for peace and reconciliation, there was a 70% drop in violence.

After a long process of dialogue, and diplomacy, across the communities, between people, paramilitary groups, and politicians, mediated by Civil Community and members of Clergy, eventually a Good Friday Agreement was reached in l998. This Agreement, based on Power Sharing between the Unionists, Nationalists, and others, was a ground breaking achievement in that it brought together many Political parties and tackled hard issues. Unfortunately, many of the Policies agreed upon were not fully implemented and continue to cause dissension within our Executive, Assembly and Community. What could have been set up was an independent body charged with the implementation of the Agreement whose recommendations for resolving disputes would be binding on the parties. In the absence of this, the Executive is obliged to address every crisis on a case by case basis and with no commitment to accepting recommendations to resolve the crisis.

Unfortunately our Executive has had many problems working on a power sharing basis but it is hoped that as time goes on they will adopt a more co-operative and compromising approach in working these institutions. For many the key to progress lies with the community where people live their daily lives. The integration of our society is very important and integrated Education, Peace Education, Therapy, Counselling, etc., will be ways in which to heal and reconcile our society. At the heart of a peace culture is a recognition that every persons life and their humanity is more important than a persons ethnic inheritance. This peace culture only develops when every citizens humanity is valued above that citizens ethnic/religious inheritance. Where a citizens’ vote is sought and cast on the basis of human worth rather than on perceived inheritance or identity. Empowering local grassroots communities, including women and youth, to get involved in community peace-building, job creating, etc., will give hope and build self-belief, confidence and courage.

Post conflict we know how long and difficult the task before us. We accept this challenge to change ourselves and deepen our virtues of compassion, empathy, love, so necessary to change our society. Seeing the person in every one and loving and serving them will help us transcend selfishness, bigotry and sectarianism. Deepening our relationships, with family, friends, society, will keep us strong and give us wisdom and courage in the hard times. In a spirit of enjoyment and enthusiasm, aware of the beauty of life, creation, within and without, we can live joyfully each moment and celebrate  the gift of being alive.

We join with everyone around the world to build a demilitarized peaceful world. We thank Pope Francis for his clear moral/spiritual leadership in calling for the abolition of the death penalty and Nuclear Weapons. It is an illusion that we are in control and that these weapons give us security. Above all for any of us to harbour the thought that we have the right to use nuclear weapons and commit genocide is the most disturbing thing of all. We have yet to learn the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An apology to the Japanese people by the US Government, those responsible  for the genocidal act of using Nuclear bombs will help the healing of relationships and ensure such genocidal acts will never happen again. The policy of Nuclear weapons, show that we have lost our moral compass. It is long overdue that we abolish nuclear weapons and put resources, human and financial, into abolishing poverty and meeting human security as set out in UN Development goals.

However, we need to do more than this. Be brave and imaginative. Join together for a common vision – the total abolition of Militarism and war. We do not need to limit ourselves to civilizing and slowing down militarism, (which is an aberration and system of dysfunction), but demand its total abolition. We can offer a new hope to suffering humanity. Follow the vision of Nobel on global co-operation to remove the scourge of militarism and war, and implement the architecture of peace based on Human Rights and International Law.

People are tired of armaments and war, which release uncontrollable forces of tribalism and nationalism. These are dangerous and murderous forms of identity and above which we need to transcend, lest we unleash further violence upon the world. Acknowledge that our common humanity and human dignity is more important than our different religions and traditions. Recognize our life and the lives of others are sacred and that we can solve our problems without killing each other. Accept and celebrate diversity and otherness. Heal the old divisions and misunderstandings. Give and accept forgiveness and choose love, non-killing and nonviolence as ways to solve our problem.

Peace and Justice are necessary, and the ways of dialogue and diplomacy must be seriously undertaken, must be insisted upon by the International Community, as shown in the Iranian nuclear deal, and as could work for a North Korean Peace Treaty. We can transform the erroneous mindset that violence and threats of violence works, weapons and war can solve our problems. Punitive Policies do not bring peace.

We can take courage and confidence, from the fact that the Science of War, is  being replaced by a Global Science of Peace based on love, Harmony, reverence for life and creation. Thank you to Pope Francis and the Vatican Dicastery for Promoting Integral Disarmament. Your work of diplomacy, mediation, fearlessly speaking Truth to Power whatever the cost, gives hope to all of humanity.

***

Mairead Corrigan Maguire, co-founder of Peace People, is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment. She won the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize for her work for peace in Northern Ireland. Her book The Vision of Peace (edited by John Dear, with a foreword by Desmond Tutu and a preface by the Dalai Lama) is available from www.wipfandstock.com. She lives in Belfast, Northern Ireland. See: www.peacepeople.com.

Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion is reportedly gaining traction in Europe, especially Germany. Over 2,500 foreign mercenaries are currently fighting on their side in E. Ukraine – three times more than in 2014, Spiegel reports, citing security authorities.

The threat of mass famine in Yemen is as real as ever — in spite of the reopening of the port of Aden and the Wadea land crossing on the Saudi-Yemen border. This is not enough, according to the UN Office of Humanitarian Aid (OCHA). The blockade of all ports especially Hodeida should be lifted immediately. Most humanitarian aid goes through ports other than Aden.

The government of Saudi Arabia had imposed a total blockade of all Yemen’s seaports, airports and land crossings on the 6^th of November 2017. This was in response to the firing of a missile from Yemen on the 4^th of November that was brought down near Riyadh’s international airport. The Saudi Heir Apparent, Muhammad bin Salman, the country’s de facto ruler, has alleged that the missile was supplied by Iran and represents “an act of war.” Tehran has denied the allegation.

However, Tehran does provide moral support to the Houthi rebels who control the capital, Sanaa, and most of Western Yemen.  These rebels have been fighting against the government of Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who is backed by Saudi Arabia, for a few years now. The Houthis are also linked to the former president of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Salleh.

The Houthis who have lauded the firing of the missile insist that they had manufactured it. They justify the missile attack as retaliation for the Saudi bombing and killing of Yemeni civilians which has been going on since early 2015. The bombing has destroyed Yemen’s water and sanitation systems. Hospitals and schools have been targeted. Farms and factories have also been subjected to aerial bombardments. Even residential areas have not been spared.  Thousands have died as a result of the military action of the Saudi-led coalition. Earlier UN reports observed that children in particular have suffered a great deal, not just directly from the bombing but also indirectly from the rapid spread of communicable diseases such as cholera. In fact, 2100 people (including a lot of adults) have died of the disease since April 2017 and the number is expected to increase to 1 million by the end of December this year.

It is against this backdrop that chief of OCHA Mark Lowcock pleaded with the UN Security Council on the 8th of November to act with a sense of urgency. He warned that there will be a famine in Yemen, exacerbated by the blockade. He stated bluntly that,

“It will be the largest famine that the world has seen for many decades, with millions of victims.”

Lowcock noted sombrely that the Yemen Humanitarian Response Plan tasked with addressing the crisis is only 57 % funded with just 1.3 billion US dollars out of the 2.3 billion needed to prevent millions from dying of starvation and disease.

Women and men of conscience everywhere should respond to this grim situation by persuading their governments to pressurise the Saudi leadership to end the sea, air and land blockade at once, without conditions. Humanitarian aid organisations should have free and unimpeded access to all segments of society in North and South Yemen.The UN should also at the same time revitalise its drive to collect more funds from not only member-states but also well-heeled corporations and philanthropic bodies right across the board.

Perhaps of all governments it is the US administration that has the greatest influence and impact upon Saudi Arabia. It is in a position to coax Prince Muhammad bin Salman to remove the blockade. It can ensure that aid reaches everyone through legitimate channels. If the American people also come forward to help the Yemeni people through fund-raising activities, it may prompt people in other countries to also reach out.

Of course humanitarian assistance however generous is not the real solution. Given the nature of the conflict and the crisis in Yemen, the various parties concerned will have to forge an enduring solution through mediation and negotiation. It is not just the various actors who are directly involved in the conflict that should come to the negotiating table. Saudi Arabia and Iran should also play their role. So should the United States.

There must be a willingness on the part of everyone to compromise, to make meaningful concessions. There must be a realization that there is no military solution especially since the whole world has witnessed what the use of force can lead to — the death and devastation it causes and the sorrow and suffering it engenders. Right from the outset, there was only one solution, a non-violent political solution.

And the only institution which is in some position to bring everyone to the negotiating table is the United Nations, specifically the UN Secretary-General. Antonio Guterres has been deeply concerned about the tragedy in Yemen from the time he assumed the office of Secretary-General on the 1^st of January 2017. If he can end the bloody conflict and help formulate a solution, he will earn his spurs. The entire human family which yearns for peace in Yemen and elsewhere would be eternally grateful to him and to the UN.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

One of the most significant developments to emerge from US President Donald Trump’s current Asia tour is the extent to which far-reaching changes in the structure of the world economy have undermined the once unchallengeable dominance of US imperialism.

This shift has far-reaching geopolitical consequences. It is the essential driving force behind the ongoing efforts by the United States to reverse its decline by military means.

Washington’s increasing economic isolation was visible at every stage of Trump’s visit.

In his address to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit meeting in Da Nang, Vietnam, on Friday, Trump railed against the World Trade Organisation (WTO), saying it benefitted other countries at the expense of the US. Henceforth he would seek bilateral deals based on the principle of “America First.”

After days of wrangling, however, the APEC summit statement pledged to “fight protectionism.” It said ministers “recognise the work of the WTO in ensuring international trade is rules-based, free, open, fair, transparent in predictable and inclusive.” It committed members to “cooperate to improve the functioning of the WTO.”

A side meeting of the 11 remaining members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—the economic bloc proposed by the Obama administration from which Trump withdrew immediately upon taking office in January—agreed to try to secure an agreement without the US.

Full TPP agreement had been expected to be announced on Saturday but Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau withdrew at the last minute. Canada is believed to have problems with sections of the agreement concerning “cultural issues” and proposed rules governing Japanese auto parts sales. The Canadian position is also complicated by negotiations with the US over changes demanded by the Trump administration to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The proposed TPP deal remains alive, however. Following the Canadian move, the TPP 11, led by Japan, said they had reached agreement on “core elements.” Negotiations would continue on a Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a title adopted at Canada’s request.

Officials said they planned to sign a final agreement next year that would eliminate tariffs on 95 percent of goods traded in the bloc, covering 500 million people and $10 trillion in economic output.

In a clear sign of the divisions with the US, Japanese Economy Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said: “This will send out a very strong message to the US and to other Asia-Pacific countries.”

In Japan last week, Trump pointed to America’s $69 billion trade deficit with that country and called for more “reciprocal” trade. He suggested that Japanese automakers “try building your cars in the United States instead of shipping them over.” The Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association responded by pointing out that 75 percent of Japanese-branded vehicles sold in the US are built in North America.

Following Trump’s visit, Japanese Finance Minister Taro Aso pointedly issued a statement that Japan would not enter a bilateral agreement with the US to resolve the trade imbalance.

In China, Trump railed against “out of kilter” economic relationships between the two countries, reflected in the $347 billion trade surplus China enjoys with the US. Much of this surplus, however, results from US firms using China as a base for their global operations, as well as the supply of Chinese materials to US corporations.

Conscious of Trump’s desire to present his visit as a success, the Chinese regime accorded him red carpet treatment and facilitated a signing ceremony for some $250 billion worth of corporate deals. It was largely an exercise in smoke and mirrors.

Bloomberg noted:

“The headline number is impressive. A quarter trillion dollars’ worth of deals from China that … Trump can use to show he’s creating opportunities for US businesses and jobs for his base. The reality, however, is that the roughly 15 agreements unveiled on Thursday are mostly non-binding memorandums of understanding and could take years to materialize—if they do at all.”

Significantly, there was no agreement on giving US companies more access to Chinese markets or on opening up the Chinese financial system to the US—two key demands Washington has pursued for years.

Summing up Trump’s Asia visit, one business leader cited by the Financial Times said:

“I think everyone was polite to him and they want to make him think they are all chummy and willing to do things with him. But I have to think in some ways they are laughing behind his back, and certainly the Chinese are. I don’t think any of them have any intention of getting into a deal with him, certainly not on the terms that he wants.”

Michael Froman, the chief US negotiator for the TPP under the Obama administration, said the agreement of the TPP 11 to push ahead showed that “our allies and partners” continued to value tearing down trade barriers. “Clearly, as the US retreats, the rest of the world is moving on.”

Trump’s Asia visit has underscored the mounting problems US imperialism confronts globally on the geo-economic front.

The multilateral trade framework the US put in place after World War II, now enshrined in the WTO, is increasingly seen as working against its interests. This assessment is not just that of the Trump administration. It was also the essential motivation for the TPP, which the Obama administration developed as part of its “pivot to Asia” to counter China’s rise.

At the same time, Trump’s demands for countries to enter bilateral trade arrangements with the US are not going to be met. No country wants to place its head in the jaws of the lion for it to be bitten off under Trump’s “America First” program.

In others words, there is no economic avenue for the US to change its position within the present order. Hence the drive to assert its interests through military force.

Throughout Trump’s Asia visit, the pressure continued against North Korea—in the final analysis aimed at China. And Trump’s continued references to the Indo-Pacific, rather than the Asia Pacific, began to acquire flesh. A meeting was convened in Manila on Sunday between US, Japanese, Australian and Indian officials for “exploratory talks” on a regional “security architecture.”

The proposal for such a “quad” was first raised in 2007 at Japan’s instigation but receded into the background. It “has now bounced back with a vigour few would have expected just a year ago,” according to Harsh V. Pany, professor of international relations at King’s College, London. “The reason is simple: there is growing nervousness in the regional power centres in the Indo-Pacific about China’s emergence as a major global power.”

While the “quad” meeting was not at a ministerial level, the US is clearly pushing for a coalition of the region’s supposed “democracies” as a strategic and military counterweight against China.

Notwithstanding its economic differences with the US, Tokyo evidently sees the “quad” as a means for pushing its strategic interests against China. India has similar motivations. Australia has been a frontline supporter of the US in every war over the past quarter century, both to promote its own interests in the region and because of its economic dependence on the US financial system.

The disintegration of the relations that regulated world capitalism, so palpably on display during Trump’s Asia visit, mean that the US push to find a military solution to its mounting economic problems will accelerate in the coming period.

As COP23 enters its high-level segment, Friends of the Earth International has urged developed countries to stop blocking progress on pre-2020 finance and emissions reductions, and to commit to taking action on the ground.

It added that calls for action during the people’s climate march in Germany last week, where 20,000 people mobilised to call for an end to dirty energy, must be matched at the negotiations.

Meena Raman of Friends of the Earth Malaysia said:

“We come every year to the COP feeling like a broken record. Instead of showing real ambition, developed countries including those in the EU are blocking pre-2020 action – they are in bed with the US to screw the planet. We in civil society are calling on these governments to honour their commitments. They are failing even to honour their weak but legally binding Kyoto Protocol targets. What hope is there that they will fulfill their unambitious non-legally binding Paris commitments?”

Sara Shaw of Friends of the Earth International added:

“We only have a few years left to keep global temperature rise under 1.5 degrees and avoid even more devastating climate impacts for the poorest and most vulnerable people. We urgently need an end to dirty energy in the North, and we need massive financing for sustainable renewable energy in the South. Those who call themselves ‘climate leaders’ like the EU are actually expanding fossil fuels within their own borders, funding dirty energy overseas, and failing to deliver finance for energy transformation in the South. This is not leadership.”

During the first week of COP23, Friends of the Earth Europe issued a report showing that the EU cannot expand gas infrastructure and stay within its fair share of the global carbon budget.

Mary Church from Friends of the Earth Scotland said:

“People are frustrated with the lack of urgency on climate change in the EU and other developed countries. We have seen this on the streets of Bonn with the biggest ever climate protest in Germany, and the direct action that closed a nearby coal pit. People’s movements are growing in strength and starting to bring about the real change that’s needed to respond to the climate crisis.”

Raman concluded:

“Developed countries, who bear historic responsibility for climate change, are seeking to rewrite the terms of the Paris Agreement shifting responsibility onto developing countries. This is unethical, unfair and immoral. We need real climate action on the ground and to hold all governments to account to ensure real transformation away from dirty energy, and towards a clean energy system that benefits people.”

Featured image is from Friends of the Earth International.

Almost on a daily basis the recounting of circumstances involving the killings of four United States Green Berets in the West African state of Niger has shifted.

Even senior members of the Senate have stated that they had no idea that Pentagon troops were conducting offensive operations in the country. Niger, a former French colony, is ranked as the world’s fourth largest producer of uranium, a fact which has been interestingly omitted from the limited discourse on the deaths of the troops deployed under the banner of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

A recent report published in the Washington Post claims that the only African American soldier in the group of dead troops, Sgt. La David Johnson, had been kidnapped and killed execution style. Purportedly, people living in the area where Johnson’s body was discovered indicated that his hands were bound behind his back with a gaping wound in the rear of his head. (Nov. 10)

Other reports say that the Nigerien troops, who were ostensibly on a patrol mission with the AFRICOM forces, fled while the Green Berets stood and fought the alleged assailants. Who these “hostile elements” were has still not been clearly defined. What has been mentioned is that they are somehow affiliated with ISIS. (Guardian, Nov. 4)

AFRICOM in a statement issued on November 12 said it was investigating the incident in order to report its finding to the family of the slain soldiers. Nonetheless, the family of Johnson complained about what they described as the insensitive nature of a phone call received from President Donald Trump in the aftermath of the news reports of the Green Beret’s death.

Family members of Johnson also noted that they were prohibited from viewing what was said to have been the remains of the African American soldier. They, along with Congresswoman Fredrica S. Wilson of Florida, have expressed their dissatisfaction with the response of the White House, particularly the subsequent utterances of administration chief of staff Gen. John Kelly, who came to the defense of Trump saying that the president’s actions were appropriate.

U.S. Military Misrepresents African Interventions

A report published on the AFRICOM website dated October 23 utilizes what many may consider to be racist terminology in regard to the character of Niger and other African states. This attitude was echoed by members of Congress as well as the White House.

This article by AFRICOM writer Jim Garamone said:

“ISIS seeks to survive in the dark corners of the world where local inhabitants lack the power and expertise to control the violent group, Dunford (Pentagon chair) said. ISIS operates where it can exploit weaknesses in local government and local security forces, he added. Libya, Somalia, West Africa, certain places in Central and Southeast Asia are places where ISIS and like groups choose to operate.”

Later in this report Garamone quotes the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Marine Corps Gen. John Dunford as saying:

“If you think of those enablers as connective tissue between groups across the globe, our strategy is to cut that tissue, while enabling local security forces to deal with the challenges within their countries and region. Our soldiers are operating in Niger to build the capacity of local forces to defeat violent extremism in West Africa. Their presence is part of a global strategy.”

The same article goes on to make even more contradictory claims stressing:

“The United States is working with nations around the world to improve their military capabilities and capacities, Dunford said. U.S. troops, he added, have been working with forces from Niger for 20 years, the general said, training more than 35,000 soldiers from the region to confront the threats of ISIS, al-Qaida and Boko Haram.”

Yet the Boko Haram insurgency which originated in neighboring Nigeria only began in 2009 after the country’s military attacked the headquarters of the organization in Maiduguri city in Borno state in the northern region. Prior to this time period Boko Haram had largely functioned as an above-ground group focused on its own notions of the Islamic region.

ISIS arose after the collapse of the Pentagon occupation strategy in Iraq over the last six years when Washington sought to curtail growing Iranian influence in the region. Even al-Qaeda had not been cited as an existential threat in West Africa prior to recent years. This was clearly not the case in 1997 as Dunford asserted.

Moreover, what is never addressed is the supposed strategic and security interests of the U.S. in Niger, West Africa and the continent as a whole. The presence of Pentagon military forces in Africa has rapidly grown over the last decade.

These policies have been consistently implemented through successive administrations both Republican and Democratic. The destruction of Libya, Ivory Coast and Sudan all occurred during the administration of President Barack Obama.

Obama continued to prop up the western-oriented regime in the Horn of Africa state of Somalia where genuine stability and security remain elusive. Constructing drone stations in Niger is part and parcel of a broader strategic plan to further dominate Africa military and economically.

The Sahel region of West Africa is a treasure trove of valuable minerals and other natural resources including oil, gold, uranium and natural gas. U.S. military occupations although said to be based on cooperative efforts between the host governments and Washington, clearly the Pentagon represents the interests of international finance capital based on Wall Street.

Much is made within the western press that the intervention of AFRICOM follows the request of regional states. These governments however, are not in any position to refuse Pentagon interference in their internal affairs. If they dare to challenge the purported authority of the White House to send special units of the U.S. military into their countries they of course will face the concerted efforts to remove their administrations from office.

In fact in Mali during early 2012, a U.S.-trained lower-ranking military officer staged a coup against an elected government. There was no level of remorse or contrition expressed by the-then Obama White House.

Niger People Must Assess Present Course

Obviously, the White House along with Wall Street corporations view the African continent as a source of wealth through the exploitation of natural resources including land and waterways. The question is what will the Niger people gain from this Pentagon military intervention which appears to have no end in sight?

Since its independence from France in 1960, the country has been subjected to draconian debt impositions of finance capital. Under the military occupation of the Pentagon such problems will not be overcome. Military and economic “support” from the U.S. comes inevitably at a heavy price. There is the entire history post-colonial Africa to attest to this analysis.

Just three weeks after the killing of the four AFRICOM soldiers, demonstrations erupted in Niamey, the capital, against the economic policies of President Mahamadou Issoufou. The unrest was prompted by an austerity budget which is the stock and trade of neo-colonialism led by the U.S.

According to a report on the protest actions:

“Twenty-three police were hurt and a police station was set on fire in demonstrations against financial reforms late Sunday (Oct. 30) in the Niger capital of Niamey, the interior minister and private TV stations reported. The police commissariat at the Habou Bene market, the country’s biggest trading spot, was torched and the front of the building housing the Independent National Electoral Commission (CENI), Niger’s voting watchdog, was vandalized, private television reported.” (Citizen, Oct. 30)

The report goes on to report that:

“Local civil society organizations have for weeks been denouncing the 2018 budget for imposing austerity on one of the poorest countries on the planet…. More than 80 percent of Niger is covered by the Sahara desert. Its economy has been affected by falls in both oil prices, which it officially began exporting in 2011, and uranium, of which it is a major exporter…. The country also has to spend resources to combat attacks by Boko Haram, whose Islamist insurgency has spilled over from Nigeria, as well as from jihadists, including the Islamic State group, near the border with Mali.”

These developments portend much for the future political situation in Niger. Regional African states should take notice of the parallel between U.S. military presence and social instability.

In the long term African Union (AU) member-states and their affiliates such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) must eventually move towards independent economic and security policies. Otherwise the dependency upon the West will undermine efforts aimed at genuine growth and prosperity.

Featured image is from the author.

Each day we get more “Russian influence” and “Russian hacking” claptrap. Like this from the once honorable Wired which headlines:

Here’s the first evidence Russia used Twitter to influence Brexit

Russian interference in Brexit through targeted social media propaganda can be revealed for the first time. A cache of posts from 2016, seen by WIRED, shows how a coordinated network of Russian-based Twitter accounts spread racial hatred in an attempt to disrupt politics in the UK and Europe.

Interesting, enthralling, complicate and sensational … … until you get down to paragraph 14(!):

Surprisingly, all the posts around Brexit in this small snapshot were posted after the June vote.

“Russian-based Twitter accounts” influenced the Brexit vote in the UK by tweeting affirmative AFTER the vote happened.

“Russian agents” influenced the U.S. election by buying irrelevant Facebook ads – 25% of which were never seen by anyone and 56% of which were posted AFTER the election.

During a flight of his recent Asia tour U.S. President Donald Trump held a press gaggle on board of the plane. Part of it were questions and answers about the alleged “Russian hacking” of the U.S. election.

There is no public transcript available yet but the Washington Post’s Mark Berman provided a screenshot of some relevant parts:

Mark Berman @markberman – 6:20 AM – 11 Nov 2017Full comment from @realDonaldTrump again questioning the US intel community conclusion that Russia meddled last year

Note that the three (not four, not seventeen) U.S. intel agencies Berman talks of did not come to “conclusions” as he claimed. They delivered an “assessment” (pdf) – their word – an estimate or judgement based on observation of behavior and other vague data. Its Annex B points out:

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

In the gaggle transcript attached to Berman’s tweet Trump talks about his short encounter with the Russian President Putin in Hanoi:

Q: When did you bring up the issue of election meddling? Did you ask him a question?A: Every time he sees me he says he didn’t do that and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it. But he says, I didn’t do that. I think he is very insulted by it, …
…
He says that very strongly and he really seems to be insulted by it he says he didn’t do it.

Q: Even if he didn’t bring it up one-on-one, do you believe him?

A: I think that he is very, very strong on the fact that didn’t do it. And then you look and you look what’s going on with Podesta, and you look at what’s going on with the server from the DNC and why didn’t the FBI take it? Why did they leave it? Why did a third party look at the server and not the FBI? You look at all of this stuff, and you say, what’s going on here? And you hear it’s 17 agencies. Well its three. And one is Brennan. And one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They’re political hacks. So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey. Comey’s proven now to be a liar and he’s proven to be a leaker. So you look at that. And you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently say he has nothing to do with that. Now, you are not going to get into an argument, you are going to start talking about Syria and the Ukraine.

Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of “Russian hacking”: Podesta and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack, the NYT’s long false insistence on the ’17 agencies’ assessment, the “political hacks” who fitted their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative.

But neither the Washington Post nor the NY Times or others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is no word on the DNC email server in them, nor of Podesta. Instead they create a claim of “Putin says and Trump just believes him”. They do not name the facts and questions Trump listed in support of his position. Taking up the valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them. We can’t have that.

Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies. But he understands that the “Russian hacking” narrative is false and is carried forward by lunatic political hacks and hostile media who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else.

Featured image is from The Hacker News.

After nine months of confusion, chaos, and cascading tweets, Donald Trump’s White House has finally made one thing crystal clear: the U.S. is staying in Afghanistan to fight and — so they insist — win. “The killers need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American might,” said the president in August, trumpeting his virtual declaration of war on the Taliban. Overturning Barack Obama’s planned (and stalled) drawdown in Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced that the Pentagon would send 4,000 more soldiers to fight there, bringing American troop strength to nearly 15,000.

In October, as that new mini-escalation was ramping up, the CIA leaked to the New York Times news of a complementary covert surge with lethal drone strikes and “highly experienced” Agency paramilitary teams being dispatched to “hunt and kill” Taliban guerrillas, both ordinary fighters and top officials. “This is unforgiving, relentless,” intoned CIA Director Mike Pompeo, promising a wave of extrajudicial killings reminiscent of the Agency’s notorious Phoenix Program during the Vietnam War. CIA paramilitary officers, reported the Times, will lead Special Forces operatives, both Afghan and American, in expanded counterterrorism operations that, in the past, “have been accused of indiscriminately killing Afghan civilians.” In short, it’s game on in Afghanistan.

After 16 years of continuous war in that country, the obvious question is: Does this new campaign have any realistic chance of success, no less victory? To answer that, another question must be asked: How has the Taliban managed to expand in recent years despite intensive U.S. operations and a massive air campaign, as well as the endless and endlessly expensive training of Afghan security forces? After all, the Afghan War is not only the longest in U.S. history, but also one of the largest, peaking at 101,000 American troops in country during President Obama’s surge of 2010-2011.

Thinking About the Taliban

Americans have been hearing about the Taliban for so long that most fail to appreciate just how relentless that movement’s growth has been in recent years. In the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, the Bush White House unleashed a lethal combination of U.S. airpower and CIA-funded Afghan warlords to crush the fundamentalist Taliban and capture the Afghan capital, Kabul, with stunning speed. Not only was that Islamist movement and its government defeated, but it lost so many dedicated militants to those devastating air attacks that it was seemingly smashed beyond repair or revival. Nonetheless, within five years, the Taliban was back in force, already fielding 25,000 fighters. By 2015, it was in control of more than half the countryside, had captured district capitals, and was even pounding at the gates of major provincial cities like Kunduz.

As with any movement, there are multiple reasons for the Taliban’s success, including the failure of the government in Kabul — a cesspit of corruption — to deliver anything like rural prosperity, the country’s martial tradition of fighting foreign occupiers, and Pakistan’s sub-rosa support, as well as the wide-open sanctuaries in its tribal backlands along the Afghan border. But there is one other factor, more fundamental than all the rest: the opium poppy.

The Taliban guerrillas are, like many insurgent armies, largely made up of teenagers who fight, at least in part, for cash to feed their families. Every spring for the past 15 years, as snow melts from mountain slopes across that country, new crops of such teenage recruits emerge from impoverished villages ready to take up arms for the rebel cause. Each of them reportedly makes at least $300 a month, far more than they could possibly hope to earn from the usual agricultural wages.  In other words, it takes an estimated $90 million in salaries alone for the Taliban to field its 25,000 strong guerrilla army for a single fighting season. With an overall budget approaching a billion dollars annually, the cost of the insurgency’s 15-year war rings in at something close to $15 billion.

So where, in that impoverished, arid land, has the Taliban been getting nearly a billion dollars a year? According to the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, a single Afghan province, Helmand, “produces a significant amount of the opium globally that turns into heroin and… provides about 60 percent of the Taliban funding.” The country’s president, Ashraf Ghani, a former World Bank official, agrees.

“Without drugs,” he’s said, “this war would have been long over. The heroin is a very important driver of this war.”

The Taliban’s rise has paralleled the relentless growth of Afghanistan’s opium production from a mere 185 tons when the U.S. invaded in October 2001 to a still-unequalled yield of 8,200 tons in 2008, a harvest that provided an unprecedented 53% of the country’s gross domestic product and 93% of the world’s illicit heroin supply. That same year, the U.N. stated that Taliban guerrillas were extracting “from the drug economy resources for arms, logistics, and militia pay.” A study for the U.S. Institute of Peace also found that, in 2009, the Taliban already had 50 heroin labs in its territory and controlled 98% of the country’s poppy fields, collecting $425 million in “taxes” levied on the opium traffic.

By the time Obama’s 2010 surge segued into an exit strategy four years later, observers were unanimous in their assessment that opium had become central to the Taliban’s survival. Despite a succession of “drug eradication” programs sponsored and funded by Washington, the Pentagon’s Special Inspector for Afghanistan Reconstruction, John Sopko, concluded in 2014 that, “by every conceivable metric, we’ve failed. Production and cultivation are up, interdiction and eradication are down, financial support to the insurgency is up, and addiction and abuse are at unprecedented levels in Afghanistan.”

The 2013 opium crop covered a record area of 209,000 hectares, bringing the harvest back up to a substantial 5,500 tons. This massive crop generated some $3 billion in illicit income, of which the Taliban’s tax alone took an estimated $320 million — almost half that movement’s revenues. The U.S. Embassy corroborated this dismal assessment, calling the illicit income “a windfall for the insurgency, which profits from the drug trade at almost every level.”

The Failure of Antinarcotics Efforts

As 2017 ends, with the White House poised for another four-year plunge into the Afghan abyss, has anything changed that might weaken the Taliban and so spare Washington from a defeat foretold? To answer this question, John Sopko has been armed with a Congressional mandate to probe all forms of failure there and already has five years of experience in this difficult mission.  Recently, he drafted a scathing review of Washington’s failed 15-year effort to reduce Afghan opium production and thereby defeat the Taliban. This 150-page draft report, Counternarcotics: Lessons from Afghanistan, 2002-2016, depicts a drug-policy disaster only likely to ensure an ever-increasing income for the Taliban to fight an endless war. When read in tandem with the U.N.’s annual opium surveys, Sopko provides ample evidence that Trump’s decision to double down in that country is almost certainly doomed to failure.

A man in an opium-yielding poppy field, Dara-i Mazor, Nurgal district, Kunar province, Afghanistan (May 2017)
Image Credit: Franz J. Marty

Over the past 15 years, all counter-narcotics efforts by the U.S., Great Britain, and the U.N. have failed to slow the country’s drug production. “Opium remains the country’s most valuable cash crop,” says Sopko, “worth around $3 billion per year at border prices.” It provides, he adds, “up to 411,000 full time equivalent jobs, more than the number of people employed by the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces.”

Despite the expenditure of nearly $9 billion on its counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan, Washington has presided over what Sopko calls a “dramatic expansion of opium poppy cultivation from less than 8,000 hectares grown in 2001 to 200,000 hectares in 2016.” By then, the opium crop represented morethan two-thirds of the country’s agricultural output. Meanwhile, 11% of the population is now estimated to be using illicit drugs, one of the world’s highest addiction rates.

The U.N.’s crop survey for 2016, compiled by hundreds of Afghan enumerators who regularly walked through the poppy fields — and corroborated by sophisticated satellite imagery — adds yet more somber strokes to this picture. That year, at 5,600 tons the opium harvest was again up substantially (by 43%). In the same period, opium eradication efforts fell by 91% to a mere 355 hectares of the crop destroyed, or less than 2% of all illegal poppy fields in the country.

Since the start of its intervention in 2001, Washington and its drug war allies have tried every possible counter-narcotics option. All, without exception, have failed. The bulk of the U.S. budget ($4.3 billion) was allocated to interdiction efforts, but ample funds were left for more experimental approaches, none of which seem to have worked.

As much as Washington’s drug policies failed, the U.N. efforts were, in Inspector Sopko’s view, even less effective. During the first decade following its 2001 invasion, Washington was obsessed with counterterror operations and so outsourced the drug war to others. It delegated opium suppression to the British and police training for interdiction to the Germans. In this critical period, the U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) maneuvered to fill the leadership void.

In what was then seen as a clever political gambit, the U.N. argued, according to Sopko’s report, that “it was necessary to destroy 25 percent of the standing poppy crop each year in order to deter future planting,” in the process justifying the employment of thousands of Afghan peasants to pull up poppy plants. Defending that crop suppression program, Antonio Maria Costa, the Soviet-trained Italian economist who then headed UNODC, declared, according to Sopko, “that there was no relationship between poppy cultivation and poverty.” From his high modernist headquarters in Vienna, Costa pledged “to reduce poppy cultivation by 70 percent in five years and eliminate the crop altogether in ten years” — a claim that soon proved laughable.

Near the start of Washington’s Afghan adventure in 2002, the U.S. military, the CIA, and the country’s American-supported president, Hamid Karzai, had little interest in or next to no knowledge of the drug problem. Other actors with far less power — the U.S. embassy in Kabul, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, the World Bank, and the European Commission, among others — all made periodic forays into antinarcotics work. Funds for such operations ebbed and flowed, while new initiatives were regularly launched without significant analysis of or thought about past policies.

In this chaotic process, as Sopko points out, “interdiction efforts failed to fundamentally alter or impact the Afghan drug trade in a meaningful way. In 2017, poppy cultivation and opium production seemed destined to reach a record high and the Taliban continued to derive funding from the drug trade.”

A Short-Lived Military Solution

Amid this succession of policy failures, only one program, in Sopko’s view, had a discernible impact on drug production: the launching of a massive occupation of the country’s key southern opium districts by the U.S. military and the Afghans they were training.  Checkpoints were set up at almost every road crossing. “In Marjah,” he reports, “located in the opium poppy heartland of Helmand Province, the share of agricultural land dedicated to poppy was almost 60 percent prior to the major influx of U.S. and Afghan forces. After Operation Moshtarak, in which 15,000 U.S. Marines and the ANDSF [Afghan National Defense and Security Forces] occupied the district in February 2010, the amount of land dedicated to poppy fell to less than 5 percent.” By the end of that year, 20,000 leathernecks in 50 fortified bases, backed by 10,000 British troops, had temporarily wrested control of the province from the Taliban guerrillas and checked the opium traffic that had sustained them.

Apart from their omnipresent checkpoints, the Marines also introduced the Marjah Accelerated Agricultural Transition program.  It offered opium farmers an incentive package of cash, wheelbarrows, shovels, new water pumps, and all-important safe-conduct passes to move securely through this war zone. Despite the Taliban’s “night letters… forbidding locals from interacting with coalition forces,” the Marines were encouraged that more than 1,000 local farmers signed up for the program.

In the end, however, it wasn’t sustainable.  Four years later in 2014, as American troop levels in the country were beginning to fall, General Daniel Yoo stood before his Marines at Camp Leatherneck in Helmand Province and announced that they would all soon be heading home, leaving the province’s security in the hands of their Afghan allies.

“I am cautiously optimistic that they will be able to sustain themselves,” the general said, “but they’ve got to want it more than we do.”

Within a year, the Taliban were back, stronger than ever. Amid a nationwide offensive, the guerrillas focused, above all, on recapturing the poppy heartlands of Helmand Province, because, as the New York Times put it, “the lucrative opium trade made it crucial to the insurgents’ economic designs.” By December 2015, after overrunning checkpoints and winning back much of the province, they came close to capturing Marjah itself. Had American Special Operations forces and airpower not intervened to relieve “demoralized” Afghan troops and police, the town would undoubtedly have fallen.

Farther north, in the fertile poppy fields astride the Helmand River system, insurgents captured most of Sangin district, forcing the retreat of government soldiers who, hobbled by the endemic corruption of their government and military, were reportedly “fighting with lack of ammunition and on empty stomachs.” By 2016, President Obama was forced to reverse his drawdown and launch a mini-surge of hundreds of new U.S. troops to deny insurgents the economic prize of the world’s most productive poppy fields.

Despite support from American airpower and 700 Special Operations troops, in February and March 2016 embattled government forces retreated from Musa Qala and Khan Neshin, leaving the Taliban largely in control of 10 of Helmand’s 14 districts. After 3,000 government troops died in that Taliban offensive, the remaining demoralized forces hunkered down inside provincial and district capitals, leaving the countryside and the opium crops that went with it to the heroin-funded guerrillas.

In the midst of all that fighting, Helmand’s farmers managed to expand their poppy cultivation to 80,000 hectares by 2016, which represented 40% of the entire country’s drug production.

Sophisticated Methodology

Not only did this problematic drug war fail to curtail the traffic, but it also alienated the rural residents the government so desperately needed to win over. Worse yet, in the end it actually encouraged illicit opium production — a frequent outcome in Washington’s worldwide drug war that I once called “the stimulus of prohibition.”

Using sophisticated satellite imagery, Sopko’s team, for example, found a troubling disconnect between areas that received development aid from Washington or its allies and those that were subjected to opium eradication programs. In strategic Helmand and Nangarhar provinces, for instance, satellite photographs clearly reveal that the various drug eradication projects ripped through remote areas where “the population was highly dependent on opium poppy for its livelihoods,” rendering poor farmers destitute.  The development aid was, however, lavished on more accessible, largely drug-free districts near major cities elsewhere in Afghanistan, leaving countless thousands of farmers in critical rural areas angry at the government and susceptible to Taliban recruitment.

Even liberal development alternatives to those rip-up-the-poppies programs, claims Sopko, only served to stimulate opium production in surprising ways. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), for instance, spent $36 million on irrigation for a showcase Food Zone project, meant to promote the growing of legal crops in southern Kandahar Province.  As it happened, though, this important infrastructure program actually turned out to contribute “to rising levels of opium poppy cultivation” — an unintended outcome that could be seen in similar “irrigation projects in provinces like Nangarhar, Badakhshan, and Kunar.”

Next door to Kandahar in central Helmand Province, another Food Zone program initially helped reduce the opium crop by 60%. But as British agronomist David Mansfield reports, by the spring of 2017 an “unprecedented” proliferation of poppies covered up to 40% of the farmland targeted by that project; guerrillas were back in force; and farmers felt, as one put it, that “the Taliban is better than the government; they don’t ban poppy, they just ask for tax.” By now, of course, given all the years of bungled anti-drug programs, Mansfield concludes that the Kabul government has little hope of wresting “back control of central Helmand.”

USAID programs that emphasized increased wheat production proved similarly counterproductive.

“With higher-yielding varieties and improved agricultural technologies,” writes Sopko, “households in the well-irrigated central valleys of rural Afghanistan would be able to meet their family wheat requirements with a smaller part of their land,” allowing “a larger area… to be allocated to [the] high-value… opium poppy.”

An Uncertain Future

Corroborating Sopko’s pessimism, a recent report by Mujib Mashal of the New York Times depicted the worsening Afghan drug situation as the product, in part, of Washington’s failed policies. Fueled by a booming opium harvest, the Taliban has recently expanded from poppy growing into large-scale heroin production with an estimated 500 labs refining the drug inside Afghanistan — part of a strategy aimed at capturing a greater share of the $60 billion generated globally by the country’s drug exports.

Out of the whole opium eradication project, the National Interdiction Unit, an Afghan outfit trained by U.S. Special Forces, is more or less what’s left when it comes to hopes for reducing the traffic in drugs. Yet their nighttime helicopter interdiction raids on mobile, readily reconstructed heroin labs are proving futile and their chief, reports Mashal, was recently sacked for “probably leaking information to hostile forces.” U.S. military commanders now realize that local Taliban bosses, enriched by the heroin boom, have nothing to gain from further peace negotiations, which remain the only way of ending this endless war.

Meanwhile, the whole question of opium eradication has, according to Mashal, gotten surprisingly “little attention in the Trump administration’s new strategy for the Afghan war.” It seems that U.S. counter-narcotics officials have come to accept a new reality “with a sense of helplessness” — that the country now supplies 85% of the world’s heroin and there’s no end to this in sight.

So why has America’s ambitious $9 billion counter-narcotics program fallen into failure again and again? When such illegality corrupts a society as thoroughly as opium has Afghanistan, then drug trafficking comes to distort everything — giving even good programs bad outcomes and undoubtedly twisting Trump’s headstrong plans for victory into certain defeat.

Think of the never-ending war in Afghanistan as Washington’s drug of choice of these last 16 years.

Alfred W. McCoy, a TomDispatch regular, is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of the now-classic book The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert operations over 50 years, and the recently published In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power (Dispatch Books).

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Trump calling himself a “good mediator” to help resolve regional disputes is laughable coming from a warrior president.

Warriors don’t negotiate or mediate. They fight, America waging war on humanity at home and abroad, risking nuclear war in multiple theaters…

In Hanoi during a press conference with Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang, before heading to Manila, the final stop of his five-nation Asia/Pacific tour, Trump boasted about being “a very good mediator and arbitrator.”

What he considers mediation and arbitration, China and other nations call unacceptable meddling in their internal affairs.

Disputes in Asia are for countries involved to negotiate and resolve, free from US interference, serving its own interests, not theirs.

Trump’s hardline APEC address criticized what he unacceptably called China’s “territorial expansion” – a US specialty, not Beijing’s.

His tone differed markedly from boasting about good relations with his Chinese counterpart, a reality check on bilateral relations, more hostile than cordial.

China and Russia are the two key nations, preventing America from achieving its unchallenged global dominance objective, especially unity and growing ties between them politically, economically and militarily.

Vietnamese President Quang stopped short of rejecting Trump’s offer, saying

“(i)t is our our policy to settle disputes in the South China Sea through peaceful negotiations (with) respect for diplomatic and legal process in accordance with international law.”

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was more direct, saying

“(w)e have to be friends. The other hotheads would like us to confront China and the rest of the world on so many issues.”

“The South China Sea is better left untouched. Nobody can afford to go to war.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping told Duterte he rejects confrontation that would “waste the lives of my countrymen for a useless war that cannot be won by anyone,” adding:

“China (will) work with ASEAN countries to maintain peace and stability, as well as development and prosperity in the South China Sea region.”

Xi rejects US meddling in Beijing’s internal affairs, likely explained diplomatically during his meeting with Trump.

His “America first” agenda doesn’t go down well abroad. Nor does his rage for war. Asia-Pacific countries reject it.

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

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

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

The recent leak of a classified Israeli Foreign Ministry cable sent to all Israeli diplomatic facilities worldwide points to the subterfuge being engaged in by Israel and Saudi Arabia to effectuate political discord in Lebanon and a Saudi military confrontation with Iran.

The recent leak of a classified Israeli Foreign Ministry cable sent to all Israeli diplomatic facilities worldwide points to the subterfuge being engaged in by Israel and Saudi Arabia to effectuate political discord in Lebanon and a Saudi military confrontation with Iran.

The cable instructs Israeli diplomats to ratchet up diplomatic pressure against Lebanese Hezbollah and Iran.

The Israeli plan saw an opportunity in the fact that the new regime in Saudi Arabia headed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) was able to force Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, a longtime puppet of the Saudis, to resign his post from Saudi soil.

The Israeli cable also urged its missions abroad to pressure foreign governments to support Saudi Arabia’s war against the Houthis in Yemen. Iran is a major backer of the Houthis, who adhere to the Zaidi sect of Islam, which has strong religious ties to the Shi’as who govern Iran and lead Hezbollah, as well as to the Alawite sect of Islam in Syria. .

The Israeli cable, in its English translation from Hebrew, states to Israeli diplomats, “You need to stress that the Hariri resignation shows how dangerous Iran and Hezbollah are for Lebanon’s security.” Although many Middle East political observers believe an alleged Houthi intermediate-range missile attack on King Khalid International Airport was more fiction than fact, the Israelis, no strangers to “false flag” military and intelligence operations, ordered its diplomats to demonstrate to their host government that, “The missile launch by the Houthis towards Riyadh calls for applying more pressure on Iran and Hezbollah.”

The leak of the Israeli cable followed two events in Saudi Arabia. The first was the de facto internal coup d’état launched by MbS against perceived enemies of his father, King Salman. The coup followed by a few days the second major event: a secretive trip made by President Donald Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner to Riyadh. Kushner and MbS remained awake for many evenings until 0400 the next morning, jointly “planning strategy.” Kushner was accompanied to Riyadh by the Cairo-born US deputy national security adviser Dina Powell, a supporter of the government of the pro-Saudi Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and White House Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt, a strong supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and a close friend of the Kushner family.

As seen from the leaked Israeli cable, Kushner, Greenblatt, Powell, and MbS were strategizing a series of events that would push the Middle East toward a major Sunni/Wahhabist war, with the backing of Israel, against Iran, Lebanon, and the Houthi government in Yemen.

MbS’s coup against senior princes of the House of Saud effectively changed the regime from “Saudi” to “Salmani.” MbS was a prime motivator behind the creation of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or “Da’esh,” in Iraq and Syria; the chief architect of the genocidal Saudi-led war in Yemen; and the driving force behind the Gulf Cooperation Council’s economic and travel sanctions imposed on Qatar. MbS, working with Kushner and the Israelis, also want to lure the United States into a major military conflict with Iran.

Rather than being a reformer or “moderate,” MbS hearkens back to an age when rival sheikhs and tribal leaders vied for control over wide patches of desert lands in Arabia. MBS’s ongoing coup d’état against rival princes of the House of Saud points to his determination to become an autocratic ruler over Saudi Arabia once his father, King Salman, leaves the scene. Although MbS has curbed the power of Saudi Arabia’s dreaded religious police and allowed women the right to drive to gain popular support for his own “Salmani” movement in Saudi Arabia, his Salmani regime has shown an inclination to brook no political dissent, as seen with MbS’s arrests of powerful Saudi princes, businessmen, and moderate Wahhabist clerics.

Some Middle East experts see MbS’s rapid rise to power as eventually achieving the same autocratic rule over Saudi Arabia as that commanded by the founder of the modern Saudi state, Abdulaziz bin Saud, in the 1930s. And like Abdulaziz bin Saud, MbS has no problem cooperating with Zionists to achieve his goals.

Historical documents and biographies show that the Abdulaziz, or Ibn Saud as he is commonly known, had no problem in expressing support in 1953 to Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the president of the World Zionist Organization and, later, the first president of the State of Israel, for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. In a memo written for President Franklin Roosevelt, Lt. Col. Harold B. Hoskins, the president’s Middle East envoy, reported that Ibn Saud accepted the Zionist plan for a Jewish state in return for a £20,000,000 bribe paid to Ibn Saud by Weizmann. The recent “deal” between the Saudis and Israelis would appear to involve a bribe of a US war with Iran, backed by Riyadh and Jerusalem, that would mutually satisfy Trump and Kushner, in addition to Netanyahu and MbS.

MBS’s rise to a prominent role within the House of Saud began in earnest in October 2011 when Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz died. The present King, Salman, who had been Governor of Riyadh province, became second deputy prime minister and defense minister in November 2011. Salman made MbS his personal adviser and armed with that wide portfolio, the young prince helped initiate the jihadist rebellion in Syria against President Bashar al Assad and the uprising against Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. MbS also aided his father in helping to brutally crush a pro-democracy uprising in Bahrain.

In November 2012, Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Salman’s brother, died. Salman was named Crown Prince and First Deputy Prime Minister. Salman basically ran Saudi Arabia’s domestic affairs while his half-brother, King Abdullah, was out of the country, which was often. Crown Prince Salman’s penchant for charitable contributions to poor majority Muslim countries, which was shared by MbS, saw Saudi funds flow into the coffers of Wahhabist radical groups in Somalia, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Sudan.

In January 2015, King Abdullah died at the age of 90 and Salman succeeded to the Saudi throne. The former chief of the Saudi Intelligence Agency, Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, was named Crown Prince by Salman. Muqrin’s reign did not last long. In April 2015, Salman replaced Muqrin with his nephew, the Interior Minister, Prince Muhammad bin Nayef al-Saud. MbS was named defense minister. On June 21, 2017, in what can be described as the beginning of a “creeping coup,” Crown Prince Nayef was deposed by Royal Decree. In what would portend future events a mere four months later, Nayef was reportedly held under house arrest at his palace and pressured to renounce his claim to the throne. King Salman moved quickly to name MBS the new Crown Prince.

In September 2017, MBS detained some of the top clerics in Saudi Arabia, including Salman al-Ouda, who, as being independent from the Saudi state Wahhabist infrastructure, was known to favor reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Al-Ouda’s two compatriots, Awad al-Qarni and Ali al-Omary, were also arrested.

Former Crown Prince Nayef is said to have remained under house arrest until MBS made his sudden move against other members of the House of Saud on November 4, 2017. Declaring the foundation of a new Saudi anti-corruption committee, MbS placed under house arrest at least 12 Saudi princes, including multi-billionaire international investor and Kingdom Holding Company Chairman Prince Alaweed bin Talal al-Saud, MbS also fired and arrested the commander of the Saudi National Guard, the son of the late King Abdullah, Prince Miteb bin Abdullah and replaced him with MBS loyalist Prince Khalid Bin Ayyaf Al-Muqrin.

Many senior officials of the late King Abdullah’s government are being systematically purged by MbS and his loyalists. They include Prince Turki bin Abdullah, a former governor of Riyadh province, and Khaled al-Tuwaijri, the chief of the Royal Court under Abdullah. At the same time MbS was rounding up princes and ministers in Riyadh, a helicopter carrying Prince Mansour bin Muqrin, the deputy governor of Asir province and seven other senior Saudi officials, crashed near Abha in Asir Province, near the border with Houthi-controlled north Yemen. Prince Mansour was the son of former Crown Prince Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz, who was ousted in 2015 in favor of Salman. On November 6, the Saudi Royal Palace expressed its condolences on the death of 44-year old Prince Abdul Aziz. Reports out of Saudi Arabia stated that the prince died as the result of gunshot wounds after his security guards exchanged fire with police loyal to MbS, who were sent to arrest him.

Trump, on a trip to Asia, tweeted his total support for the MbS coup. With the subterfuge of MbS, Kushner, and the Israelis, Trump is waltzing the United States into a potentially disastrous confrontation with Iran and a total breakdown of the tenuous political status quo in the Middle East.

Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club.

Featured image is from the author.

The United Nations Climate Change Conferences are held each year in the framework of the relevant treaty that was opened for signature in 1992.

This treaty aims at addressing climate change by imposing on all treaty signatories the obligation to reduce the emissions of the gases that are said to cause the greenhouse phenomenon. It requires the industrialized countries – in contrast to the developing countries – to achieve stabilization at the levels of 1990.

The distinction between industrialized and developing countries derives from the assertion that the industrialized countries are responsible for the greater part of global emissions of greenhouse gases and also that they possess the institutional and financial ability  to limit them. As a member  of the European Union, Greece is included among the industrialized countries.

The first UN climate change conference was held in Berlin in 1995. The most recent, the 23rd, is being held at this moment (12^th November 2017) in Bonn. The Presidency this year is held by Fiji. At the UN climate change conferences the presence of civil society has been conspicuous from the outset in the sense that there is participation by NGOs concerned with environmental problems, and indeed not only environmental problems but also problems of equality, relations between the sexes, etc. Many of the activists are committed to what is known as climate justice, something evidently based on a supposition of deliberate human intervention in the climate, because if the climate is determined by Mother Nature, or even a combination of Mother Nature and the unintentional effects of  industrial development, it appears pointless to speak of justice, because presumably Mother Nature follows her own rules which are not dictated by the desires of human beings.

Apart from the influence of NGOs on the discussions there is an additional factor, which is noted by the organization Carbon Trade Watch, a group opposed to emissions trading, one of the central elements of UN methodology for the climate.

According to Carbon Trade Watch in the years that have passed since the first conference in Berlin we see the discussions moving further away from identification of the real causes of climate change, along with a spiraling of the negative effects, influencing ever wider areas and ever larger populations. Each year we see a more powerful presence of big corporations and a weaker influence of those suffering the damage.

The climate crisis has been transformed into an opportunity for new businesses, new sources of profit. Climate policies foster the financialization of nature. The elements of nature – carbon dioxide, water,  biodiversity, become measurable units, which can be bought and sold and also become the object of stock exchange speculation.

Of course the NGOs oppose these developments, and the result is that the United Nations conferences have become a battlefield between large and small vested interests. Because they are increasingly losing the ability to influence developments at governmental level, the organizations that are being funded to participate in the conferences increasingly resort to the media, staging public relations stunts which sometimes resemble reality shows.

The growing distance between the summit and the base was addressed initially through stricter policing. At Cancun in 2010 and Durban in 2011, according to the activist Anne Petermann, official permission was required for every demonstration and protest. Even wearing a T-shirt with an unacceptable slogan on it was enough to get oneself thrown out of the conference. By the time of the 2015 Climate Summit in Paris a system of apartheid had grown up with a geographical distance of kilometres separating the officials on one hand from civil society on the other.

The greatest turmoil was produced by the functions that had maximum coverage from the media. If we can judge from the experiences of some of us in Paris, where we demonstrated around an issue that is buried totally and systematically by the television and the press, namely climate manipulation, the way in which we were treated by the police was finally more polite and their interest greater than in the case of subjects that had attracted the interest of the media, where both the demonstrators and the police were more aggressive and more closed.

As indicated, at this year’s conference in Bonn, Fiji has the presidency, and the focus of media attention was on the Pacific Climate Warriors. The aim of the Pacific Climate Warriors is abolition of fossil fuels. In October 2014 they blockaded the harbour of Newcastle in Australia, the country’s largest coal exporting port.  Last week, to return to the present, the Pacific Climate Warriors blocked the entrance to a lignite mine in the Rhineland in German y.

Both in Australia and in Germany, not to mention other countries, the turn to renewable energy sources, chiefly from sun and wind, is facing many problems, which are not exclusively attributable to political pressure from the oil and mining lobbies. The Australian state that has made the greatest turn to renewables, particularly wind parks, now has the most expensive electricity in the world, and is plagued by blackouts. Many poor families can no longer afford to have electricity in their homes. Those who have their backs to the wall politically are not just the Greens and the Labor Party but also the big centre-right parties that have supported the turn to renewable energy sources. The nuclear lobby, which had been defeated in Australia on the electricity generation front, is staging a comeback and entering the fray with powerful arguments against industrial wind farms and solar installations.

In Germany both nuclear energy and wind farms have lost the confidence of the public, with the result that new lignite burning power stations are being built. The arguments against wind power are focused on the damage that ultrasound can do to human health,  and also to bats, which it attracts, to be killed by the rotors, and then  the damage that is being caused to wide expanses of unspoilt countryside, and the fact that wind parks do not sufficiently reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

One Carbon Trade Watch activist Ivonne Yanez from Ecuador even floats the idea that the policy of leaving 70% of fossil fuels in the ground may be supported by a section of the oil lobby with a view to securing higher prices.

In any case, in the final analysis although Greece is a member of the European Union and regarded as an industrialized country and not a developing country, the fact is that we are not in the same category as those who can fund the Pacific Climate Warriors to stage demonstrations in Australian industrial cities. We are in the same category as these people from so-called underdeveloped countries who tell us that that their property Is under threat, their land, their survival in their present way of life. And I hope that we are not going to be satisfied with staging reality shows and the politics of the spectacle. We want to be citizens with functioning institutions and with the ability to defend ourselves and defend genuine sustainable development.

As western media and politicians relentlessly continue to spew forth warnings to their hapless populations about the ever present and growing “Russian threat”, only today: 12-11-2017 NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg has told Europe to “Prepare for a Russian invasion”. Let us take a moment to analyse just who exactly among the hundred and fifty million odd Russians in the world actually constitute a threat to “the West”, to anywhere else or indeed, to other Russians.

For the rest of this article, I will use the term “the West” to define the rulers, as well as the public faces (politicians, journalists etc) of North America, the rest of the Anglo Saxon world and western and northern Europe i.e. the geopolitical alliance whose leaders have once again declared war on the Russian world.

So who are the most dangerous Russians in the world today? Are they, as the west so desperately needs you to believe, the Russian government and its president Vladimir Putin?

A resounding NO is the only possible answer that any sane, rational and even slightly informed conscious individual could give.

If I had to think of one word to sum up the behaviour of the Russian government over the last four years it would be: “ZEN”!

The West started openly provoking Russia in the early 2000s but since the attempt to attack Damascus by the US in 2013 was thwarted by Russia, (and some say China too) Russia has been subjected to endless and very extreme provocations which can only be interpreted as being designed to goad Russia into making the first move towards war with the West.

Whether the Western rulers actually want a third world war now and nuclear Armageddon (We have all read the stories and seen the photos of what are allegedly the luxury underground “bunkers” that the ruling elites have been preparing for themselves to inhabit while the rest of us burn at their bidding) or, whether they are arrogant and self deluded enough to think that Russia will just capitulate to their will if faced with the threat of all out war or that the population of Russia is actually oppressed and ready to rise up against its leadership for the chance to be “liberated”, or whether they believed that the Russian armed forces remain as inefficient, ill equipped, demoralised and potentially disloyal as they seemed to be, or at least as we in the west were told they were, in the years immediately after the collapse of the USSR and thus war with Russia this time round will be a pushover, I cannot tell but these provocations have been extreme and extraordinarily dangerous on the part of the west.

The violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government by the US and EU in February 2014 could oh so easily, if hotter heads had been in charge in the Kremlin, have led almost immediately to WW3.

It is clear that the Russians did not expect such an extreme move from the West and were caught napping. If Putin was the kind of person who allows himself to be eaten by personal pride or whipped into action while smarting from loss of face and even a few of his ministers and advisers were of a similar hue we could all be radioactive dust by now.

Clashes in Kyiv, Ukraine. Events of February 18, 2014 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The fact is that under Putin’s leadership, Russia has simply absorbed and dissolved every attack the west has thrown at it resorting to physical, military action only when considered absolutely necessary but also, crucially, when the possibility of success without bringing the west into a major, immediate armed conflict seemed virtually assured. The saving of Crimea and its population and the Russian intervention in Syria at the Syrian governments behest being the two most prominent examples.

The Russian restraint in retaliating in kind and refusing to be dragged into war has left the west increasingly exposed, at least to the more perceptive among its own population and others around the world, as the aggressive, lying, land grabbing force it actually is and has led to increasing frustration among the west’s rulers culminating in a petulant frenzy of provocations in the dying months of the Obama regime.

Ultimately, this outstanding display of disciplined “Zen” self control from the Russian leadership may not avert the all out war that the West appears to crave so much but it certainly has done so up until now and will still be talked about in a thousand years time assuming we somehow survive.

If ordinary citizens of the West can still go ordinarily about their ordinary business, it is thanks to team Putin in the Kremlin and certainly not their own governments.

 

What’s going on in Saudi Arabia?  Over 200 bigwigs detained and billions of ‘illegal profits’ of some $800 billion confiscated. 

The kingdom is in an uproar.  The Saudi regime of King Salman and his ambitious 32-year old son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, claim it was all part of an ‘anti-corruption’ drive that has Washington’s full backing.

Utter nonsense.  I’ve done business in Saudi Arabia since 1976 and can attest that the entire kingdom, with its thousands of pampered princes and princesses, is one vast swamp of corruption.  In Saudi, the entire nation and its vast oil revenues are considered property of the extended Saudi royal family and its hangers-on.  A giant piggy bank.

The late Libyan leader Muammar Khadaffi told me the Saudis are ‘an incredibly rich bunch of Bedouins living behind high walls and scared to death of their poorer neighbors.’

We have just witnessed a palace coup in Riyadh caused by the violation of the traditional desert ruling system which was based on compromise and sharing the nation’s riches.

Young Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s appointment as heir apparent by his ailing father, King Salman, who is reportedly suffering from cognitive issues, upset the time-proven Saudi collegial system and provoked the current crisis.  Among the people arrested so far were 11 princes and 38 senior officials and businessmen, including the nation’s best-known and richest businessman, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who owns important chunks of Apple, Citigroup and Twitter. He’s being detained at Riyadh’s swanky Ritz Carlton Hotel.

Also arrested was Bakr bin Laden, chairman of the largest Saudi construction firm, The Binladen Group, and former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, a bitter rival to the new Crown Prince Mohammed.

Interestingly, there are no reports of senior Saudi military figures being arrested.  The Saudi military has always been kept weak and marginalized for fear it could one day stage a military coup like the one led by Colonel Khadaffi who overthrew Libya’s old British stooge ruler, King Idris.  For decades the Saudi army was denied ammunition.  Mercenary troops from Pakistan were hired to protect the Saudi royals.

The Saudis still shudder at the memory of British puppets King Feisal of Iraq and his strongman, Nuri as-Said, who were overthrown and murdered by mobs after an  Iraqi army colonel, Abd al-Karim Qasim, staged a coup in 1958.  Nuri ended up hanging from a Baghdad lamppost, leading Egypt’s fiery strongmen, Abdel Nasser, to aptly call the new Iraqi military junta, ‘the wild men of Baghdad.’

More mysteries arose this tumultuous week. One of Saudi’s most influential princes, Mansour bin Muqrin, died in a mysterious crash of his helicopter, an ‘accident’ that has the smell of sabotage. Another key prince, Miteb, was ousted.  He was commander of the famed ‘White Guard,’ the Saudi Bedouin tribal army designed to protect the monarchy and a former contender for the throne.  Meanwhile, three or four other Saudi princes were reportedly kidnapped from Europe and sent home, leading to rumors that Saudi’s new ally, Israel, was involved.

It appears that Prince Mohammed and his men have so far grabbed at least $800 billion from those arrested to refill the war-depleted Saudi coffers.  Call this a traditional Arab tribal raid – except that no women or horses were seized.

But behind all this lies the stalemated Saudi war against wretched Yemen, the Arab world’s poorest, most backwards nation.  Saudi Arabia has been heavily bombing Yemen for over a year, using US-supplied warplanes, munitions, including cluster bombs and white phosphorus, and US Air Force management.  A Saudi blockade of Yemen, aided by the US, has caused mass starvation and epidemics such as cholera.

When I first explored Yemen, in the mid 1970’s, it was just creeping out of the 12^th century AD.  Today, it’s been bombed back into the 6^th Century.

In spite of spending over $200 million daily (not including payoffs to `coalition’ members like Egypt) the Saudis are stuck in a stalemated conflict against Yemen’s Shia Houthi people.  The US and Britain are cheerfully selling bombs and weapons to the Saudis.  President Donald Trump has been lauding the destruction of Yemen because he mistakenly believes Iran is the mainstay of the anti-Saudi resistance.

Yemen is a horrible human rights disaster and scene of widespread war crimes.  It reminds me of the savagery inflicted on Afghanistan by the Soviets in the 1970’s.

The Saudis were fools to become involved in Yemen. Prince Mohammed was going to show the tough Yemeni tribes who was boss.   Now he knows, and it’s not the Saudis.

The Saudis appear to be planning military provocations against bad neighbour Iran. These may include attacks in Lebanon against Hezbollah – which might open the way for US attacks on Iran and its allies.  The Saudis are enraged over their defeat in Syria and want revenge.

Is this the beginning of the collapse of the House of Saud?  Or a Saudi renaissance led by Prince Mohammed as he claims? Stay tuned.

“North Star” was a Hollywood box-office success, released in 1943, when the US and the USSR were allies in fighting Nazi Germany. 

The film produced by Samuel Goldwyn, directed by Lewis Milestone featuring Ann Baxter and Dana Andrews, acknowledges the Soviet Union’s  courageous resistance against Nazi Germany. It puts forth a pro-Soviet perspective, focussing on the heroic struggle of Communist partisans in a Ukrainian village fighting against Germany’s Wehrmacht in liaison with the Soviet Union’s Red Army. 

Screenshot, New York Post, July 15, 2014

Three years later, the Cold War was launched by the Truman administration.

About-turn. Hollywood becomes a relentless  instrument of propaganda directed against America’s former ally, portraying Communism and the Soviet Union as a threat to Western democracy.  

Hollywood spy movies in the 1950s (with the CIA fighting Communist KGB agents) broadly complied with Washington’s anti-communist rhetoric, culminating with the McCarthy era and the present post-Cold war propaganda Russia-Gate narrative directed against the Kremlin. 

The final segment of “North Star” is a powerful message of peace and solidarity. Read it carefully.

“All people will learn and come to see that wars do not have to be.

We will make this the last war.

We will make a Free World for all men.

The Earth belongs to us, the people, if we fight for it. And we will fight for it”

(Anne Baxter as Marina Pavlova in North Star, 1943, 1.44′)

Michel Chossudovsky, October 20, 2017, November 13, 2022

***

In a peaceful Ukrainian village, the school year is just ending in June 1941. Five young friends set out for a walking trip to Kiev, but their travels are brutally interrupted when they are suddenly attacked by German planes, in the first wave of the Nazi assault on the Soviet Union. When the village itself is attacked and occupied, most of the men flee to the hills to form a guerrilla unit. The others resist the Nazis as well as possible, but soon the village is placed under the command of a Nazi doctor who begins using the town’s children as a source of constant blood transfusions for wounded German soldiers. Meanwhile, the small group of young persons tries desperately to take a supply of firearms to the guerrillas.

Also Known As: Armored Attack

Director: Lewis Milestone

Writers: Lillian Hellman (original story and screenplay), Burt Beck (additional dialogue in new edition)

Stars:

Anne Baxter as Marina Pavlov
Dana Andrews as Kolya Simonov
Walter Huston as Dr. Kurin
Walter Brennan as Karp
Ann Harding as Sophia Pavlov
Jane Withers as Clavdia Kurin

Info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036217/

Copyright: Samuel Goldwyn Production, 1943

 

The climate crisis is upon us. It seems that every report on climate conditions has one thing in common: things are worse than predicted. The World Meteorological Report from the end of October shows that Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) are rising at a rapid rate and have passed 400 parts per million. According to Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “the changes we’re making today are occurring in 100 years, whereas in nature they occur in 10,000 years.”

The United States is experiencing a wide range of climate impacts from major hurricanes in the South to unprecedented numbers of wildfires in the West to crop-destroying drought in the Mid-West. In October, the General Accounting Office reported that the US has spent over $350 billion in the last decade on disaster relief and crop insurance, not counting this year’s hurricanes. These costs will continue and rise.

We are past the time to make a major commitment to the transformation we need to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis. Imagine the benefits that such a commitment would have in creating a cleaner environment, better health and more jobs and, if structured in a way that is democratized and benefits the public, in ending environmental racism and economic injustice.

Climate talks in Germany

The 23rd session of climate talks is taking place right now in Bonn, Germany. The United States formally withdrew from its commitment to the Paris climate treaty, but delegations of people from the US are in attendance to show their commitment to addressing the climate crisis. A group of organizations, such as 350.org and Indigenous Environmental Network, presented their climate platform as “the people’s delegation.” They are calling for a just transition to a fossil-free future and an end to market schemes to offset carbon use.

The people are expressing their demands for more action on the climate in multiple protests around the COP23. Ahead of the climate talks, on Saturday, November 4, tens of thousands of people marched in Bonn to demand an end to fossil fuels. The march kicked off a series of direct actions and alternative events to take place during the talks. On November 8, the one year anniversary of the election of Donald Trump, activists organized a “Climate Genocide” day of action in Bonn and around the world. On Saturday, November 11, thousands marched in Bonn again to protest the use of nuclear energy. The talks conclude on November 17.

The Trump Administration sent a delegation to the climate talks with the goal of protecting the fossil fuel industry. John Cushman of Inside Climate News writes,

“the U.S. is straddling a climate credibility gap, with the Trump administration’s policies on one side of an abyss and what the government’s own scientists know about climate change with increasing certainty on the other.”

100% renewable energy is necessary and possible

If there is to be any possibility of mitigating the climate crisis, then action must be taken immediately to end the use of dirty energy, otherwise lower carbon emissions and sequester carbon. While some are saying that we have 18 years before we hit the limits of our “carbon budget,” scientists Stephen Davis and Robert Socolow report that when all sources of carbon and carbon commitments are taken into account, we will hit the limit in 2018.

Organizations and government agencies have pointed out that the Paris climate treaty goals are not enough to mitigate the climate crisis. On Tuesday, the United Nations Environment Program released a report calling for faster and more rapid cuts in emissions than are outlined in the treaty. This can be achieved by closing coal plants and moving to renewable sources, improving energy efficiency, protecting and planting more forests and changing agricultural practices to sequester carbon in soil.

The good news is that it is possible to reduce carbon quickly, and it will lower energy costs, improve health and create jobs. A study released at the COP23 shows that we can move to  zero carbon energy worldwide by 2050. This would be largely based on solar energy with additional energy from wind, water and a small percentage from biomass, although biomass is not considered to be a sustainable source of energy.

David Schwartzman reminds us that although we have the knowledge and resources to move quickly to 100% renewable energy, two major obstacles are the Military Industrial Complex and capitalism. He writes,

“All is contingent on the growing strength of multi-dimensional, transnational class struggle, [and] on the convergence of movements for climate, energy, environmental justice and for peace and demilitarization.”

Reaching our goal

Just as is necessary for other struggles, achieving our goals of mitigating the climate crisis in a way that is sustainable and equitable will require the dual track approach of resistance and constructive programs. There are signs that this work is being done in the North America.

Resistance to new fossil fuel infrastructure is working. This summer, Enbridge stopped its North East Direct gas pipeline project in New England. This fall, TransCanada withdrew its Energy East Pipeline project, which would have transported “1.1 million barrels of oil per day from Alberta, Saskatchewan and North Dakota across the country through a 4,500-kilometre route that would end at a terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick.”

There is strong opposition to pipelines throughout the United States, from the ongoing fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline to the Bayou Pipeline to multiple pipelines in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland and West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina. And efforts continue to stop the first fracked gas refinery and export terminal on the East Coast as it nears completion. The terminal being built by Virginia-based Dominion Energy in the Cove Point neighborhood of Maryland (the first to be built in such a densely-populated area) will drive fracking in the Utica and Marcellus shales and raise gas prices in the US.

Pipeline companies report that their biggest problem is opposition to their projects. It should come as no surprise that the industry is fighting back. This was very obvious in the #NoDAPL protests at Standing Rock. Chase Iron Eyes, who is being prosecuted for inciting a riot against the Dakota Access Pipeline, will be using a necessity defense to demonstrate that he was acting out of necessity to protect water his family relies on.

This week, pipeline protesters in Massachusetts were met with police dogs and stun guns. Mark Hand recently discovered that the industry is “in the ‘early stages’ of putting together a campaign to counter opposition to fracking and pipelines,” including creating grassroots groups.

Some communities are protecting themselves by banning projects. South Portland, Maine has spent over $1 million to defend its pipeline ban. Ohio activists recently won a court victory allowing them to vote on local fracking bans. Others are taking on the banks that fund the projects. On Monday, more than 200 people painted a giant mural on the street in front of Wells Fargo, creating an effective street blockade in the process.

Food is a large contributor to carbon emissions through animal cultivation for meat, destroying forests for crops and transportation of food over long distances. The UN urged this week that we move to a meat-free and dairy-free diet for the climate (and it would also be good for our health).

Our food system could contribute to the solution. Organic farming practices can sequester large amounts of carbon in the soil. On top of that, the large food co-operative, Organic Valley, announced this week that it is committed to using 100% renewable energy by 2019, starting with community solar projects. Rooftop solar is “creating well-paying jobs at a rate that’s 17 times faster than the total U.S. economy.”

Our climate imperative

If we are to have a livable future, we must act rapidly. Failure to act will have devastating impacts. Studies suggest that there may be as many as one billion climate refugees by 2050. Climate change is contributing to migration into cities and poverty, causing food insecurity. People in North America are not immune to this, as recent hurricanes, wildfires and droughts reveal.

The climate crisis is also bad for our health and will cause an additional 250,000 deaths per year. In addition to direct effects, such as heat stroke, injuries from catastrophes and longer allergy seasons and mental health impacts from stress, the climate crisis is also increasing vector-borne diseases.

Every crisis offers an opportunity for radical positive transformation. As we act to address the climate crisis, let’s do it in ways that change systems so they are equitable, just and non-discriminatory. Our actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change can work to democratize the economy through cooperatives, energy creation by individuals on their rooftops and land, public banks and gift economies, to improve our health through clean water, air, organic foods and low cost public transit, and to bring peace to the world by ending US imperialism.

It can be so, if we act with intention to make it that way.

Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese are co-directors of Popular Resistance where this article was originally published. All images are likewise from the author.

You can help Global Research make information available to the widest possible readership. Our contributors and correspondents are scattered across the globe in order to report the issues with accuracy and insight.

We ask that you consider making a donation to Global Research with a view to supporting our battle against mainstream media disinformation.

*     *     *

Art of the Deal: Behind Saudi-Lebanon Crisis Is Trump’s Middle East ‘Peace Project’

By Patrick Henningsen, November 13, 2017

The recent ‘forced’ resignation by Lebanese PM Saad Hariri in Riyadh under the influence of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and subsequent threats by Saudi Minister Thamer al-Sadhan against Lebanon and Hezbollah – have puzzled analysts as to the motivation behind this seemingly irrational series of events.

Saudi Authorities Arrested Prince Bandar in Sultan, “The Engineer of the Syrian War”

By South Front, November 13, 2017

The Saudi Authorities arrested Prince Bandar bin Sultan as a part of the anti-corruption” purge that was launched by Saudi Arabia King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and his Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, according to a report of the Middle East Eye (MEE) online news portal.

Secret Document: Saudis, Israel Working Together to Provoke War in Lebanon

By Joyce Chediac, November 12, 2017

Only a day after major ISIS defeats in Syria and Iraq indicated that fighting may be winding down, an extraordinary series of events raised the danger of a new war, this time against Lebanon. These events began on Nov. 4 when Saudi Arabia destabilized Lebanon’s government by forcing Prime Minister Saad Hariri’ to resign, and led to the Saudi government false claim on Nov. 7 that Lebanon had “declared war” on that kingdom.

Mohammed Bin Salman Drains the Saudi Swamp

By Andrew Korybko, November 11, 2017

The future King has been much more successful in this endeavor that Trump due to the fundamental differences in political systems and leadership culture, which has seen him decisively neutralize a broad swath of pro-American challengers for the throne and their supportive conspirators under the pretext of an anti-corruption campaign.

Muhammd Bin-Salman’s Purge in Saudi Arabia Is the Prelude to Something Bigger

By Abdel Bari Atwan, November 11, 2017

Our region stands on the brink of war. We should not let small details — such as the resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri’s resignation or the detention of princes and former ministers in Saudi Arabia — divert us from the big picture and the real developments taking place behind the scenes.

Real Motive Behind Saudi Purge Emerges: $800 Billion in Confiscated Assets

By Zero Hedge, November 10, 2017

From the very beginning, there was something off about Sunday’s unprecedented countercoup purge unleashed by Mohammad bin Salman on alleged political enemies, including some of Saudi Arabia’s richest and most powerful royals and government officials: it was just too brazen to be a simple “power consolidation” move; in fact most commentators were shocked by the sheer audacity, with one question outstanding: why take such a huge gamble?

Featured image: Port City Klaipėda (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

A NATO defense ministers meeting that took place in Brussels on November, 8-9, resulted in the new and very important decisions for the future of Europe.

Speaking at a meeting, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said it is vital that European roads, ports, bridges and rail networks are able to carry tanks and heavy military equipment. Stoltenberg also added that NATO countries have agreed to cooperate to improve civil infrastructure objects to make them usable for military needs.

What does it mean in practice for Europe in general and for the Baltic States in particular?

The Lithuanian authorities, for example, will for sure try to attract NATO attention to the capabilities of its largest sea port – Klaipėda on the Baltic sea. As it is well known, that Klaipėda is one of the few ice-free ports in northernmost Europe, and the largest in Lithuania. It serves as a port of call for cruise ships as well as freight transport. The port was always an important gateway of trade between East and West. But times have changed.

The gateway is open now only for the West. The East day by day refuses services because EU economic sanctions against Russia that Lithuania actively supports have caused Moscow’s response: i.e. redirection of its traffic to other ports.

Moreover, the Russian Ministry of Transport has declared that the redirection of Belarusian oil products from the Baltic ports to Russian ones will begin already in 2017.

The Lithuanian government seeks new partners to raise money in order to support the Klaipėda port which is experiencing difficulties due to the loss of Russian and Belarus transit.

Does the Lithuanian government intend to propose to NATO a more active use of its largest port for military purposes?

Evidently that is the easiest way to cope with the economic problems by means of somebody else. As usual the authorities do not think about the consequences of such steps.

The Baltic States have firmly established themselves as the most begging countries in Europe. And every new step in their foreign policy worsens their image and forecloses their sovereignty. Inevitably Russia will see in Klaipėda’s militarization a  serious threat to its security.

The image of main potential victim of Russia doesn’t make Lithuania stronger in the eyes of large political players and the time will come when nobody will take Lithuania as a self-sufficient partner. Making Klaipėda a military port Lithuania puts an end to any possibility to return Russian and Belarus goods to the port.

NATO promises new roads, bridges, new railway networks, airports and sea ports without concern regarding the new wave of misunderstanding and the increased security risks in the region.

In 1983 the British government created Chevening as an international award scheme aimed at developing what it calls “global leaders.” It is funded and directed by the United Kingdom’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and includes both scholarships and fellowships for individuals selected by British embassies around the world.

The Chevening website itself states:

Chevening offers a unique opportunity for future leaders, influencers, and decision-makers from all over the world to develop professionally and academically, network extensively, experience UK culture, and build lasting positive relationships with the UK.

The website also states that (our emphasis):

Chevening Awards are an important element in Britain’s public diplomacy effort and bring professionals, who have already displayed outstanding leadership talents, to study in the UK. The objective of Chevening is to support foreign policy priorities and achieve FCO objectives by creating lasting positive relationships with future leaders, influencers, and decision-makers.

In other, simpler and more frank terms, Chevening is a means of producing agents of British influence through the indoctrination of foreigners involved in their respective nation’s media, politics, policy making and analysis.

And while Chevening has only been around since 1983, the tool of imperialism it represents is quite ancient.

Roman historian Tacitus (c. AD 56 – after 117) would adeptly describe the systematic manner in which Rome pacified foreign peoples and the manner in which it would extend its sociocultural and institutional influence over conquered lands.

Far from simple military conquest, the Romans engaged in sophisticated cultural colonisation.

In chapter 21 of his book Agricola, named so after his father-in-law whose methods of conquest were the subject of the text, Tacitus would explain:

His object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He therefore gave official assistance to the building of temples, public squares and good houses. He educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts, and expressed a preference for British ability as compared to the trained skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing the Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the population was gradually led into the demoralizing temptation of arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets. 

And perhaps the most striking observation of all made by Tacitus was as follows:

The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as ‘civilization’, when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.

Centuries later, Chevening alumni boast openly about their scholarships and fellowships. It is included in their bios on social media and prominently featured in biographies and résumés that accompany editorials and job applications.

They believe it to be a high rung upon the ladder of civilisation that they have reached, when in reality, it is nothing more than a modern-day feature of indoctrination, manipulation and exploitation.

Chevening Alumni’s Busy Hands 

Chevening and programmes like it have built cadres for British, European and American influence around the world. Many alumni of these programmes head US-European funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). They also lead or support opposition movements and political parties aimed at commandeering the political and media machinery of foreign nations across the developing world.

In Thailand, a particularly acute example of this is Khoasod English commentator Pravit Rojanaphruk, who eagerly boasts of his various foreign fellowships and scholarships, including his status as a 2001-2002 Chevening scholar.

While he claims to be a journalist, his work consists entirely of political commentary and bias couched behind activism coupled with overtly pro-American and European editorials expounding notions of Western democracy and human rights.

Pravit Rojanaphruk (right of centre with striped tie) stands shoulder-to-shoulder with foreign embassy staff as he faces sedition charges in Bangkok, Thailand.

He regularly agitates against the current Thai government which ousted the US-European backed political party of Thaksin Shinawatra in 2014. When his agitation attracts legal prosecution, he is regularly accompanied by staff from the British and American embassies as well as representatives from the European Union and Canadian diplomatic missions in Thailand.

It is loyal and persistent agents of British influence like Pravit Rojanaphruk that Chevening was created to produce.

Of course, those who have gone through Chevening’s indoctrination process are not necessarily confined for life by this modern-day feature of “enslavement.”

The Roman Empire brought many young people to Rome for their indoctrination. While the majority of them would certainly and dutifully pursue Roman cultural colonisation upon returning home, some simply used the opportunity to understand the inner workings of this foreign oppressor on a deeper level.

Their intimate knowledge of the Roman Empire gave rise to some of the most disruptive and persistent rebellions Rome faced and would eventually contribute to Rome’s ultimate collapse.

While Chevening and programmes like it including Reuters fellowships and the US State Department’s Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) are likely to turn out agents of Western influence wielded against the developing world, it may also help sow the seeds to the collapse of the very special interests behind these invasive and manipulative programmes.

For people across the developing world, such “opportunities” seem like a ladder to heaven and strong cognitive dissonance insulates them from ever seeing the truth about these programmes truly represent. A better informed society in general, however, may help insure those targeted by this form of modern-day imperialism stand a better chance of using it rather than being used by it.

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

All images in this article are from New Eastern Outlook.

The National Archives is releasing documents previously withheld in accordance with the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act.  

The vast majority of the Collection (88%) has been open in full and released to the public since the late 1990s. The records at issue are documents previously identified as assassination records, but withheld in full or withheld in part.

These releases include FBI, CIA, and other agency documents (both formerly withheld in part and formerly withheld in full) identified by the Assassination Records Review Board as assassination records. The releases to date are as follows:

• July 24, 2017: 3,810 documents (read press release)
• October 26, 2017: 2,891 documents (read press release)
• November 3, 2017: 676 documents (read press release)

November 9, 2017: 13,213 documents (read press release),  

Latest Group of JFK Assassination Records Available to the Public

Press Release · Thursday, November 9, 2017

Washington, DC

In the fourth public release this year, the National Archives today posted 13,213  records subject to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act).

The majority of the documents released today were released previously in redacted form.  The versions released today were prepared by agencies prior to October 26, 2017, and were posted to make the latest versions of the documents available as expeditiously as possible.  Released records are available for download.

On October 26, 2017, President Donald J. Trump directed agencies to re-review each and every one of their redactions over the next 180 days.  As part of that review process, agency heads were directed to be extremely circumspect in recommending any further postponement of information in the records.  Agency heads must report to the Archivist of the United States by March 12, 2018, any specific information within particular records that meets the standard for continued postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the JFK Act.  The Archivist must then recommend to the President by March 26, 2018, whether this information warrants continued withholding after April 26, 2018.  The records included in this public release have not yet been re-reviewed by the agencies as part of that process and have not been reviewed by the National Archives.

The National Archives released 676 documents on Nov. 3, 2,891 documents on Oct. 26, and 3,810 records on July 24.

The National Archives established the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection in November 1992, and it consists of approximately five million pages of records. The vast majority of the collection has been publicly available without any restrictions since the late 1990s.

Online Resources:
The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection
Documenting the Death of a President
JFK Assassination Records Review Board
The work of the Kennedy Assassination Records Collection
JFK Assassination Records FAQs
Warren Commission Report

You can download the full spreadsheet with metadata about all the documents. The files are sorted by NARA Release Date, with the most recent files appearing first. The previous withholding status (i.e., formerly withheld in part or formerly withheld in full) is identified in the “Formerly Withheld Status” column.

The recent ‘forced’ resignation by Lebanese PM Saad Hariri in Riyadh under the influence of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and subsequent threats by Saudi Minister Thamer al-Sadhan against Lebanon and Hezbollah – have puzzled analysts as to the motivation behind this seemingly irrational series of events.

While it’s true Saudi Princes and their Wahhabi order have been slighted by both Shia-based popular mobilization movements’ role eradicating ISIS from the region – Hezbollah in Syria, and by the Hashed al-Shaabi in Iraqi – with Arabian Sheikhs having to watch as their Gulf billions invested in the destabilization of Syria and Iraq have gone down a blood soaked drain of history – in reality, neither Lebanon nor its Hezbollah movement poses any direct threat to the country of Saudi Arabia. So who is directing these events?

Is this Saudi tirade just a case of an unstable young, soon-to-be king in 32 yr-old Mohammed bin Salman, consolidating too much power too soon, or is there more to it? Some analysts have been speculating that maybe Israel is the invisible hand pushing the oil Kingdom to do its bidding in the region as they both share a common enemy in Iran.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah (image on the right) also made the claim this week that Saudi Arabia has offered Israel ‘billions of dollars’ to attack Lebanon on its behalf, as well as accusing the Saudis of strong-arming Lebanese PM to resign on camera. Nasrallah knows that both Tel Aviv and Riyadh (with full US backing) have Hezbollah in mind when any threats are made toward Lebanon, but as Middle East analyst Eisa Ali explained on yesterday’s Sunday Wire radio program, this perceived joint-threat by Israel and Saudi has driven Lebanon closer to political unity on this issue. 

Last night the Israeli press began to try and distance itself from a Saudi-led conspiracy, with Haaretz being the first to dismiss the ranting threats coming out of Riyadh, while simultaneously pushing the Trump Administration to the frontline. Writer Amos Harel’s op-ed entitled, “Saudi Arabia Is Opening a New Front Against Iran, and Wants Israel to Do Its Dirty Work,” helps to reveal part of a still concealed agenda:

“As the days passed, the resignation seemed more like a Saudi dictate, stemming from Saudi Arabia’s displeasure at the way Hariri was compelled to cooperate with Hezbollah in Lebanon’s government.”

It’s unclear if the Saudis will necessarily make do with these moves. The royal house is particularly close to the Trump administration and Saudi Arabia was one of the few countries, along with Israel, which enthusiastically welcomed Trump’s election, this time last year. Over the past year there have been a growing number of reports around the world of increasing diplomatic coordination between Riyadh and Jerusalem, accompanied by cooperation in intelligence matters. Israel and the Saudis see Iran as a common enemy, and both are frustrated at the West’s incompetence in dealing with Iran’s growing influence in what is known as the “Shi’ite Crescent” in the region.”

If Lebanon and Hezbollah do not pose a direct threat to Saudi Arabia, then what’s really going on? Is this really an American-led stage-managed drama that we are watching unfold now?

While the liberal Israeli press may be taking a stand-offish position in relation to recent events, you can be certain that Israel is very much involved in this process, albeit working diligently behind the scenes through an Israeli-friendly White House in Washington, and Netanyahu and Trump’s shared personal assistant, wunderkind Jared Kushner. Indeed, it’s through Kushner that we can track the real agenda which is in motion right now, as these latest events between Saudi Arabia and Lebanon are directly linked to Donald Trump’s big-ticket item – the Israel-Palestine “Two State Solution” peace deal – which he had promised on the campaign trail. It’s happening as we speak.

Make no mistake about it: this ‘peace deal’ will become Trump’s major pièce de résistance for his first term, and his ticket to redemption heading into the 2020 election cycle. The question is, who in America will resist it?

Here Haaretz lets the cat out of the bag as to how this will be used to leverage Israeli interests:

“The string of events, starting with the Qatari crisis last summer, strengthens the assumption that this is part of a wider Saudi move, an ambitious attempt to reach a new regional order. On the diplomatic front this is linked to the internal Palestinian reconciliation, led by Cairo but which also requires financial backing by the Saudis and the Emirates. This won’t be all, apparently. The defense establishment and political circles in Israel are preparing for the likely possibility that the Trump administration will soon present Israel and the Palestinian Authority with a new document, in an attempt to jumpstart the stalled peace process. Such a move may be pursued in a coordinated way between the United States and the Saudis. Saudi ambitions may have other results as well.”

There it is. The Art of the Deal, and it’s not going to be Camp David style this time. It will be a transactional deal – most certainly with large strings attached for Lebanon and which will be designed to first isolate Hezbollah and then evict Iranian influence from the region. Be sure of one thing though – if this ‘deal’ is being drafted by the US and Israel then you can be certain that it will not be well-thought out, and it will surely discount the interests of Syria, and the Shia majorities in Lebanon and Iraq.

And what about the Palestinians? It’s also a safe bet that any ‘deal’ drafted by the US and Israel will not be a very good deal for the Palestinians – who will be the last party considered in all of this high-flying talk of ‘peace and stability’ in the region.Will they get the right of return? Will their current situation really improve from such a deal? Looking at Israel and the US track record of running the ‘peace process’ in this part of the world, I’d say it’s highly doubtful.

What about Mohammed bin Salman’s purge and all of the detained Saudi billionaires and officials detained in the Ritz Charlton Hotel in Riyadh? What is the Crown Prince angling for out of this three-way deal? For starters, how about cash from the west, and cash from China, needed for the Kingdom to attain its lofty ‘Vision 2030’ goals and the Kingdom’s vast privatization scheme? Trump already let that cat out of the bag when he declared that Saudi’s biggest state-run oil and construction firm, Saudi ARAMCO, should do its IPO and be listed on the New York Stock Exchange. That would mean an initial cash injection based on 5% of ARAMCO market cap – around $100 billion (that’s a total market cap of $2 trillion for this company!) to Saudi Arabia via western stock exchanges, and more to come if each year Saudi keeps gradually milking its state-owned golden cash calf. This money will be used to help finance the Crown Prince’s new NEOM futuristic ‘smart city’ – but also ARAMCO will be the main contracting firm charged with building the new city – which means guaranteed returns for ground floor investors. Who will those preferred initial share holders be? Trump’s friends, and the Chinese? Your guess is as good as mine.

So there you have it – now we know it’s the US, in conjunction with Israel, who are maneuvering behind the scenes, and who will observe a mutual Saudi-Israeli-American desire to keep Iran weak and mitigate its influence throughout the region. Easier said than done. These factors are what’s really driving events that we see rapidly unfolding in the Middle East.

And, no all is still not well in Arab wonderland:

“An article in Haaretz this week by former U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro asked whether the Saudis were pushing Israel into a war with Hezbollah and Iran.”

So which will come first – the war, or the peace?

It’s difficult to tell. Certainly, avoiding the war should be everyone’s first priority.

And how long with the west continue to ignore Saudi and the UAE’s (with US-UK military backing) mass atrocities in Yemen?

In the meantime, Lebanon is still in the dark as to when they will get their Prime Minister back.

Should Lebanon (once again) consider itself a target in the crosshairs of the great powers in their latest plans to reshape the region?

All images in this article are from the author.

By 10 a.m. Tuesday morning, voting would have trailed off in some polling stations, after “workers” stopped in before setting out for their jobs–in schools, restaurants, county offices and on construction sites. There might be a rush after dark when people head home. That‘s why polls open at 6 a.m. and close at 9 at night.

In our small town however, when I arrive mid-morning, it’s busy– relatively.

A few moments earlier, heading for the fire department hall that functions as our voting center, I meet a neighbor at the bridge. We halt our cars and roll down the windows; “Who should I vote for?”, Susan calls out.

I don’t hesitate even though there’s little to offer: “Look for the 3 propositions: the first is about a new constitutional convention for New York state; people who I know are voting against. Of the other two, one is for protection of wild land; you’ll want to vote ‘yes’ there. I forget the third”. (It was pensions being withheld or retained for any official convicted of a crime.) Susan is listening but I see her interest waning.

What more is there to advise? “There are no candidates on the Democratic Party ticket” I admit, lowering my voice out of shame. “All the incumbents –Republicans, it seems– are running for a second term, unopposed.” Those are for the officers and council members who run our town, and dispense our tax revenue. (Examining the ballot later, I learn that indeed, the town sheriff is an elected position. He is one of those 8 or 9 unopposed incumbents.)

Later that day, I meet Diane. “Yes, I voted. It makes no difference”, she laments. Still, she did cast a ballot, and so did another 125 villagers. It’s considered a good turnout—for an “off-election” year. (That’s what they call it, sadly.) Or is it an off-year election? Either way it refers to non-presidential and non-Congress competitions. Stupidly, people don’t take these local affairs seriously.

At the polling station itself, I linger after submitting my ballot. Not to do a private exit poll, but to socialize with the election monitors. (Three of the four are my neighbors.) They’d been on duty since 5 a.m. setting up the ballots, voter lists and private booths. Although not allowed to campaign or discuss candidates or balloting, we can enjoy coffee and biscuits together and talk about past elections.

By 6 p.m., listening to New York area news, I learn the Democratic NYC mayor has done well and will have a second term. The referendum for the state constitutional convention was defeated. There’s no change in our “upstate” political profile however. Maybe in 2018?

The next morning, all the “progressive” orgs are flooding my inbox, celebrating huge victories. The tide is turning, they shout. Two new Democratic governors are in—one in Virginia and one in New Jersey. This news and some announcements about a county office, a mayoral post, here and there, turning over to Democrats are hailed as if Donald Trump, the Alt-Right, the banks, the Supreme Court and rest of the US establishment are routed, and the underdog Dems have taken over Washington.

Maybe the exaggeration is a strategy to mobilize lethargic and despondent “progressives”. Even the smallest victory can re-energize the base. Maybe it’s a tactic to stimulate cash donations for the party.

Meanwhile Republicans still control Congress–the Senate and the House of Representatives– and most of the governorships.

Two years is not much time to mobilize, especially when the nation’s (only) alternative party is in disarray, and the party machinery at the local level (in New York for example) is dysfunctional. But this is a temperamental nation where major shifts can occur in a very short time. In some parts of the world, they would call this instability.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

War on the DPRK would be madness – if nuclear, risking catastrophic slaughter and destruction on the Korean peninsula and elsewhere regionally.

No precedent exists for trying to destroy a nation’s nuclear capability by military means. The possibility of nukes detonating on the Korean peninsula should deter any country from risking the world’s first nuclear war.

Trump earlier threatening a “major, major conflict” with Pyongyang sounded like the ravings of a madman.

He rejects diplomatic outreach, the only possible way to resolve differences, avoiding a war only a lunatic would launch.

Trump’s trip to five East Asia countries, nearing completion, is all about selling war and weapons.

During his visit, Washington launched provocative Asia/Pacific drills, involving three US aircraft carrier strike groups, along with Japanese and South Korean warships.

Pyongyang considers it rehearsing for war, blasting Trump’s trip as “a warmonger’s visit for confrontation to rid the DPRK of its self-defensive nuclear deterrence.”

Its Foreign Ministry said he “laid bare his true nature as destroyer of the world peace and stability and begged for a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula.”

He insulted the nation and its leadership, recklessly accusing Pyongyang of “threaten(ing) (US cities) with destruction.”

A Foreign Ministry response said

“(t)he reckless remarks by a dotard like Trump can never frighten us or put a stop to our advance.” The nation will defend its “sovereignty and rights to existence and development by keeping a real balance of force with the US.”

North Korea’s UN envoy Cha Son Nam said

“(t)he DPRK will not lay its nukes and ballistic missiles on the negotiating table in any case, unless the hostile policy and nuclear threat of the US against the DPRK are thoroughly eradicated.”

“Despite the serious concerns of the international community, the US continues to stage, annually, the aggressive joint military exercises, with the aim of planning a nuclear attack against the DPRK.”

On November 11, Professor of International Law/staunch human rights defender Francis Boyle delivered the following remarks sent me by email at a Chicago anti-war rally, saying:

“The US government threats of “preventive warfare” against DPRK are illegal and criminal.”

“The Nuremberg Tribunal in their Judgment of 1946, which the US helped organize, condemned ‘preventive war’ when the lawyers for the Nazis made the argument on their behalf.”

“This is an illegal and criminal threat in violation of international law. According to the World Court in its Advisory Opinion (1996) on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the legality vel non of a threat stands or falls on the same legal grounds as if the threat were carried out.”

“The repeated US government threats to ‘destroy’ or ‘annihilate’ DPRK are an international crime under the 1948 Genocide Convention to which the United States is a party.”

“These genocidal threats are also illegal and criminal under the rationale of the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion mentioned above.”

“The United States has an absolute obligation under UN Charter article 2(3) and article 33 to open ‘negotiation’ with DPRK in good faith in order to produce a peace resolution of this dispute. Instead, the US government has repeatedly rejected these obligations under the UN Charter.”

“The proposal by Russia and China for a ‘dual-freeze’ is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between the USA and DPRK as required by the UN Charter.”

“The United States is deliberately provoking the DPRK, ratcheting up these provocations in the hope that they will provoke the DPRK to commit an act of aggression against the United States that the USA can then use as a pretext for war.”

“Pursuant to the terms of their mutual self-defense treaty, China has stated that if the US attacks first it will defend the DPRK, but that if the DPRK strikes first, China will remain out of any war. So the United States is trying to provoke DPRK into striking first.”

“It is an extremely dangerous situation. It is really up to the United States to take the first step down the Ladder of Escalation that it has constructed here.”

“Instead it appears that the Trump administration is going to escalate up the Ladder of Escalation in the hope and expectation that DPRK will capitulate.”

“This is what International Political Scientists call a Game of Chicken – with cosmic consequences. Who will blink first? Anything can go wrong.”

“Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III.”

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

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

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Featured image: Algerian PM Ahmed Ouyahia (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Ouyahia made the remarks on Saturday at a time when much of the Middle East and North Africa is in turmoil, grappling with different crises, ranging from terrorism and insecurity to political uncertainty and foreign interference.

Algeria maintains that regional states should settle their differences through dialog and that foreign meddling is to their detriment.

Syria has been gripped by foreign-sponsored militancy since 2011. Takfirism, which is a trademark of many terrorist groups operating in Syria, is largely influenced by Wahhabism, the radical ideology dominating Saudi Arabia.

Libya has further been struggling with violence and political uncertainty since the country’s former ruler Muammar Gaddafi was deposed in 2011 and later killed in the wake of a US-led NATO military intervention. Daesh has been taking advantage of the chaos in Libya to increase its presence there.

Yemen has also witnessed a deadly Saudi war since March 2015 which has led to a humanitarian crisis.

Last Month, Qatar’s former deputy prime minister Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah said the United Arab Emirates had planned a military invasion of Qatar with thousands of US-trained mercenaries.

The UAE plan for the military action was prepared before the ongoing Qatar rift, but it was never carried out as Washington did not give the green light to it, he noted.

In late April, reports said the UAE was quietly expanding its military presence into Africa and the Middle East, namely in Eritrea and Yemen.

The Silk Road, renamed the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is developing infrastructure along land and sea trade routes. However, little is known about China’s initiative in the Arctic Circle, which represents a new route that Beijing is now able to develop thanks to technology together with the strategic partnership with Russia.

Involving about 65 countries and affecting 4.4 billion people, constituting thirty percent of the world’s GDP, together with a total investment from Beijing that could surpass a trillion dollars, the is an immense project that requires a lot of imagination to grasp the intentions of the Chinese leadership. With a host of projects already in progress, and some almost completed (the Sino-Pakistan Corridor known as CPEC is archetypical), the overland and maritime routes are developing side by side.

Plenty of ink has been used detailing Beijing’s intentions regarding the East-West connections of the super Eurasian continent. Pipelines, railway lines, fiber-optic cables, telecommunications infrastructure and highways dominate discussions, together with talks about costs, feasibility studies, the question of security, and the return on investment. The land Silk Road is certainly an imposing challenge that is not just commercial in nature but sets the foundation for greater cultural and social integration between neighbouring countries. It is a project that in the long term aims to blend together the Eurasian continent and overcome the contradictions contained therein through win-win cooperation and economic development.

The maritime route is a more structured project, tied mainly to two intrinsic needs of the People’s Republic of China. The first is commercial and concerns the need for Beijing to ship its goods along established routes, creating ports and supply facilities along the way. The objective is to increase profits from cargo ships, especially when they return to China filled with goods, as well as to create new global sorting centers at ports set up along the maritime silk road. Important examples can be found in Pakistan with the development of the Gwadar port.

The first phase was completed in 2006, and the second has been in progress since 2007, though the port was inaugurated in November 2016 and has been operational since. The project should be completed in the coming decades, with potentially 45 anchorage points, drainage of the approaching canal to about 20 meters, and a total trade turnover of over 400 million tonnes. The major benefit of this arrangement is to divide goods according to necessity, value and supply, choosing between an overland or maritime route. The port of Gwadar is connected principally through pipelines to the Chinese city of Kashi. This is a great example of how diversification can be achieved with the maritime route, used mainly for transportable goods, while the Gwadar port becomes an important hub in the oil and gas trade, especially thanks to progress in methane and regasification technology.

Other major maritime silk-route destinations include Venice and Athens, with the port of Piraeus already owned by COSCO of China for many years, a company that specializes in port activities and the integration of harbours along the maritime silk road based on the model of the Gwadar port. Venice is currently only a reminder of the ancient Silk Road, but if its past role is to be reprised, where in its modern garb it would today be the final landing point of the South Sea BRI, it would certainly require large investments to feed a network of dense exchanges. China would then have a maritime route in Southern Europe that is linked mainly overland to its northern corridor.

The other reason (that are less well known) pushing the People’s Republic of China to invest in such extensive maritime routes concerns the naval doctrine adopted by the Chinese navy. The United States maintains a remarkable ability to project power across all five continents thanks to the size of its navy, which has grown quite steadily over the last century. Beijing realized that possessing such power projection would undergird the viability of its maritime routes, guarding against pirates as well as as obviating the possibility of a naval blockade in time of war, something always on the back of the minds of Chinese strategists.

A parallel in terms of security is easily observed when analysing the overland route of the Silk Road and the security that necessarily accompanies such an extensive infrastructure network. In this sense, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the accession of both Pakistan and India into the Organization, aims to create the conditions for peaceful development while avoiding tensions between neighbouring countries and different ethnic groups. Beijing is well aware that there is no prosperity without security, especially in the context of underdevelopment and in such a diverse continent with respect to human geography.

In military and naval terms, Beijing’s budget has reached significant levels, rising from about 10 billion dollars in 1989 to about 110 billion in 2017. With such investment, Beijing has been able to launch three new submarine models (Type 93, Type 94, and Type 95) as well as a refurbished aircraft carrier (Type 001) together with the construction of China’s first fully equipped homemade aircraft carrier (Type 001A). The main focus for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is a strategic investment in amphibious and small vessels that provide the means to project power in order to influence the power dynamics of the South China Sea, this in the context of American harassment to dominate the Sea. In this sense, the strategy of denying America a presence in the South China sea is also accompanied by the construction of artificial islands and the development of new anti-ship missiles with supersonic capabilities.

Security and investment seem to be the engine of the Chinese BRI project, and connectivity appears to be the transmission chain. Maximum attention is also being given to the creation of seaports for the PLAN, as seen with China’s first foreign base in Djibouti, a particularly strategic location due to the strait of Bab-el-Mandeb.

An aspect of the Chinese BRI that is less well known, and about which we still have few details, is the Arctic route. The Arctic is formally shared between the United States, Northern Canada, Finland, Greenland (Denmark), Iceland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden and is administered by the Arctic Council. Non-member countries include France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South, Korea, the Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the People’s Republic of China.

Recently, Russia and China begun a fruitful discussion on the exploitation of the Arctic routes. The July 2017 meeting between Xi Jinping and Medvedev confirmed Moscow and Beijing’s intention is to jointly develop the Chinese maritime Silk Road though the Arctic, serving to diversify trade routes and involving neighbouring states in port projects and scientific research. Beijing has every intention in the future of moving its goods through the Arctic from China to Europe, thereby reducing the distances involved by up to 20-30%, saving time, fuel and human resources in the process. Considering that 90% of Chinese goods are transported by sea, even a small change would generate savings and bigger profits. In the face of such an irresistible opportunity, China is not wasting any time. A few days ago, the Xuelong icebreaker (the Russian Federation is the only country possessing two nuclear icebreakers) sailed through the Northwest Passage in the Arctic, reaching North America from Asia in virtually no time, constituting an event of historic importance, this being the first time a Chinese ship has completed this route. Equally important for business, COSCO, the Chinese giant, completed in 2013 the Northeast Passage in the Arctic, starting from the Chinese port of Dalian and arriving in Rotterdam, shaving the duration of the journey by a third, down from 45 days to 30.

There are some considerations regarding the Arctic region to be made, both from a practical and realistic point of view. There are currently three usable routes, namely the northeast, northwest and “north-north” (crossing the North Pole). The first is the one through which Russia and China intend to shorten shipping times, in spite of the difficulties faced by the current lack of infrastructure as well as an unwelcome environment, complicating things and making the whole endeavour extremely expensive to develop. In this sense, cooperation between Russia and China is highly profitable for both countries, who are interested in proposing this route to other countries as well, resulting in increased transit volumes. Currently the route can be used for about four months of the year. The northwest route has problems with deep ice that prevents icebreakers from clearing a passage for a sufficient duration to allow for a commercial route. The “north-north” passage, cutting straight through the North Pole, is inaccessible until all ice is melted, something scientists predict will occur by 2050, with all the related consequences.

Inevitably, Arctic routes represent the future in terms of opportunities and savings in cost. In comparison to the Suez Canal, which is the current route through which China reaches Europe, entailing a journey of nearly 12,000 nautical miles, a route through the Northwest Passage in comparison cuts to journey to under 7,000 nautical miles.

Beijing is investing in infrastructure to reduce time and increase profit. The Arctic route has all the indications of becoming a central node of the BRI initiative. China’s commitment to development of the Arctic route is comparable to another titanic project that is also central to the strategy of the maritime Silk Road and is occurring in Nicaragua, namely the construction of an alternative to the Panama Canal. How viable these gigantic projects are remains a matter of time, resting mainly on the acquisition of new technologies that transform the impossible into the possible, whereby the accessibility of new technology allow for a reduction in research and developmental costs.

In the not-too-distant future, transit routes through the Arctic will assume a certain level of importance vis-à-vis the global geopolitics of Russia and China. Beijing and Moscow seem to have every intention of developing this innovative route with every means at their disposal, adding to the maritime silk road an unanticipated but highly beneficial route. Creating a partnership with Russia in the Arctic will enable Beijing to set foot in the area, as well as allowing it to be involved in the exploitation of hydrocarbons and other natural resources. Combined with the Russian Federation’s increasing ability to penetrate the Arctic and thereby create the necessary infrastructure, the Arctic route is something that can increasingly be offered as a proposition to partner nations.

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies.

This article was originally published by Strategic Culture Foundation.

Featured image is from the author.

The Saudi Authorities arrested Prince Bandar bin Sultan as a part of the anti-corruption” purge that was launched by Saudi Arabia King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and his Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, according to a report of the Middle East Eye (MEE) online news portal.

Prince Bandar is a former Saudi ambassador to the US, and he is known to be a friend of former US President George W Bush, and former Syrian president Hafez Assad. Prince Bandar became really famous in 2011 when he was tasked with leading the Saudi efforts to fight Syria president Bashar al-Assad.

Prince Bandar quickly became known as “the engineer of the Syria war” after he organized everything about the war, from the political opposition to armed groups in Syria. According to many reports the Prince was behind shipping tons of weapons and thousands of Jihadists from all over the world to feed the war against the Syrian government.

“The engineer of the Syrian war” went to great length while trying to remove Bashar al-Assad, he was accused of founding the al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda branch in Syria) and even ISIS later. The prince even offered Russia a bribe to stop supporting Assad back in 2013.

Prince Bandar is the brother of Salman bin Sultan Al Saud who ordered the Free Syrian Army to attack the Syrian capital Damascus back in 2013 according to leaked NSA document.

Because of his crooked ways that have no limits and after ISIS raise in 2014, Prince Bandar was removed from his position as the main planner of the battle against Assad. Bandar was replaced by Prince Muhammad bin Nayef and Prince Mohammad bin Salman himself.

The two reportedly suspended many of the operations, which were planned by Bandar, and engaged in a direct dialogue with Russia in what appears to be an effort to hide Saudi Arabia’s role in supporting terrorist groups in Syria.

If Saudi officials confirm the arrest of Prince Bandar, it could be a sign that the new Saudi leadership led by the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is willing to make radical changes in the Saudi Arabia polices regarding Syria. Or, it’s just another sign of the sky-high tensions within the Saudi leadership.

Featured image is from South Front.

We bring to the attention of Global Research readers a selection of articles focussing on the obfuscation of truth through media manipulation as well as the routine dissemination of war propaganda.

These articles show how media lies and fabrications are used as a justification to wage so-called “humanitarian wars”.  

If you consider these articles useful, please consider making a donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member. Any amount large or small will contribute to the broader objective of Truth in Media.

You can also help us by forwarding this selection far and wide, discussing it within your circle of friends and colleagues,  reposting our articles on blog sites and social media, etc.

Click donation button right

To become a Member of Global Research click here

 

In an era of media distortion, our emphasis has been on the “unspoken truth”. We therefore largely rely on contributions from our readers.

*     *     *

FAKE NEWS: BBC criticised for using Iraq 2003 photo to illustrate Syrian massacre

By Global Research, November 11, 2017

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has been slammed for mistakenly using a photo taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate the Syria 2012 massacre, in which over 100 people, including 32 children, were brutally killed.

Fake News Used to Justify All Out War: The Bosnian Serb “Death Camp” Fabrication. Pretext for R2P “Humanitarian Intervention” (1992) in Yugoslavia

By Global Research News, November 10, 2017

Serbian emergency shelters for Bosnian refugees sold to the public as a concentration camp to win public support for international intervention.

The Attack on ‘Fake News’ Is Really an Attack on Alternative Media

By Dave Lindorff, November 09, 2017

These are tough days to be a serious journalist. Report a story now, with your facts all lined up nicely, and you’re still likely to have it labeled “fake news” by anyone whose ox you’ve gored — and even by friends who don’t share your political perspective. For good measure, they’ll say you’ve based it on “alternative facts.”

Who is Behind “Fake News”? Mainstream Media Use Fake Videos and Images

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 21, 2017

The manipulation of videos and images is routine. In some cases, these manipulations are revealed by readers, independent media and social media. In most cases they go undetected. And when they are revealed, the media will say “sorry” we apologize: they will then point to technical errors. “we got the wrong video”.

The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media “Fake News” Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq

By Timothy Alexander Guzman, August 03, 2017

The mainstream media (MSM) has declared war on alternative media websites labeling them “Fake News” ever since Hillary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump.

“Fake News” and Crimes against Humanity: Amnesty International Admits Syrian “Saydnaya” Report Fabricated Entirely in UK

By Tony Cartalucci, February 09, 2017

The only photographs of the prison are taken from outer space via satellite imagery. The only other photos included in the report are of three men who allege they lost weight while imprisoned and a photo of one of eight alleged death certificates provided to family members of detainees who died at Saydnaya.

Apparently more than 80% of Conservative MPs at Westminster are members of the CFI lobby group for Israel. This is a powerful, influential, moneyed, political pressure group that holds a lavish dinner every year at the House of Commons for up to 700 guests and arranges trips to Israel (but not to the Occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights) for individual MPs, including various members of the cabinet, in order that they be indoctrinated into the Political Zionist movement.

There is clearly something dangerous about a non-elected pressure group for a foreign state being allowed to subvert the business of Parliament by exerting undue pressure upon our democratically elected representatives who we, as British citizens, pay out of our taxes to be our voice in Parliament in order to supervise and enact legislation for the benefit and security of the nation – but not for the citizens of a foreign state who have their own Legislative Assembly in Tel Aviv.

Last week, a Conservative Minister was forced to resign her position, as a consequence of her extraordinarily improper conduct in accompanying the head of the CFI lobby to12 secret meetings with Israeli officials in Tel Aviv and elsewhere including the Israeli military occupation force in the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan Heights.

That particular ministerial career is, of course, now at an end and the lady has returned to the obscurity of the backbenches. However, the head of the CFI lobby for Israel who arranged the meetings, and who was inexplicably ennobled by David Cameron in 2015, still sits in the House of Lords.

The fact is that the British electorate, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or agnostic, did not and never will endorse Likud Political Zionism which is an ideological movement that has dispossessed and disenfranchised the entire 5m indigenous people of Palestine.

The majority of the people of Britain believes in racial equality, justice and the rule of law. Political Zionism rejects those concepts and, therefore, our Parliamentary representatives should reject radical Political Zionism – an ideology that has no place in a democratic society.

Hypocrisy may be the only consistent guiding principle of US foreign policy. Here’s a prime example of the “do as we say, not as we do” that is the core of how Washington does business overseas: In the same week that the the US Justice Department demanded that the Russian-backed RT America network register as a foreign propaganda entity or face arrest, the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DNL) has announced that it is launching a program to massively interfere in NATO-partner Hungary’s internal media. 

So the US Justice Department is cracking down on RT America for what it says is manipulation of US domestic affairs while the US State Department announces a new program to manipulate Hungary’s domestic affairs.

The State Department’s new program would send three-quarters of a million dollars to Washington-selected Hungarian media outlets to “increase citizens’ access to objective information about domestic and global issues in Hungary.” On what authority does the United States pick winners and losers in Hungary’s diverse media environment? Since when does one government have the right to determine what news is “objective” in another country? Hungary is not a country to be “regime-changed” — it is a full democracy where the will of the people is regularly expressed at the ballot box and where the media competes freely in the marketplace of ideas.

Washington’s Hungarian media project is clearly meant to interfere in that country’s domestic political environment. Here are the stated objectives of the US government’s Hungary program:

The program should improve the quality of local traditional and online media and increase the public’s access to reliable and unbiased information.
…
Projects should aim to have impact that leads to democratic reforms, and should have the potential for sustainability beyond DRL resources. (emphasis added)

The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor identifies its mission in this call for grantees as “promoting democracy and protecting human rights globally.” So what is it doing in Hungary? Hungary has had nearly three decades of democracy since 1989 and hardly needs the United States to tell it what kind of media is allowed (subsidized) and which kind should be suppressed.

In reality this is a US government program to ensure that the Hungarian media follows Washington’s policy line. Hungarians are all too familiar with this kind of toxic interference from an outside superpower: it was called the Soviet Union. Does Washington really seek to take on that role?

Stab in the back

This US government intervention in Hungary’s internal affairs must feel like a stab in the back to Orban and his government. Orban was an early — and rare — supporter of candidate Donald Trump among his European colleagues. Indeed, where Brusssels saw Trump as a gauche loudmouth, Orban openly admired the soon-to-be-president’s position on immigration and particularly on the mass immigration of mostly Muslim “refugees” that has proven to be disastrous for so many European countries. Likewise, Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party has managed to retain a high level of popularity through two election cycles by embracing and promoting the kind of nationalism that characterized Trump’s successful campaign.

Orban’s early support for Trump appeared to have paid off. Where Fidesz had struggled to make any headway at all under GW Bush or Obama’s State Departments, both of which were openly hostile, one of President-elect Trump’s first moves was to invite Orban to the White House. Orban, for his part, hailed Trump on inauguration day, welcoming in an era where national interest takes precedent over multilateralism.

As recently as last month, President Trump praised Viktor Orban, saying that the “strong and brave” Hungarian Prime Minister is “on my guest list.”

Then Trump’s State Department launched a program to undermine Hungary’s national sovereignty by interfering in the Hungarian media market. It seems national sovereignty is a one-way street for Washington no matter who occupies the Oval Office.

Hypocrisy…or policy consistency?

But perhaps it’s inaccurate to accuse the US government of hypocrisy in this case. After all, pressuring RT America with the intent of silencing the news network and spending our tax dollars propping up US-friendly media outlets in the Hungarian countryside are actually two sides of the same coin: the US government will tell you what kind of media you are allowed to consume. If you are a media network in the United States that allows voices who oppose Washington’s neocon-dominated foreign policy they will shut you down. If you are a news outlet in the Hungarian countryside that spews the US party line, they will prop you up. Both cases are the same: your media will toe the US government official line or else.

Note to Washington: This is not 1950. Hungary has been a fully free and democratic country with plenty of free elections under its belt. It does not need you to come in and attempt to manipulate its newspapers and broadcast media. What would you do if China sent in a few million dollars to prop up US publications who agreed to push the Beijing line? What about if Tehran sent some money to publications pushing the Ayatollah party line? You cannot even tolerate RT America — which is largely staffed by Americans but dares to feature prominent Americans who challenge the neocon foreign policy line. Hands off Hungary!

Note to Viktor Orban: You risked arrest — and worse — in June, 1989 when you directly confronted the communists who were occupying your country. Now that Hungary’s freedom has been won — in no small way due to your efforts — do not allow Washington’s neocons to take it away from you! If you do not confront this violation of Hungarian sovereignty, the neocons will continue to increase the pressure.

The neocons want you out!

Just this week, neocon commentator Anne Applebaum wrote that you are a “neo-Bolshevik” who has “little to do with the right that has been part of Western politics since World War II, and…no connection to existing conservative parties.” Do a little research and you will notice that Applebaum is a member of the International Advisory Council of the Center for European Policy Analysis — the organization your own government funded for a big conference this summer! Neocon knives are out for you. You’d be smart to make a better assessment of who are your friends and enemies in the United States…before it’s too late.

Featured image is from the author.

On Thursday, RT America, the US-based subsidiary of RT (formerly known as Russia Today), announced that it would, under pressure from the United States government, register as a “foreign agent” under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

The Justice Department’s demand that RT register as a “foreign agent” is aimed at delegitimizing RT as a news source, intimidating its journalists and guests, and setting the precedent for taking similar actions against other news outlets.

The US government has given no public justification for its demand, which will require that RT America provide information on its finances and on individuals involved in directing the news outlet. RT clearly reflects the views of the Russian government and avoids criticism of the Putin regime. However, the US has made no similar demand in relation to other outlets that have government financing and backing—the BBC, for example. Moreover, the United States operates a vast network of news agencies that work, officially and unofficially, to promote the interests of the American ruling class all over the world.

The US government’s motivations are entirely political, bound up with the effort to present all opposition within the United States as the product of the actions of Russia. In its reporting, whatever its reasons may be, RT provides a platform for voices critical of the policy of the American government.

The United States outlined the political reasons for moving against the broadcaster in the January 6, 2017 report by the US Director of National Intelligence on “Russian intervention” in the 2016 elections.

The report alleged, “RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised third-party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a ‘sham.’”

The Director of National Intelligence report further denounced favorable coverage by RT of the Occupy Wall Street movement, declaring, “RT framed the movement as a fight against ‘the ruling class’ and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations.”

More recently, US politicians—led by the Democratic Party—have developed a narrative that Russia, through outlets like RT, has worked to “sow divisions” within the United States, as if the American people need RT to know that the political system is corrupt and dominated by corporations.

The campaign has been used to demand a regime of Internet censorship, with technology giants including Google, Facebook and Twitter taking measures to block or demote content from a broad range of websites.

Earlier this month, Google removed RT from its list of “preferred” channels on YouTube, while Twitter blocked all advertising by the channel. In addition to its crackdown on RT, Google has made sweeping changes to its search engine and news service that have dramatically slashed traffic to left-wing, antiwar and progressive web sites, including the World Socialist Web Site, which has had its search traffic from Google fall by 74 percent since April.

Precisely because of its ties to the Russian government, the US Justice Department has chosen it as its first target in its drive to persecute, criminalize and ultimately outlaw all oppositional journalists.

Will RT’s hosts, including Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges and veteran interviewer Larry King, also be forced to register as “foreign agents?” Will all of RT’s guests, which have included prominent left-wing journalists, politicians, academics and even celebrities, get a knock on their door demanding that they file paperwork with the Justice Department? Will all of these individuals now be opened to questioning about their collaboration with a “hostile foreign power?”

This month, an organization calling itself the European Values Think-Tank, based in the Czech Republic and funded by the US embassy and foundations associated with billionaire George Soros, published just such a list, including the names of 2,300 RT guests, grouped into US and UK politicians, journalists, academics and celebrities. These individuals are, according to the think tank, “useful idiot[s]” for a “hostile foreign power.”

The list includes journalists Julian Assange, Max Blumenthal, Seymour Hersh, Jeremy Scahill, Ed Schultz and Matt Taibbi, as well as the academics Noam Chomsky and Stephen Cohen, together with actor Russell Brand and filmmaker Oliver Stone.

Amid soaring social inequality and an ever-escalating military buildup, the US government is moving to silence any alternative to its closely monitored and vetted establishment media outlets, including the major newspapers and broadcast networks.

The fact that RT is being targeted because of its political positions sets an ominous precedent. It means that “foreign propaganda” is being defined by political views, laying the groundwork for a much broader range of news outlets to be labeled as promoting “Russian propaganda,” blacklisted and ultimately criminalized.

Featured image: The largest pilgrimage in the world, 15 times bigger than Mecca

Nothing, absolutely nothing prepares you to revive, on the spot, the memory of what will go down in history as ISIS / Daesh’s most horrid killing field in Iraq or Syria since the death cult stormed across the border in the summer of 2014; the Speicher massacre of June 12, 2014 – when almost 2,000 Iraqi army recruits were assassinated in and nearby a former Saddam Hussein palace on the banks of the Tigris near Tikrit.     

As Dylan would sing it, “ain’t it just like the night to play tricks when you’re trying to be so quiet”. In 2003, a few days after Shock and Awe and the fall of Baghdad, I took the road to Tikrit for Asia Times to survey Uday Hussein’s bombed palace as well as his father’s birthplace, only to return 14 years later to one of those palaces turned into a house of horror.

The Speicher killing field was gruesomely staged – and filmed – by Daesh only a few days after the fall of Mosul. Daesh’s Salafi-jihadi goons were feted as “liberators” by many a Sunni tribe around Trikrit just as 10,000 Iraqi Army recruits from different provinces, mostly Shi’ites, were being trained at an Air Force academy nearby.

With Daesh fast advancing and the Iraqi Army at the time dissolving by the minute, the youngsters were ordered to switch into civilian clothes, leave their weapons behind, and go home. As they were literally walking back to their home provinces they ended up falling in a lethal Daesh trap. Bearing echoes of the Nazi era, the youngsters were divided into Sunnis and Shi’ites – with the Shi’ites bundled in trucks described as their “transportation” home. Instead they were taken to what would become a killing field framed by decaying Saddamist architecture.

The horror, the horror

It’s late evening on a windless Monday – and I’m standing at the eerily silent exact spot of one of the killing field’s sites, captured by a Daesh propaganda video in part of this harrowing footage. Hayder Atamiri, the official representative of the Tikrit massacre committee, almost in tears, swears, “all the tribes in the area took part in this”. He’s convinced the massacre took place in “an icon of Saddam” and it was “revenge for Saddam’s death”.

Daesh leaders presided over a gruesome ritual from a balcony as three jihadis summarily killed the recruits with a bullet in the back of the head. Today, discreet shrines with pictures of the dead surround the balcony. So far 1907 victims have been catalogued – many from Iraq’s Shi’ite-majority and/or poorer provinces (for instance, 382 from Babylon, 254 from Diwaniya, 132 from Karbala, 119 from Diyala, 99 from Najaf.)

Atamiri says locals at the time found roughly 90 bodies “and the rest drifted away” along the Tigris. Nearby, Daesh goons “dug trenches, used bulldozers and covered the bodies with rocks.” No less than 14 mass graves have been found, 13 of them “already excavated.”  Two more mass graves were identified “but there’s no proper storage for the remains yet.”

Other figures by the Iraqi Ministry of Health list 1,935 dead – with 994 bodies found, 527 fully identified, 467 under examination and still 941 missing. A systematic search for human remains only started in March 2015 – eight months after the massacre – when Tikrit was finally recaptured by Baghdad’s forces.

Compared with Ramadi or Mosul, Tikrit suffered very little damage as it was reconquered largely by Hashd al-Shaabi, a.k.a. the People Mobilization Units (PMUs), called into action by Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s 2014 fatwa. Atamiri is adamant “Hashd was the only force liberating Tikrit.” And crucially these fighters were not Shi’ites; they were Sunnis.

Yezen Meshaan al-Jebouri, the son of the governor of Tikrit, Raed al-Jebouri, head of the Salahuddin PMU brigade – and a member of the very prominent Sunni Jebouri family, which was historically inimical to Saddam Hussein, had previously confirmed to me in Baghdad; “Local tribal leaders encouraged the work of Hashd. They understood we believe in Iraq’s political system.” Almost a third of the PMU force – a total of around 20,000 fighters – is Sunni. As al-Jebouri stressed, “Tikrit returned to its people. And Tikrit University was protected.”

In the complex Iraqi tribal chessboard, the local consensus is that certain Wahhabi-tinged jihadis were part of the Speicher massacre, but that did not translate into a collective Sunni endeavor. Daesh killed Sunnis as well, and Sunnis helped at least a few Shi’ites to flee.

Atamiri is adamant, “only Hashd stood with us. Now they are maintaining peace and won’t allow any extra-judicial revenge”. He frames the whole battle ahead as the need to “eradicate extremist ideology” and notes that some Daesh jihadis, when captured, “tried to show remorse, but that is very difficult for us to believe. And some of them are now living in European countries.”

Families of the murdered youngsters silently exhibit photos of their sons and ask “international bodies to do something”. They all agree; the response from the “international community” has been shameful. Still, the Tikrit massacre committee vows to keep the memory of Speicher alive. Mothers of victims have been to Geneva to ask for help as well as mental health support for quite a few families, and plan to visit again in June 2018.

This has been one of Iraq’s most devastating nightmares of the past three decades. After such sorrow, what forgiveness?

Keep walking towards redemption

It’s possible. From agony to ecstasy. There could not be a more radical contrast between darkness and light than taking the road to Najaf – the Iraqi Vatican, and fourth holiest city in Islam – and Karbala, alongside millions of black-clad pilgrims during the annual celebration of Arba’een, the “40th Day” of the martyrdom of Imam Hussein.

Countless tents, tea shops and impromptu restaurants, festively decorated, line up the road to Najaf and Karbala. Suddenly we’re thrown into the vortex of the largest gathering of humans in history, way outdoing the annual Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca; nearly 20 million people as opposed to about 1.5 million. Here is the account of my own pilgrimage in 2003 – a few days after the fall of Baghdad.

To be inside the Imam Ali shrine – in all its glimmering, refracted glory – is a religious experience in itself, the apotheosis of Shi’ite rituals of redemptive suffering (readers interested to know about Arba’een may consult scholar Seyyed Hosein Mohammad Jafri’s book The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam.)  

The Imam Ali shrine, in all its splendor, is managed, at the highest instance, by the marja’iya – the religious sources of emulation, mostly personified by Grand Ayatollah Sistani, whose office is in a narrow alley nearby; and in practice, by a foundation. According to its secretariat “more than 20 million people are registered in the shrine”.

Najaf welcomed refugees of the fight against Daesh by the tens of thousands; Sunnis from Anbar province, Christians, Shi’ite Turkmen from Tal Afar; “Now many are back to their communities”. The PMUs are incredibly popular – their white flags fluttering everywhere alongside black Imam Hussein and multicolored Imam Ali banners.

The shrine is proud to at least assist in helping victims from the Speicher massacre; “The government may be shorthanded”.

I was in Najaf last week, at the start of the pilgrimage. But the apex of Arba’een is today, November 10. And that happens in the most extraordinary of historical circumstances; the final defeat of Daesh.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) announced on Wednesday it had captured Albu Kamal, the last town held by Daesh in Syria – after Iraqi forces captured its sister town across the border, al-Qaim. In Baghdad, before leaving to Najaf, I was assured by a top PMU commander that al-Qaim would be retaken “in a matter of days”: four, in the end, to be exact.

None of this is getting traction in Western media. The final victory on the ground against Daesh, in Syria, was accomplished by the Syrian army with help from Russian strategy and air power, and in Iraq by the Iraqi army and the PMUs. Syrian and Iraqi forces are symbolically reunited at the border.

Meanwhile, at this very moment, millions of souls – Iraqis, Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, northern Africans, Central Asians, Persian Gulf nationals – are being soothed via the massive, cathartic walk from Najaf to Karbala. A pilgrim captured the spell – spiritual redemption merging with political statement – as he told me, with the flicker of a smile, the walk is also “a protest against terrorism”.

All images in this article are from the author.

Featured image: Chaplains, U.S. Marines and family members observe a moment of silence at memorial services for the 241 Marines killed during the terrorist bombing of the barracks at Beirut International Airport. (Credit: Gunnery Sgt. R.D. Lucas/DefenseImages.mil)

Vice President Mike Pence and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster recently marked the 34th anniversary of the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. Their remarks may have comforted the families and honored the sacrifice of the 242 American service members—222 of whom were Marines—who were killed. But both officials presented such a distorted version of the events of that horrible day that, if not corrected, they will cause more harm than good to our national security.

According to Pence and McMaster, the attack on the Marine (and French) barracks was an early version of the attacks of 9/11. In their view, terrorist bombers, aided and abetted by Iran, committed mass murder and inspired Osama bin Laden by attacking U.S. and allied military forces that were simply in Lebanon on a peacekeeping mission. Moreover, the attack demonstrates that their boss, President Trump, was right not to certify the nuclear deal with Iran.

However, close examination of the events reveals that while the U.S. and French military forces were initially engaged in a peacekeeping mission, by the time of the attack their nations were waging war against the allies of Iran in the Lebanese civil war.

The multinational force, composed of troops from the U.S., France, and Italy, arrived in Lebanon in August 1982. Their presence was part of a ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which followed the American-backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon in early 1982. Their mission was to oversee the peaceful withdrawal of Yasser Arafat and the members of the PLO from Beirut. Within a month, the PLO withdrawal was completed and the troops left, in effect, ending their peacekeeping mission.

But shortly after the withdrawal, the assassination of the Lebanese president-elect, Bashir Gemayel—the Phalangist leader of the Lebanese Forces, a unified Christian militia—sparked a new wave of violence in which Christian militiamen, who were strong supporters of Gemayel, killed upwards of 800 Palestinians, mostly women, children and elderly, in refugee camps. In the wake of these killings, known as the Sabra and Shatila massacre, U.S. troops returned and became involved in the civil war.

By early 1983, the situation seemed to have stabilized until, in April of that year, a car bomb destroyed the U.S. embassy in Beirut. In July, after Israel began a unilateral withdrawal, fighting between the competing militias intensified and violence against the multilateral force, who were now seen as allies of the Christian militias, escalated. As a result, U.S. Marine positions routinely came under small arms and mortar fire which, by late August, the Marines began returning.  These skirmishes led to the death and wounding of several militiamen and some Marines even before the attack on the barracks.

The crucial turning point occurred in early September, when the U.S. began providing naval gunfire support for the U.S.-backed Lebanese Army—something that was opposed, as journalist Nir Rosen has pointed out, by the State Department, the CIA, and even Marine Commander Col. Timothy Geraghty.

In an article he wrote on the 25th anniversary of the attack on his marines, Geraghty recalled the situation:

The Marine and the French headquarters were targeted primarily because of who we were and what we represented. … It is noteworthy that the United States provided naval gunfire support—which I strongly opposed for a week—to the Lebanese Army at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on 19 September and that the French conducted an airstrike on 23 September in the Bekaa Valley. American support removed any lingering doubts of our neutrality and I said to my staff at the time we were going to pay in blood for this decision.

The Marines’ deaths certainly need to be remembered. But the real problem is that when we went back into Lebanon after withdrawing, the U.S. took sides in a civil war that it could not and did not need to win. And while Iran certainly bears some responsibility for the deaths of these brave warriors, this does not mean the Iranians had anything to do with 9/11.

In fact, right after the attack, Iran held a candlelight vigil condemning it, and later provided intelligence to help the U.S. drive the Taliban and al Qaeda from Afghanistan in 2001. And the Iranians persuaded their allies in the Northern Alliance to support the establishment of the Karzai government at the Bonn Conference in December 2001. Moreover, condemning Iran for these attacks in Beirut—as Pence and McMaster did—ignores the fact that we were de facto supporters of Iraq when that country not only invaded Iran in the early 1980s, but used chemical weapons against them. Finally, using the events of 1983 to undermine a nuclear deal with Iran, completed some 32 years after the attack, makes as much sense as our not wanting to conclude a nuclear arms agreement with the Soviet Union in the early-1970s because of the assistance they were providing to the North Vietnamese to kill Americans.

Rather than using this horrible event to push their agenda, Pence and McMaster should have praised President Reagan for having the foresight not to expand the war after the attack, as many of his hawkish advisors wanted. Instead, Reagan listened to my then-boss, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and strategically redeployed the Marines to their ships; that is, withdrew them from Lebanon in early 1983. Moreover, as a result of this tragedy, the Pentagon developed what became known as the Powell Doctrine, which established stringent criteria Washington should use before becoming involved in wars of choice.

Lawrence Korb is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a senior adviser to the Center for Defense Information. He was formerly director of national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, and served as President Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations and Logistics) from 1981 to 1985.

The Central Intelligence Agency appears to have collaborated with the neoconservative think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies to try to link Iran to the Salafi-jihadist group al-Qaeda.

Ned Price, a former CIA analyst and spokesman, has suggested that the move may be part of a wider campaign by the Trump administration’s new CIA director to establish “a rationale for regime change” in Tehran.

In the lead-up to the illegal 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the effort to link Baghdad to al-Qaeda was “a key element of the march to war,” Price explained, implying that the Trump administration might be doing something similar with Iran.

President Donald Trump has, since the beginning of his term, made aggressive opposition to Iran a key feature of his foreign policy. He has surrounded himself with anti-Iran hawks in the White House, and pledged to unilaterally “tear up” the nuclear deal agreed to by major world powers.

Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. proxy in the Middle East, has in recent weeks escalated its campaign against Iran. The Saudi monarchy pressured Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to resign, and has been accused of holding him hostage. The kingdom then effectively declared war on Lebanon, in the name of countering Iran and its ally Hezbollah.

President Trump has praised Saudi Arabia’s belligerent intervention and foreign meddling, even while accusing Tehran of doing exactly what Riyadh is doing. The U.S. government is working very closely with the Saudi monarchy and Israel to, in Trump’s words, “counter the regime’s destabilizing activity.”

Supposed Al Qaeda links

To justify these aggressive actions, the Trump administration has tried to link Iran to al-Qaeda.

The neoconservative think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies published an article November 1 that aimed to highlight the alleged connections between the two. In order to do so, the staunch right-wing organization cited previously unreleased CIA documents that had allegedly been collected in the May 2011 U.S. raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) indicated in the post, “The CIA provided FDD’s Long War Journal with an advance copy of many of the files.”

The right-wing think tank’s Long War Journal project subsequently stressed that the documents purportedly “show Iran facilitated AQ at times.” The Long War Journal also claimed that several al-Qaeda leaders lived in Iran, where they were allegedly detained at the time.

Next, Long War Journal editors Thomas Joscelyn and Bill Roggio conducted a lengthy interview with conservative radio host John Batchelor, in which they hammered on bin Laden’s supposed connections to Iran.

FDD has for years advocated for aggressive U.S. action, including military options, against Iran. It is one of the leading anti-Iran voices in the Beltway’s constellation of neoconservative think tanks. Funded in the past by the billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a confidant of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, FDD has been on the front lines of the campaign to undermine the Iran nuclear deal, which the far-right U.S. president has promised to “tear up.”

Suspicious bin Laden leaks

Former CIA analyst Ned Price has spoken out about the agency’s apparent collaboration with FDD, highlighting the anxiety that is consuming a wing of the foreign policy establishment over Trump’s hostile moves against Iran.

Price served as a special assistant to former president Barack Obama and spokesperson for his administration’s National Security Council. He was also spokesman for former CIA Director John Brennan for a time. A harsh critic of President Trump, Price resigned in protest in February, after a decade in the CIA.

In a lengthy thread on Twitter, Price outlined what he believed were the real reasons behind the CIA’s document dump.

“I’m all for transparency, but this isn’t about that,” he wrote.

Something more nefarious appears to be happening.

Price pointed out that the top of the U.S. intelligence community, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, reported back in January that it had published the “final Abbottabad documents.” The U.S. intelligence community was “closing the book on bin Laden,” the DNI declared.

Intelligence officials had concluded at the time that all of the bin Laden documents “of public interest were released,” Price said.

“But a funny thing happened when CIA Director Pompeo came into office. I’m told he re-launched a review of the files.”

Price emphasized that Mike Pompeo, who enjoys a close relationship with President Trump, is “the administration’s leading and most influential Iran hawk.”

In an op-ed in Fox News in 2016, Pompeo, then a congressman, lashed out at the Iranian nuclear deal and insisted “Congress must act to change Iranian behavior, and, ultimately, the Iranian regime.”

The release of further bin Laden documents is clearly a CIA effort, Price pointed out, because the new records are hosted on the CIA’s website, not on the DNI’s.

Why would Pompeo put so much effort into doing this? “It seems he’s convinced the unreleased files would tie al-Qa’ida to Iran,” Price explained.

In a Fox News interview this September, Pompeo confirmed his intentions when he announced the impending release of the bin Laden documents. “Iran has always made a devil’s bargain with al-Qaeda to protect them in many ways,” the CIA director declared.

Echoes of the Iraq War

Ned Price warned that Mike Pompeo’s “moves suggest he’s reverting to the Bush administration’s playbook: Emphasize terrorist ties as a rationale for regime change.”

Price also implied that Trump’s CIA may be exaggerating Iran’s ties to al-Qaeda in order to justify U.S. military action, recalling how former vice president Dick Cheney had tried to link the government of Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.

Much of the Bush administration’s argument rested on the claim that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had supposedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague before the September 11, 2001 attacks.

“It was a key element of the march to war,” Price emphasized.

Months into the Iraq War, the Washington Post noted that this “story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation,” even though this supposed Prague meeting “was the single thread the administration has pointed to that might tie Iraq to the [9/11] attacks.”

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme,” Price wrote. He concluded with a warning: “Need to remain vigilant to ensure Pompeo isn’t able to write it.”

AlterNet reached out to the CIA with a request for comment. The agency did not reply as of the time of publication.

Trita Parsi, an analyst and president of the National Iranian American Council, told AlterNet that, under Trump,

“There’s a clear political intent to ratchet up tensions with Iran and prepare the grounds to sell the American public war with Iran or at a minimum, a much more confrontational line.”

“As the nuclear issue has been resolved and cannot be used as a casus belli since the Iranians are abiding by the agreement, there is a search for another pretext to drive the situation towards a confrontation,” said Parsi, the author of Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy, a detailed insider’s account of the Iran deal negotiations.

“The selective focus on Iran’s alleged support to Al Qaeda seems to fit this bill,” Parsi added. “If the U.S. was serious about defeating Al Qaeda and ISIS, it would clamp down on Saudi Arabia’s financial, ideological and logistical support for the terror networks. Instead, Trump is unreservedly hugging the Saudis and focusing on Iran — a longstanding enemy of Al Qaeda.”

CIA Director Pompeo’s ties to the neoconservative FDD

The CIA’s links to the FDD go beyond the agency’s providing it with unreleased documents. And Mike Pompeo’s personal ties to the think tank go even further.

The CIA director spoke at FDD’s National Security Summit, on October 19. He was interviewed for more than an hour there by Juan Zarate, a former top Bush administration official who now serves as chairman and senior counselor of FDD’s Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance.

Iran was the primary subject of discussion. The terms “Iran,” “Iranian” or “Iranians” were mentioned 43 times in the interview.

FDD’s Zarate insisted Pompeo “is doing great work at the CIA,” and disclosed his close ties to the CIA director, revealing that he had in fact worked on Pompeo’s transition.

Under George W. Bush, Zarate was deputy national security advisor for combating terrorism and an assistant to the president. Before that, he was assistant secretary of the Treasury for terrorist financing and financial crimes. According to his White House bio, Juan Zarate “led the U.S. government’s global efforts to hunt Saddam Hussein’s assets, resulting in the return of over $3 billion of Iraqi assets from the U.S. and around the world.”

Zarate began his FDD National Security Summit interview fawning over Pompeo.

“There’s no secret here: I’m not an unbiased journalist. I’m a fan of this director. I worked on his transition. Frankly, I love the man,” Zarate said. “I believe in the Weberian concept of putting your biases out front before beginning the questions.”

Zarate made the primary goal of the interview clear right off the bat: His first question was about Iran. Pompeo replied by immediately warning of “the threat the Islamic Republic of Iran represents to the United States.”

“The president has come to view the threat from Iran as at the center of so much of the turmoil that bogs us down in lots of places in the Middle East,” the CIA director said. “And from an intelligence perspective, we shared that with the president.”

The Iran nuclear deal was not “satisfactory to” Trump, Pompeo explained.

“So he asked us all to go evaluate how we might present a more comprehensive effort to push back against the Quds Force, the IRGC more broadly, and the Iranian regime itself.”

“How do we push back?” Zarate asked. Pompeo called for using “all the tools available of U.S. power,” working with “the Saudis, the Emirates, the Israelis,” and taking action against the Iranian economy.

Pompeo asserting Iran-Al Qaeda links

In his interview with Pompeo, Zarate zeroed in on the supposed Iran-Al Qaeda connection.

“I thought that was interesting, in part because we’ve known, all along, that there have been links between the two,” Zarate said. The FDD think-tanker even attempted to link Iran to the 9/11 attacks.

“I think it’s an open secret, and not classified information, that there have been relationships, there are connections. There have been times the Iranians have worked alongside Al Qaeda,” Pompeo responded, again without providing evidence.

“We actually, the CIA is going to release, here, in the next handful of days, a series of documents related to the Abbottabad raids that may prove interesting to those who are looking to take at this issue—take a look at this issue a little bit further,” Pompeo added — foreshadowing the publication of the FDD’s report two weeks later.

Pompeo went on to ludicrously suggest that Iran, ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria’s extremist rebel-held Idlib province might “work together for a common threat against the United States.” In reality, it was U.S. allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey that supported ISIS, al-Qaeda and other extremist groups in Syria. Iran has allied with the Syrian government against these Salafi-jihadist militias.

In Syria, Pompeo noted, President Trump’s goal is “to push back not only against Iran, but the Syrian regime.” The CIA director did not mention that the government of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, has in fact been leading the fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda, most recently liberating the city of Deir Ezzor from a three year-long siege by ISIS.

The emerging reality on the ground in Syria explodes the conspiracy theories advanced by neoconservatives that Iran and the Syrian government have supported the very same Salafi-jihadist groups they have been fighting. But that hasn’t stopped these elements from doubling down in order to drum up war with Iran and its allies.

H.R. McMaster at FDD summit

Pompeo was not the only high-level Trump administration official who demonized Iran at the FDD National Security Summit. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster also sat down for hour-long interview with FDD CEO Mark Dubowitz.

McMaster’s FDD interview was even more heavily focused on Iran than Pompeo’s. In all, the words “Iran,” “Iranian” or “Iranians” were said a staggering 94 times.

Like Pompeo, McMaster immediately began his remarks by discussing the Trump administration’s “comprehensive strategy for the problem set associated with Iran.” He added, “our strategy integrates all elements of national power, and is oriented on neutralizing the government of Iran’s destabilizing influence, and constraining its aggression.”

McMaster condemned Iran for “sustain[ing] the murderous Assad regime in Syria.”

As the CIA director had done in his interview, the White House national security advisor lavished praise on the neoconservative think tank and its CEO, who has been intimately involved in drumming up support for sanctions in Iran: “I love Mark Dubowitz, and I love FDD.”

“I’m a huge admirer of Juan [Zarate] as well,” McMaster declared, noting that the former Bush official has “been a friend, mentor, example for me for, as he’s mentioned, across my entire professional life.”

“I want to thank FDD for the work it’s done over the years on so many critical issues, including the early work on the threat posed by radical Islamist ideology,” McMaster gushed.

The U.S. national security advisor made it clear that the neoconservative organization had informed the Trump administration’s policy:

“We have drawn heavily on the scholarship and analysis of FDD, and other think tanks and academic institutions as well as we developed integrated strategies over the past months.”

McMaster even asked for help from the notorious right-wing think tank:

“We need FDD’s help and we need the help of all of you here. We need organizations like FDD to continue their scholarship on the threats that we face. And we need our media, our press, investigative reporters to look hard at countries like Iran and North Korea, and help inform the world about how these road regimes skirt sanctions, flout international norms, brutalize their own people and manage their neighbors.”

He added,

“With the knowledge that you and others help bring to light about these threats, America can act with confidence.”

Ben Norton is a reporter for AlterNet’s Grayzone Project. You can follow him on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton.

Featured image is from Abraham Magnawa / Shutterstock.

U.S. President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in met in Seoul on November 7 and held a joint press conference following their summit. Trump’s statement was noticeably toned down in contrast to his past remarks on North Korea. It did not contain threats of “fire and fury” or military action against North Korea.

• Trump and Moon agreed to resolve the “North Korean nuclear issue” in a “peaceful manner” and establish “permanent peace” on the Korean peninsula;
• But they also reaffirmed their commitment to the strategy of “maximum pressure,” i.e. intensifying military pressure and sanctions against North Korea.
  • Trump reiterated complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization (CVID) of North Korea as the U.S.’ goal (North Korea has repeatedly said it will not discuss denuclearization as long as the United States maintains its “hostile policy” against it).
• Trump and Moon agreed to increase rotational deployment of U.S. strategic assets on and around the Korean peninsula.
• At South Korea’s request, they also finalized an agreement to lift the payload limit on South Korean ballistic missiles.
• Trump’s primary mission in South Korea was as salesman in chief for the U.S. defense industry.
  • He praised U.S.’ military assets as the “greatest in the world” and announced, “[South Korea will] be ordering billions of dollars’ worth of equipment, and we’ve already approved some of those orders.”
  • A Blue House official met with reporters to clarify that military equipment deals are in the works but nothing has been “approved” or finalized as Trump suggested.
    • He did note that South Korea is interested in acquiring and/or developing high-tech strategic assets including nuclear submarines and military spy technology.

South Koreans Defy Police Barricades to Protest Trump

November 7 – Day of Trump’s arrival

Thousands of anti-Trump protesters gathered in Seoul’s Gwanghwamun Plaza.

• South Korean riot police erected a wall of police buses — a tactic begun and widely used by the conservative Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye administrations — to barricade the protesters.
• The “No Trump Joint Action Task Force” — made up of over 220 civil society organizations — denounced the bus barricades: “Moon Jae-in, the self-proclaimed  ‘president of the candlelight revolution,’ ordered police bus barricades to quarantine the people who have gathered to protest Trump, who habitually spouts war threats and bullies other countries through forced weapons sales and trade pressure.”

Later that night, protesters gathered outside the Hyatt Hotel, where Trump was staying.

• As Trump was returning to his hotel after his welcome banquet with Moon Jae-in, protesters threw paper cups and glow-in-the-dark sticks on the road and forced Trump’s motorcade to turn around and take a different route to the Hyatt Hotel.

November 8 – Trump’s speech at South Korea’s National Assembly

National Assembly representatives of the progressive Minjung Party staged a silent protest against Trump.

• While other lawmakers greeted Trump with a standing ovation, Kim Jong-hoon and Yoon Jong-oh of the Minjung Party held up signs that read, “No war; we want peace.”
• Representative Kim Jong-hoon explained their action in a statement following Trump’s speech to the National Assembly: “It is normal in a democratic country to have at least one or two of the three hundred National Assembly members stand for the citizens, who genuinely yearn for peace… We wanted to pass on the voice of the people in a peaceful manner.”

Thousands protested outside the National Assembly building on the morning of Trump’s address to South Korean lawmakers.

All images in this article are from Zoom in Korea.

Featured image: Kang Song-won stands on the rooftop of a house in Songhwa-ri village just beyond the wall surrounding USAG Humphreys. Behind the wall, Apache, Chinook and Blackhawk helicopters await their next mission. (Source: Jon Letman)

At first glance, Humphreys looks like an ordinary American suburb. With K-12 schools, chapels, a library, a big box store, dental and veterinary clinics and a spacious plaza where kids can skateboard and eat ice cream, Humphreys could easily be in Dallas or Denver. It’s the security gates, razor-wire topped walls and the M1 Abrams tanks that stand out. U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys is, in fact, in Pyeongtaek, 40 miles south of Seoul, South Korea.

On a guided tour of Humphreys, Army Public Affairs Officer (PAO) Bob McElroy calls it “our little piece of America.” The Army calls it “the largest power projection platform in the Pacific.” Now in the final stage of a massive base expansion, when completed around 2020, Humphreys will have tripled in size to nearly 3,500 acres — roughly the size of central Washington, D.C. — making it the largest overseas American military base in the world, capping off over a dozen years of transformation and consolidation of the U.S. military footprint in South Korea.

Humphreys is a major helicopter base, home to a rotational Attack Reconnaissance squadron. Attack assets like Apache, Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters fly out of Humphreys mostly at night and the 8,000 foot long airfield is large enough to land C-130s or other fighter jets from nearby Osan Air Base.

The installation has a battle simulation center, small arms range, communications center, and motor pools for servicing Bradley Fighting Vehicles and battle tanks, all poised and constantly ready to “Fight Tonight” while, like any other municipality, managing its own public works, infrastructure, police, fire and real estate.

For the residents of Humphreys — eventually there will be more than 45,000 — there are creature comforts like a “super gym” and 18-hole golf course, a community center for arts, crafts and music, swimming pools, athletic fields, a movie theater, a bowling alley as well as a 200-room hotel for military personnel. This month a 300,000 sq. foot modern shopping center with a scores of restaurants and retail stores will open near the pedestrian-friendly town center.

In all, more than 650 new buildings have been built on what was once rice fields and farming villages. But beyond the saunas and Starbucks, the Yongsan Relocation Plan and Land Partnership Plan are consolidating U.S. bases and other installations in Seoul and near the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) dividing North and South Korea.

During Korea’s Japanese colonial period (1910-45), Humpheys was a Japanese military base. At the end of World War II, the United States seized control, renaming the base “K-6” (Korean airfield No. 6) and later Camp Humphreys. Today Humphreys is home to U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) Headquarters, the 2nd Combat Aviation Brigade, and more than three dozen other mission units.

Humphreys also hosts rotational infantry, tank, and artillery battalion units who augment forces on the ground and train at the Rodriguez Live Fire Complex using cannons, tanks and mortars near the heavily militarized DMZ.

The relocation to Humphreys includes soldiers from USAG Yongsan, USAG Red Cloud, Camp Casey, Eighth Army headquarters, and elements of the combined forces command and the Second Infantry Division, uniting 173 U.S. military camps from around the country.

The Army says the move to Humphreys means having to defend fewer sites and being further away from potential North Korean artillery strikes while improving “force posture and operational efficiency.”

Behind fences, gates and walls topped with razor wire, USAG Humphreys is a “little piece of America” where U.S. military personnel and their families enjoy the comforts of home while soldiers train for battle ready to “fight tonight.” Photo by Jon Letman

A More “Normal” Tour

For many years, Humphreys was largely a single soldier post, but under a policy called tour normalization, USFK is encouraging families to join their soldiers in-country, hoping more spouses and kids will be a stabilizing force to counter so-called “camptown” problems like fighting, crime, sexual violence ,and prostitution near bases.

To accommodate some of those families, up to a dozen 12-story modern housing towers are being built, furnished and designed for maximum comfort and convenience.

Leading a media tour of the base, PAO McElroy explains how Humphreys expanded onto farm land granted by the Republic of Korea (ROK) government. He says Korean farmers were given cash settlements by the South Korean government and moved into new houses in the mid-2000s.

Media accounts from the time describe the forced relocations as land grabs accompanied by some of the largest and most violent anti-base protests in modern South Korean history. Dr. Andrew Yeo, an associate professor of politics at Catholic University of America, was there. He recalls farmers and families being evicted from the no longer extant villages of Daechu-ri and Dodu-ri.

“The [South Korean] Ministry of National Defense (MND) had acquired the land through a process of eminent domain…There was definitely land that was rice farms. I saw it with my own eyes; I walked there.”

After leaving South Korea for several months, Yeo returned to find the former rice farms and villages cordoned off with barbed wire.

By late winter of 2006, Yeo explains, the ROK government was under increasing pressure from the U.S. to push the expansion project forward, a process delayed by clashes between police and protesters. As winter turned to spring, Yeo says, it became easier to accelerate the removal of protesters.

Yeo, who teaches a course on the politics of overseas U.S. bases, says it’s important for American citizens to understand the U.S.’s large overseas military presence and the cost to host countries.

“Even if, at the end of the day, you think bases are there to provide stability and security — we think about national security, but what about human security or, at the very local level, what cost was it to have this large infrastructure in place? It’s all part of the question of who defines peace and security.”

In the village of Songhwa-ri, surrounded by small vegetable fields just outside Humphreys, as large banners decry helicopter noise flutter in the breeze, Korean activist Joyakgol reflects on the protests and living with a foreign military presence. He says Americans should learn about the impact of U.S. bases in this country slightly larger than Indiana. “In [South] Korea it’s a small country. If you have a huge military installation like Camp Humphreys, the people will have to live here and will be affected by the noise or the pollution or the crime so it’s very painful.”

Protest banners and flags flap in the breeze just beyond the walls of USAG Humphreys in Songhwa-ri village. The yellow flag reads “Change the flight path” in opposition to U.S. Army helicopters that regularly fly over houses at night, forcing villagers to close their windows. Photo by Jon Letman

No Free Ride

Described as the U.S. military’s largest peacetime construction project, up to 93 percent of the $10.7 billion cost of Humphrey’s expansion is being paid by South Korea under the Special Measures Agreement, which comes in addition to more than $800 million in support of the U.S. military presence in South Korea in 2016, a 50-50 split with the United States, according to a USFK Public Affairs Office spokesperson.

Last year General Vincent Brooks, now commander of USFK, made headlines when he stated that it’s cheaper to keep U.S. forces stationed in South Korea than in the United States while then mayor and presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung argued South Korea is paying too much to host U.S. forces.

Despite this, as early as 2011, President Donald Trump has been inaccurately claiming that South Korea doesn’t “pay us” for providing military defense. During the 2016 campaign he continued to falsely suggest U.S. allies weren’t paying “their fair share.” Last April the U.S. president sparked outrage when he called on South Korea to pay $1 billion for the deployment of the THAAD anti-missile system which maker Lockheed Martin openly states is being deployed “to defend U.S. troops, allied forces, population centers, and critical infrastructure.”

Seoul’s willingness to pay so much for the U.S. military presence, McElory says, is “a sign of the strength of our alliance with the ROK.” He stresses the United States and South Korea share “an important alliance…an important mission,” adding, “we’re equal partners in it and we have each other’s interests at heart.”

Responding by email, Lee Mihyeon, coordinator of the Peace and Disarmament Center of the Seoul-based NGO People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, says her organization does not support Korean tax dollars paying for U.S. military forces:

“Of course there are people who accept this expenditure with resignation, but most South Korean citizens are not okay with [it].”

Regarding the question of burden sharing, Dr. Daniel Pinkston, a lecturer on international relations at Troy University in Seoul, says,

“The ROK is a democracy, so they can stop it if they want. But they are getting a good deal.”

Writing in an email, he suggests that in light of regional security threats, South Korea spending about 2.6 percent of its GDP on defense is reasonable. He calls South Korean expenditures to keep forward deployed U.S. Forces and credible extended deterrence “a really great bargain,” asking, “What would the alternative be?”

Newly built soldier housing, schools and other facilities as seen from the balcony of a 12-story residential tower. In 2006, the South Korean government forcibly relocated Korean farming villages in order to expand what will be America’s largest overseas military base. Photo by Jon Letman.

Deep Divisions Remain

In addition to the cost of paying for Humphreys’ expansion, Kang Song-won, director of the Pyeongtaek Peace Center, says that more than a decade after villagers were displaced, community divisions remain.

New infrastructure like wider roads near the base and real estate development for military off-base housing, Kang says, benefit U.S. forces, and specific business owners, not the greater community.

The size of the base, he adds, isn’t as important as it once was with the United States exercising a policy of strategic flexibility, meaning U.S. forces can be dispatched from South Korea to other countries as needed. For Kang and like-minded Koreans, being sandwiched between Osan Air Base and Humphreys means living with noise, crime, and a divided community.

When protests against Humphreys’ expansion raged over a decade ago, Kang was joined by Catholic priest and prominent peace activist Father Mun Jeong-hyeon. Father Mun, now 80 years old, still actively protests against U.S. and Korean militarism.

“The U.S. military occupies so [much] land here and there,” Mun says. “We insist that U.S. troops should be out of Korea. We cannot allow the U.S. military to occupy Korean land anymore.”

Father Mun asks a simple question:

“Why Korea was divided? Why USA is stationed in this country for a long time?”

Clubs and bars like the Drunk Bus cater to U.S. military personnel in the village of Anjeong-ri outside of USAG Humphreys. Camptown districts near overseas U.S. bases have a history of crime, prostitution and human trafficking. Photo by Jon Letman.

Ready or Not

Lanae Rivers-Woods, a U.S. citizen who has lived in Pyeongtaek teaching in a Korean public school for seven years, has watched how her own country’s military is changing her adopted home. She says the impact and the response defy simple explanations.

She describes indifference by many in her community for whom Pyeongtaek’s bases — USAG Humphreys and Osan Air Base — are all but nonexistent. She calls the situation “kind of surreal.”

Areas around the U.S. bases have little to offer Koreans, Rivers-Woods says, recalling her own experiences outside Osan Air Base.

“Generally, we all avoided those areas because they were violent and stressful,” she says. “The verbal sexual harassment the second you walked onto the main street [by the bases] was really stressful,” she says, calling it “really inappropriate” and “very uncomfortable.”

Today, however, that hostile atmosphere has changed dramatically according to Rivers-Woods, who calls the situation now “way more normal.”

But as Humphreys draws a huge influx of U.S. military personnel and their families, she worries about what she sees as a lack preparation by the military and the inability to integrate soldiers into Pyeongtaek’s civil community. In response, she has launched her own volunteer organization and created a smart phone app and blog to help military personnel adapt and better understand Korean culture.

“I don’t have anybody’s agenda,” she says, “I am just there to solve problems.”

Pyeongtaek faces many challenges beyond its role as a major military hub. Rivers-Woods points to massive industrial and commercial development, worsening traffic and poor air quality, and rapidly rising housing costs, which she says dwarf local concerns over the expanding military base. “If you saw the other development, you’d be like ‘why would I care about that base?’ I am pretty sure the entire base would fit in the one Samsung factory… We’ve got a lot of issues going on,” says Rivers-Woods.

New Samsung, LG and other large projects are expected to double Pyeongtaek’s population from the current 440,000 in several years’ time.

Kang Song-won of the Pyeongtaek Peace Center points toward USAG Humphreys in the distance as he explains how farmers were displaced by the expansion of the U.S. Army base. Photo by Jon Letman

Abandoned Land

Bridget Martin, a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Geography at the University of California Berkeley, is currently living in South Korea studying how base consolidation and U.S. military spatial reorganization impact communities and local development projects.

She spends a lot of time meeting with South Korean government officials, examining how they want to use the land after it is returned by the United States. Projects include parks, restoration of natural areas and commercial ventures. After the United States returns land to the ROK government, it is primarily and controlled by government agencies like the Ministry of Financial Planning and the Ministry of National Defense (MND).

Local municipal governments may want that land but the MND charges market price for the former military sites and, as Martin explains,

“No one can afford to do anything with [the land] and it’s already a very economically depressed area.” The result, she says, is a lot of unused, abandoned land.

Meanwhile, the Pyeongtaek municipal government has tried to present the Humphreys’ expansion and troop increase as an opportunity to spur growth, attract new investment and infrastructure development, and transform Pyeongtaek into an international city.

“There is a diversity of opinions in the Pyeongtaek city government for sure,” Martin says, “but the vision for the city kind of congealed around this utopian sort of military cosmopolitan space that I cannot imagine will ever pan out the way it is portrayed in the propaganda and planning material.”

Part of the U.S. military’s largest overseas base includes this newly-built pedestrian-friendly downtown plaza. The 3,454 acre installation will eventually be home to around 45,000 military personnel, their families, civilian contractors and Korean nationals. Photo by Jon Letman

Little Piece of America

Back inside USAG Humphreys, Bob McElroy drives along a main thoroughfare called Freedom Road where, even at a time of heightened rhetoric when the leaders of North Korea and the United States casually threaten each other with nuclear annihilation, life plugs along as usual. Soldiers maintain their vehicles, attack helicopters conduct night training exercises, and military families live a comfortable American lifestyle inside their fortified home.

McElroy says the upgraded base is a way to show appreciation for the men and women of the U.S. armed forces who support the U.S.-ROK alliance, always ready to “fight tonight.” Whether there’s war or peace, the United States shows no sign it plans to leave Korea any time soon.

Surveying the installation from the balcony of a 12-story family housing tower, McElroy says,

“It’s interesting to see how much it’s grown and how much it’s changed. It’s a great thing. It’s staggering when I think of the size of this thing and the fact that we built a city out of just farm fields, out of — not from nothing, there were villages out here — but we built it up from the ground up.”

Reviewing the expanded perimeters of U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys on a map, this reporter points to Korean names and asks, “Are those villages?”

“They used to be,” McElroy answers, explaining a new vehicle maintenance facility is being built where the village of Daechu-ri once stood. Gesturing inside a thick black line on the large map, he says, “All of this is ours now.”

Jon Letman is a Hawaii-based independent journalist covering politics, people, and the environment in the Asia-Pacific region. He has written for Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy in Focus, Inter Press Service and others.

All images in this article are from the author.

A diplomat spat has developed between Berlin and Warsaw after the Germany Defense Minister said that her country should support the “democratic resistance of the young generation” in Poland.

This scandalous remark from Germany’s top military official immediately led to a strong rebuke from all levels of the Polish government, which rightly interpreted her statement as an implied threat to aid the Soros-linked Color Revolutionaries in their quest to carry out a regime change in the Central European country. As an overly simplified backgrounder, the ruling Law & Justice conservative party has been working to cleanse Poland’s permanent bureaucracy, or “deep state”, of the holdovers that their Civil Platform liberal predecessors had hurriedly stacked into government in a last-ditch attempt to derail their opponents’ legislative agenda until the next election.

This is very similar to what the Democrats have been doing against Trump, but it’s just that PiS, which is the Polish abbreviation that the Law & Justice party is popularly known by, has been comparatively more successful than their allied American counterpart, hence why there’s been a proportionate increase in foreign support to the Color Revolution movement in response.

Germany hates PiS because party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s ideology of “EuroRealism” contrasts with Merkel’s “EuroLiberalism” in every way, from dealing with the migrant crisis to the future organization of the EU as a whole. PiS is even being sued by Brussels because of its refusal to accept the forcible relocation of even a single Muslim migrant, and its ambitious “Three Seas Initiative” aims to consolidate a new power bloc in Central and Eastern Europe in order to oppose Germany’s post-Brexit centralization initiative for the EU in favor of a more hands-off and reformed approach that respects the national sovereignty of the bloc’s members. It’s long been suspected that Berlin was backing the anti-government movement in Poland, and the country’s media has reported on this for nearly two years already, but the German Defense Minister’s sloppy statement on TV seemed to present the strongest confirmation yet that this is indeed truly the case.

This diplomatic spat will probably soon die down, but the damage that it wrought to bilateral relations won’t likely go away so long as PiS continues to govern Poland, which might be for the foreseeable future seeing as how they secured the country’s largest-ever post-communist electoral victory in 2015. Warsaw is now more motivated than ever before to continue strengthening its relations with its “Three Seas” partners, particularly Hungary but potentially even Austria under the coming premiership of Sebastian Kurz. In addition, PiS stands validated in the eyes of the Polish people for having apparently been right all along about German interference in their country’s domestic political affairs, which will embolden its supporters and might even convince some of its less-radical detractors to reconsider their positions.

This controversial episode is also very curious because it came at the same time that Poland ended its precautionary Flexible Credit Line with the IMF and Reuters launched an infowar attack against the country by provocatively suggesting that Poland’s job boom was inadvertently stoking inflation, which makes one wonder whether the Defense Minister’s veiled threat was timed as a “dog whistle” to coincide with a new asymmetrical regime change offensive against Warsaw.

The post presented is the partial transcript of the CONTEXT COUNTDOWN radio program on Sputnik News, aired on Friday Nov 10, 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: Former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri

Only a day after major ISIS defeats in Syria and Iraq indicated that fighting may be winding down, an extraordinary series of events raised the danger of a new war, this time against Lebanon. These events began on Nov. 4 when Saudi Arabia destabilized Lebanon’s government by forcing Prime Minister Saad Hariri’ to resign, and led to the Saudi government false claim on Nov. 7 that Lebanon had “declared war” on that kingdom.

Secret documents made public by Israeli TV Channel 10 indicate that this provocative war scenario was  coordinated by Saudi Arabia and Israel to instigate a new Middle East war, with Lebanon the target, vilified as a proxy of Iran. This provocation follows a huge Israeli military exercise held in September simulating an invasion of Lebanon designed specifically to target the Lebanese group Hezbollah. This was Tel Aviv’s largest military drill in 20 years, involving all branches of the Israeli military.

While Washington has branded the Lebanese group Hezbollah “terrorist,” progressives in the Middle East see the group as a defender of Lebanese sovereignty.  Twice, in 2000 and 2006, it kicked Israeli troops out of Lebanon.  Hezbollah has fought alongside the Syrian government not only to prevent the dismemberment of this neighboring Arab country, but also to prevent ISIS from invading Lebanon and terrorizing the people there. Iran, also vilified by U.S. imperialism and its clients, has provided crucial political, material and military support needed to defeat ISIS.

The events are as follows:

On Nov. 3, the last ISIS strongholds in Iraq and Syria fell. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel seek to dismember Syria, and have assisted ISIS.

In a measure never seen before in the international arena, on Nov. 4 under orders from the Saudi regime, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri announced from Saudi Arabia on Saudi TV his resignation as PM. He assailed Iran for interfering in Lebanon, and claimed that Hezbollah was trying to assassinate him.

Hours later, Ryadh said it intercepted a Yemeni-fired missile over its capital. For years the  Saudi regime, armed by the U.S., has been bombarding the people of Yemen, indiscriminately killing civilians.

While the Yemenis say the missile they fired was made in Yemen, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel bin Ahmed claimed,

“It was an Iranian missile, launched by Hezbollah,”  and constituted “act of war by Iran.”

On Nov. 7, the Saudis, furthered the escalation, and accused Lebanon of “declaring war” against it.

At the same time, in a bid to consolidate power, the Saudi the regime arrested hundreds inside the kingdom on charges of corruption, including some of the country’s most high-profile princes and businessmen.

Leaked cable shows Saudi-Israeli coordination

The corporate media has long given the impression that Israel and Saudi Arabia are on opposite sides.  That is for public consumption. Both regimes are propped up by and armed by Washington so that they can slam liberation struggles and independent governments in the Middle East and keep this oil rich area “safe” for Exxon Mobil  and JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Now there is a smoking gun showing that Israel and Saudi Arabia are working together to bring war to Lebanon.

On Nov. 7, Israeli Channel 10 news published a leaked diplomatic cable sent to all Israeli ambassadors throughout the world concerning the above events. The classified embassy cable, written in Hebrew, shows that Tel Aviv and Riyadh are deliberately coordinating to escalate the situation in the Middle East. These documents provide the first proof of direct collaboration between these two U.S. clients.

The cable was leaked by Barak Ravid, senior diplomatic correspondent for Channel 10 News. The communiqué, he said, was sent from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jerusalem on Nov. 6 to all Israeli embassies. It instructed Israeli diplomats to to do everything possible to rev up diplomatic pressure against Hezbollah and Iran. The communication urged support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, and for Israeli diplomats to appeal to the “highest officials” in their host countries to expel Hezbollah from Lebanese government and politics,” according to zerohedge.com.

Resignation leaves Lebanon vulnerable to attack

In Lebanon, Hariri’s resignation is seen as having been forced by the Saudis in order to destabilize the Lebanese government, foment discord and leave Lebanon vulnerable to Israeli attack.  Many have pointed out that the resignation statement was written in a style used by the Saudis. The resignation shocked even Hariri’s closest aides. The Lebanese army denied any assassination threat.

Lebanon’s unwieldy political system is easily destabilized. Put together by the French colonizers in 1925, it mandates that government posts, and parliamentary apportionment, be based upon the country’s different religious groupings. The current government, with Hariri as MP, and Hezbollah’s Michel Aoun as president, took office last year. It ended years of government deadlock, and last month it produced Lebanon’s first budget since 2005.

Hariri, who has dual Saudi-Lebanese citizenship and financial interest in Saudi Arabia, is regarded as “the Saudi’s man” in Lebanon. The irony of a Lebanese PM railing against Iran for interfering in Lebanon’s affairs when he just resigned in Saudi Arabia on Saudi TV reading a Saudi-written statement has not been lost on anyone.

Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun has announced that he will not decide whether to accept or reject the resignation of Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri until Hariri returns to Lebanon to explain his reasons. Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has called on the people of Lebanon to remain calm.

Why is Hezbollah being targeted?

Israel, which shares a border with Lebanon, has long wanted to contain Lebanese sovereignty and even to annex its territory. The Israeli military bombed southern Lebanon for decades from land, sea and air.  In 1982 a massive Israeli invasion killed tens of thousands of Lebanese civilians, while Israeli troops occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years.  In 2006 Israel bombs targeted Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure and fighter planes peppered the south with a million cluster bombs that still kill and maim.

Israel seeks to destroy Hezbollah because it is a formidable fighting force, and the only group that prevents Israel from doing as it wills in Lebanon. Hezbollah fighters and their allies kicked Israeli troops out of Lebanon in 2000, ending the 18-year occupation, and repelled an Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon in 2006, forcing it to retreat.

This week’s dangerous and provocative developments seek to counter the defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq with war in Lebanon.  Whether imperialism and its agents will be able to do this, however, is far from certain. The beleaguered people of the Middle East have been inspired by the victories against ISIS, and remain determined to fight for their rights.

This article was originally published by Liberation News.

99 years ago, on 11-11-1918, at precisely 11 am Paris time, a cease-fire (aka “truce” or “armistice”) was agreed to and signed by military negotiators from France, Britain and Germany. The terms of the truce ultimately resulted in the end of the “War to End All Wars” 7 months later when the Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919.

Germany’s surrender to the Allies was regarded as the prudent thing to do after Kaiser Wilhelm’s tyrannical monarchy was overthrown by democratic socialist forces earlier in 1918. Erich Ludendorf, a classic example of Prussian militarism, was one of the German generals who first broached the idea of starting the negotiations that eventually led to Germany’s surrender.

Ludendorf saw that

1) Germany’s army was terminally exhausted, demoralized and poorly equipped;

2) the United States had finally entered the war with fresh troops;

3) the fledgling government at home was in disarray;

4) the war had bankrupted the nation (as all wars eventually do – unless there is enough looting and plundering of the occupied territories);

5) that civilians at home were starving; and

6) that victory was an impossibility. The writing was on the wall; Germany had no choice but to surrender.

The armistice was signed at Compiegne, France by four French and British military officers, the German Foreign Minister, two German military officers and one German civilian.

According to the terms of the armistice, Germany agreed to immediately evacuate all occupied territories within two weeks and to surrender 5,000 cannons, 25,000 machine guns, 1,700 planes, and all German submarines. All Allied prisoners of war were to be released by Germany immediately, but German POWs were not to be released until a peace treaty was signed sometime in the future.

Ever since November 11, 1919 – one year after the signing – Armistice Day has been observed as a national day of remembrance in all Allied nations. It is called Remembrance Day in the United Kingdom and Armistice Day in the United States. Traditionally, 2 minutes of silence are observed at exactly 11 am.

For decades after the end of World War I, November 11 was intended to be a day of mourning and repentance for the satanic carnage that the up to 14 million dead combatants plus the hundreds of millions of wounded combatants and secondarily traumatized civilians had suffered.

The senselessness and stupidity of that war should have resulted in the courts-martial of every gung-ho officer and the demeaning of every war-mongering politician the de-certifying of every war-profiteering corporation that thought the war was worth engaging in. But it did not. The war-mongers and war-profiteers just went into hibernation.

But the war did result in the dissolution of four empires, their emperors and kings, and the assorted aristocrats and sycophants who had been so cruelly ripping off the multitudes of poor people for so many centuries. The four empires that collapsed were the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires. And good riddance it was.

Of course, Germany DOES NOT celebrate Armistice Day, because that November 11 and the date of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles (that ended the war) were irrationally regarded as the dates of treasonous acts that had been committed by Germany’s new civilian democratic leaders who signed the documents – holding blameless the German military officers who suggested that the German army surrender in the first place.

11/11/18 was despised by patriotic “Deutchland Uber Alles” Germans, especially the right-wing, pro-monarchist, proto-fascist and “Germany First” nationalists who repeatedly used the “Stab-in-the-Back” and “November Criminals” deception to weaken and then overthrow the Weimar Republic’s experiment in democracy. After 12 years of pro-war propaganda from militarists like Adolf Hitler, Ludendorf and the Nazi Party, democracy never had a chance, especially with all the economic turmoil that began with the unaffordable, poverty-inducing militarism, the war, inflation and the unemployment that came with the US Wall Street crash of 1929 – which affected the whole world.

The “Stab in the Back” and “November Criminals” Myths That Scape-goated Hitler’s Leftist Enemies

According to WikiPedia, the “Stab-in-the-Back” Myth is the notion, widely believed and promulgated in right-wing, pro-militarist circles in pre-Nazi Germany, that the Imperial German Army did not lose World War I, but rather, the German military had been betrayed by the civilians on the home front, especially the pro-democracy groups that overthrew the tyrannical monarchy during the German Revolution of 1918-19.

The year after the war ended, most of the national leaders that considered themselves victors proclaimed November 11 to be Armistice Day or Remembrance Day, and they ordered all businesses to briefly stop doing business for two minutes and stand in silence at exactly 11 AM, expecting all citizens to ponder the meaning of war’s horrors and to pray that there will never be another war.

In 1926 the US Congress passed a resolution declaring that Armistice Day should be a day of “thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through goodwill and mutual understanding between nations.”

In 1938 the US Congress made Armistice Day an official holiday that was explicitly dedicated to perpetuating world peace.

Dwight Eisenhower, the CIA and Omar Bradley: Their Contributions to the Evolution of US Militarism

And then, in June of 1954, US President Dwight David Eisenhower signed a bill changing the name of Armistice Day to Veterans’ Day. The stated purpose of the new holiday was “to thank all veterans who had served the United States of America.” Simultaneously, in the post-WWII years when the rest of the planet had had much of its infrastructure destroyed by the war, the US was sensing that it could easily establish a powerful global empire. The CIA was feeling its oats and the Department of War was name-changed to the Department of Defense. Planetary, full-spectrum military and economic dominance by the US was a possibility. But the military and economic powers that be in the US knew that the two powers needed to work in tandem.

And just like that, as has been the case of so many other pro-war propaganda tools, anti-war and pro-peace sentiments had to be suppressed. Peace-loving holidays like Mother’s Day, Memorial Day, Armistice Day and Labor Day needed to be de-emphasized or co-opted.

And so they were. The process was so subtle that the public never flinched. America’s under-appreciated or wounded military veterans applauded for they seemed to appreciate being thanked for their service, even if most of them resented the empty sentiments.

One of the (perhaps intended) consequences of the gradual change away from the emphasis on peace was the amnesia over the horrors of war and the blindered glorification of war. Both adults and children were easily brain-washed into mindlessly glorifying the diabolical. Keeping America militarily strong was emphasized.

In his Armistice Day speech in 1948, General Omar Bradley famously accused those entities that placed their trust in military dominance. He said:

“We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount. The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.”

The military and economic entities that are in control of the world didn’t take Bradley’s admonition seriously.. Most Christian churches failed to see the truth in the statements. In the halls of Congress and in the White House ever since WWII, there is no consideration of the cruelty, stupidity and futility of war. On Veterans Day in America today no one is sincerely praying or working for a real sustainable peace, even during the obligatory 2 minutes of silence.

In our corrupt capitalist society there is just too much money to be made by war-profiteering corporations and wealthy investors when there are potential military conflicts brewing. The stocks of war industries surge when Donald Trump tweets about bombing foreign nations. And then there are legions of major media outlets that are always ready and willing to cheer-lead for wars and rumors of war.

Just like America’s habit of glorifying select aspects of the criminal Vietnam war, Australia has been infamously and irrationally going overboard honoring a shameful military episode in their past history.

Every April 25, Australia celebrates what they call ANZAC Day (Australia and New Zealand Army Corps), for on that date in 1915, rookie Australian and New Zealand soldiers engaged in a British war for the first time in their histories. On that day, tens of thousands of obedient “down under” troops, all of whom had pledged allegiance to the King of England, started an amphibian assault against Turkey, a World War I ally of Germany.

On that day, thousands of doomed ANZAC troops suffered a humiliating massacre when, led by an inept and arrogant officer corps, they all obeyed their orders to invade Turkey’s Gallipoli peninsula. The intent was to establish an Eastern European Front in the war against Germany.

With no logistical intelligence of the terrain of the Gallipoli landing zones, the green troops were butchered by the thousands by Turkish rifle and artillery fire. The ANZAC troops were totally unaware that Turkish soldiers had been waiting for them on the well-protected ridges above the beachhead.

For the rest of the botched invasion, the ANZAC troops were forced to hunker down on the beach – sitting ducks for snipers (except for the frequent, suicidal, “over-the-top” assaults into “no-man’s land” where Turkish machine gun fire methodically mowed them down. The hard lessons of trench warfare on the Western Front in France had not been learned.

The Gallipoli fiasco was ignominiously terminated eight months later, with troops fleeing the landing zones in the middle of the night, with most of the “fallen” left behind. Australia’s sorrowful and antiwar November 11 Remembrance Day has, just like in most other militarized nations, devolved into just another pro-war, pro-militarism, celebratory ANZAC Day that has forgotten the lessons of war. As one Australian truth-telling blogger wrote recently:

“There are now two days (a year) to glorify the warriors and their wars, and none to remember the stupidity and the futility of war. It is not surprising that today we are at war continuously, somewhere, even though time and time again they are based on lies and solve nothing.”

Eric Brogle, the singer/song-writer who wrote the powerful antiwar song “The Band Played Walzing Matilda”, understood well what used to be the real meaning of Remembrance Day – or even ANZAC Day. The lyrics are further below, but these few excerpts need to be taken to heart:

“Then a big Turkish shell knocked me arse over head. And when I awoke in me hospital bed and saw what it had done, I wished I was dead. I never knew there was worse things than dying…I see the old men all tired, stiff and worn those weary old heroes of a forgotten war. And the young people ask: “What are they marching for?” And I ask myself the same question.”

At the end of this column are the lyrics to John McCutcheon’s “Christmas in the Trenches” . which is about the Christmas Truce of 1914. I strongly suggest watching and listening to both YouTube videos (links are noted) to fully appreciate the emotional strength of the two songs. The images that accompany the song are as powerful as the lyrics.

---

The Band Played Waltzing Matilda

By Eric Brogle

When I was a young man I carried me pack
And I lived the free life of the rover
From the Murray’s green basin to the dusty outback
I waltzed my Matilda all over

Then in 1915 my country said:” Son,
It’s time to stop rambling, there’s work to be done”
So they gave me a tin hat and they gave me a gun
And they sent me away to the war

And the band played Waltzing Matilda
When the ship pulled away from the quay
And amid all the tears, flag waving and cheers
We sailed off for Gallipoli

It well I remember that terrible day
When our blood stained the sand and the water
And how in that hell they call Suvla Bay
We were butchered like lambs at the slaughter

Johnny Turk, he was ready, he primed himself well
He rained us with bullets, and he showered us with shell
And in five minutes flat, we were all blown to hell
He nearly blew us back home to Australia

And the band played Waltzing Matilda
When we stopped to bury our slain
Well we buried ours and the Turks buried theirs
Then it started all over again

Oh those that were living just tried to survive
In that mad world of blood, death and fire
And for ten weary weeks I kept myself alive
While around me the corpses piled higher

Then a big Turkish shell knocked me arse over head
And when I awoke in me hospital bed
And saw what it had done, I wished I was dead
I never knew there was worse things than dying

Oh no more I’ll go Waltzing Matilda
All around the green bush far and near
For to hump tent and pegs, a man needs both legs
No more waltzing Matilda for me

They collected the wounded, the crippled, the maimed
And they shipped us back home to Australia
The armless, the legless, the blind and the insane
Those proud wounded heroes of Suvla

And when the ship pulled into Circular Quay
I looked at the place where me legs used to be
And thank Christ there was no one there waiting for me
To grieve and to mourn and to pity

And the Band played Waltzing Matilda
When they carried us down the gangway
Oh nobody cheered, they just stood there and stared
Then they turned all their faces away

Now every April I sit on my porch
And I watch the parade pass before me
I see my old comrades, how proudly they march
Renewing their dreams of past glories

I see the old men all tired, stiff and worn
Those weary old heroes of a forgotten war
And the young people ask: “What are they marching for?”
And I ask myself the same question

And the band plays Waltzing Matilda
And the old men still answer the call
But year after year, their numbers get fewer
Someday, no one will march there at all

Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda
Who’ll come a-Waltzing Matilda with me?
And their ghosts may be heard as they march by the billabong
So who’ll come a-Waltzing Matilda with me?

***

Singer-songwriter John McCutcheon’s powerful anti-war song, Christmas in the Trenches, is about the spontaneous, unauthorized (?) Christmas Truce of 1914. The episode was widely censored-out of humanity’s consciousness for nearly a hundred years, but it happened all up and down the 600-mile line of trenches.

Lowly, indoctrinated, suffering troops on both sides of No Man’s Land were sick and tired of the constant killing, wounding, dying and suffering. So on Christmas Eve of 1914, just a few months into the war, thousands of these suffering Christian soldiers on both sides of No Man’s Land overcame their fear of authority and the artificially-implanted kill-or-be-killed warrior mentalities and raised up their deadened Christ-like, humanitarian spirit of love and peace and fraternized with the enemy. And for a day or so, they rejected the unnatural, satanic spirit of war and death.. Many of them refused to shoot their rifles ever again. Some were re-assigned, court-martialed or shipped to other sectors, but their lives were forever changed.

The movie Joyeux Noel, which was nominated for an Academy Award for best foreign film, does a great job in capturing the power of the story.

Of course, the Christmas truce was angrily opposed by the superior officers on both, officers who were nowhere near the front lines on that Christmas Eve.

McCutcheon’s song about the episode ends with the eternal truth that indicts the war-makers of every war by pointing out that “the ones who call the shots won’t be among the dead and lame, and on each end of the rifle we’re the same.”

Here are the lyrics of McCutcheon’s famous antiwar song:

---

Christmas in the Trenches

By John McCutcheon

My name is Francis Tolliver, I come from Liverpool.
Two years ago, the war was waiting for me after school.
To Belgium and to Flanders, to Germany to here,
I fought for King and country I love dear.

’Twas Christmas in the trenches where the frost so bitter hung,
the frozen fields of France were still, no Christmas song was sung,
our families back in England were toasting us that day,
their brave and glorious lads so far away.

I was lying with my messmate on the cold and rocky ground,
when across the lines of battle came a most peculiar sound.
Says I «Now listen up, me boys!», each soldier strained to hear
as one young German voice sang out so clear.

“He’s singing bloody well, you know!” my partner says to me.
Soon, one by one, each German voice joined in in harmony.
The cannons rested silent, the gas clouds rolled no more
as Christmas brought us respite from the war.

As soon as they were finished and a reverent pause was spent,
‟God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen”, struck up some lads from Kent.
The next they sang was ‟Stille Nacht”, “Tis ‟Silent Night”, says I
and, in two tongues, one song filled up that sky.

“There’s someone coming towards us!” the frontline sentry cried,
all sights were fixed on one lone figure coming from their side.
His truce flag, like a Christmas star, shone on that plain so bright
as he bravely strode unarmed into the night.

Then, one by one on either side walked into no man’s land,
with neither gun nor bayonet, we met there hand to hand,
we shared some secret brandy and wished each other well,
and in a flare-lit soccer game we gave ’em hell.

We traded chocolates, cigarettes, and photographs from home,
these sons and fathers far away from families of their own.
Young Sanders played his squeeze box and they had a violin,
this curious and unlikely band of men.

Oh, soon daylight stole upon us and France was France once more;
with sad farewells, we each began to settle back to war,
but the question haunted every heart that lived that wondrous night
“Whose family have I fixed within my sights?”

’Twas Christmas in the trenches, where the frost so bitter hung,
the frozen fields of France were warmed as songs of peace were sung.
For the walls they’d kept between us to exact the work of war
had been crumbled and were gone for evermore.

Oh, my name is Francis Tolliver, in Liverpool I dwell,
each Christmas come since World War I I’ve learned its lessons well,
that the ones who call the shots won’t be among the dead and lame,
and on each end of the rifle we’re the same.

The officials are called one by one to lay wreathes, a ceremony of mechanical efficiency. With each laying comes the sense of wonder at how this could happen. Political figures are the first to vote in parliaments and side with the executive when it comes to wars. The temptations of human drives to tempt, and then succumb to death, were there long before Sigmund Freud identified them.

In the Australian capital, there were many wreaths, so many uniformed, deodorised dignitaries distant from the cries of battle and the horror of engineered slaughter. There were the expected, the usual, the normal: the most medalled of them all, the Governor General, the various Chiefs of Army, Navy and Air Force.

There was the Chief Justice of the Australian High Court making her appearance. There was even the ceremonial didgeridoo player. Various associations also featured: those dealing with the incapacitated; the matter of war widows, the issue of legacies. It seemed like a vast who’s who of the military complex, which is exactly what it was.

The Australian response here is, in some ways, more tragic than most. Retained, generally white Ghurkhas for imperial causes (there were those of other races in the Australian armed forces at points), they flitted between theatres to be slaughtered at the behest of not-so-grand strategies that mangled the word “freedom” and confused it for politics. In battle, such a word has little meaning, about as significant, in fact, as a wreath. What matters is survival.

Across media networks, the word freedom was uttered as an automatic response, a genetically programmed insistence that the deaths of the Great War had been somehow necessary and, importantly, productive.

That disposition was sown by such figures as King George V, who had issued a request to the people of the British Empire to suspend ordinary activities for two minutes on the hour of the armistice “which stayed the worldwide carnage of the four preceding years and marked the victory of Right and Freedom”.[1]

In 1997, the Australian Governor-General, Sir William Deane, proclaimed that November 11 be deemed Remembrance Day, insisting that a minute’s silence be observed at 11 am on November 11 each year, a pause to reflect, more broadly, sacrifices made by the Australian armed forces.

Modern representatives of this view abound, and they are, unsurprisingly, effusive in the veterans’ organisations. There were the remarks, for instance, of Richard Embleton from the Geelong Returned and Services League, who reflected on the tens of thousands of wool poppies laid out before Melbourne’s Shrine of Remembrance.

“You only have to look around Australia [to see] how free we are and how important it is.”

To justify mass murder and death, the word sacrifice has become the indispensable substitute for political folly, the ultimate apologia for the misguided and sanctimonious. Consider the words of Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann’s commemorative address.

“In Belgium, around 13,000 Australians paid the ultimate price – it is a price that those who lived there and their descendants have not forgotten in the last 100 years.”[2]

For Cormann, being himself Belgian-born, the fallen had particular significance. Australian soldiers had, in effect, come to defend the land of his ancestors.

“In the country of my birth, Australians marched to defend and to die for the land of my family.”

But would it be that commemorations were the sombre stuff of true reflection, a genuine appraisal of flaws, errors and disaster. The New South Wales Governor, David Hurley, suggested that current and future generations “interpret through their own lens and their own filter” the legacy of the Great War.

Such lenses and filters have yet to be changed. An example of its ossification, and fixation, is the cult of poppies, an effort of mass indoctrination that has done everything to dissuade modern generations from pondering the errors of their ancestors’ ways.

To not wear the unfortunately misused flower invites criticism and crucifixion from the veneration police. When the world football federation FIFA decided to ban the poppy from the shorts of the Scotland and England teams in 2016, ripples of propagandistic hysteria made their way through converts.

“Our football players,” claimed British Prime Minister Theresa May with clichéd consistency, “want to recognise and respect those who have given their lives for our safety and security.”

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland used the symbol in defiance, and were duly fined.

The reasoning from FIFA was unusually relevant: the poppy was a political symbol, and therefore an inappropriate part of sporting attire. Unfortunately, the organisation went back on its ban this year, a reversal pressed upon them by the UK football authorities.[3]

To that end, each ceremony retains, in its message, the promise of future war, the next murderous gamble and suicidal play of politics and the failings of the opportunistic classes. The ones slaughtered are rarely the ones making the decisions. The ideologue remains desk bound; the bureaucrat stays behind to order things far from the front line.

The Great War, the war to end all wars, is touchingly remembered by some but genuinely ignored in its lessons. It sowed future revolutions, and produced more conflicts, notably the greatest of them all, the Second World War. It saw the destruction of the aristocratic classes – for many, a good thing; and the death of a generation. It brought, to Australia, a melancholic disposition. It introduced, into European life, pessimism and depression even as it uprooted the established social order.

To best remember and commemorate the fallen and those “caught up” – an expression always used in November every year – the resort to needless wars and destructive foreign interventions could be a start. That start, notably among such countries as Australia, has yet to be made. War retains an intoxicating sweetness for those who have never tried it.

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

Notes

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Despite repeated claims of Russian US election meddling by Washington’s intelligence community, undemocratic Dems, and deplorable media scoundrels, operating as press agents for US power, no evidence proves any – NONE!

Plenty of evidence reveals no Russian hacking or any other type meddling occurred – clearly show information was leaked by a DNC insider, divulged by WikiLeaks.

The CIA under John Brennan bears full responsible for inventing the Russiagate scam – fabricated accusations of Russian meddling and false claims of Trump team’s improper or illegal dealings with the Kremlin, a scheme to delegitimize him and bash Russia irresponsibly.

In Vietnam for the 2017 APEC summit, Putin and Trump had only several brief exchanges, no formal meeting.

Earlier, Putin debunked the phony accusations of Russian US election meddling – telling Trump the same thing at the APEC summit.

Aboard Air Force One on route to Hanoi, Trump said he asked him about alleged Russian meddling.

“He said he didn’t meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many times. I just asked him again. He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. He did not do what they are saying he did.”

“Every time he sees me he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it.”

“He says, ‘I didn’t do that.’ I think he is very insulted by it, which is not a good thing for our country.”

Putin was candid and straightforward in all his remarks – in addresses and answering questions.

Trump believes Putin was honest in saying no Russian meddling occurred. The New York Times lied claiming otherwise, suppressing, reinterpreting or distorting facts its specialty.

“Having a good relationship with Russia is a great, great thing,” Trump added. “This artificial Democratic hit job gets in the way, and that’s a shame, because people will die.”

Trump doesn’t believe Russia tried helping him defeat Hillary. He called accusations of Russian US election meddling “fantasies,” intending to delegitimize him.

At the APEC summit in Vietnam, he said

“(everything) about the so-called Russian dossier in the US is a manifestation of continuing domestic political struggle.”

Asked about contacts between his campaign team and Russians, he said he only heard about the allegation Friday.

“I don’t know anything about it,” he said. “I think these are some sort of fantasies.”

Russiagate is a CIA concocted plot, media scoundrels proliferating the Big Lie.

Trump is captive to America’s deep state, taking orders and executing them.

Yet at times, his remarks in answering questions and tweets differ from his scripted ones.

His deplorable actions speak for themselves, sticking to longstanding US policies – dirty business as usual they way things always work in America.

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

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

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

The US selection of leaders has virtually nothing to do with democratic processes and outcomes. It is useful to contrast this with the process in China. In most instances, China’s selection of leaders is far more meritocratic, successful and performance-based. In both the US and China, the process lacks transparency.

US Economic, Political and Cultural Leadership

The selection of US economic, political and cultural leaders is based on several undemocratic procedures.

1. Inheritance via family ties
2. Personal access to credit and financing
3. Political patronage
4. Lobby and elite sale and purchase of office and favors
5. Media links
6. Political repression and manipulation of electoral procedures
7. Incumbency and use of state resources
8. Ethno-religious nepotism
9. Internal party hierarchy
10. Closed party decisions (opacity)
11. Ability to keep secrets

Leaders, whether appointed, self-appointed and selected through money, media, elite networks, turn the electoral process into virtual afterthoughts in the US system. US economic leaders have increased the flow from productive profits and investments upward to the financial sector and/or outwardly overseas to tax havens.

US political leaders have increased military expenditures and wars, diverting public funds from domestic social services and welfare, diminishing domestic economic growth and markets for investment and trade.

US cultural leaders have been rewarded for defending, promoting and embellishing imperial conquests and denigrating independent nations and leaders. They have also been rewarded for promoting the most degrading and frivolous consumerism, undermining social and community cohesion.

The lack of transparency in the US selection process of leaders in major investment banks, political parties, legislative and executive offices and academia is growing at an alarming rate and with significant negative consequences: US leaders do not have to pass rigorous exams nor do they face interviews with peers with competence in their fields of work.

US business leaders are not judged by their economic and political performance. Responsibility for disastrous wars, corrupt bank bailouts, financial crises and skyrocketing health care costs do not disqualify a candidate for leadership positions.

Documented performance criteria are not the basis for selecting Congressional and Presidential leaders. The decisive factors influencing political selection are the capacity to promote elite interests, pursue imperial wars to gratify the ambitions and greed of civilian militarists and mask widespread corruption to grease the wheels of speculation.

China: Consultation, Meritocracy and Performance

Chinese leaders are selected on the basis of multi-level consultation, meritocracy and performance in office.

China’s recent Party Congress highlighted three areas of vital concern: reducing inequalities, addressing environmental degradation and health care.

In contrast, last year’s US Congressional elections focused on its pledge to reduce corporate taxes for the super-rich despite the increasing social and economic inequality, removal of state and federal regulation protecting the population and environment from corporate polluters, and reducing public funding for access to competent health care, undermining citizen well-being and exacerbating the rise in premature deaths and decreased life expectancy for the poor and working class.

The American political elite is full of ‘climate change’ deniers and promoters of the worst kinds of pollution.
The US Congress spent an enormous amount of time and energy pursuing partisan conspiracies while refusing to address the raging epidemic of prescription narcotic addiction, which has killed over 600,000 Americans in 15 years.

President Xi Jinping demanded that Chinese leaders direct their efforts to correct the ‘unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever growing needs for a better life’. President Xi emphasized the goal of ‘greening the economy’, mentioning it 15 times in his address to the Party Congress- compared to only once in the previous Party meeting (FT 11/1/17, p 11).

Chinese public and private investors have responded to health and environmental priorities set by President Xi – stock indexes spiraled in those sectors (FT 11/11/17, p. 11).

At the top level, leadership engages in consultations and debates among competing elites, discussing past and present outcomes in developing current and future policies.

At the middle levels, ultra-competitive public service examinations are determinant in the selection and appointment of Chinese officials.

At the top and middle levels of leadership job performance is one of the leading factors determining selection. The four decades of spectacular economic growth that has lifted 500 million Chinese people out of poverty is a reflection of the effective system for selection and promotion of leaders.

Maintaining peace and friendship with other countries for over forty years — except for a brief border conflict with Vietnam in 1979– has been a major factor influencing leadership selection. In contrast, despite multiple disastrous and brutal wars, Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama were re-elected to office in a two-party ‘duopoly’ system universally regarded as ‘rigged’. The effect of these wars on the deterioration of US domestic economy is not reflected in the candidate selection or in the outcome of the presidential or congressional elections.

China has selected leaders who have demonstrated ability and seriousness in investigating and punishing over one million corrupt public officials and plutocrats. Anti-corruption crime-fighters have been promoted as ‘clean and hardworking’ leaders.

In contrast, the US Administration has repeatedly appointed Wall Street criminals to senior positions in Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the IMF with disastrous results for the citizenry, with no capacity for analyses or correction.

One of the most selective and prestigious Party mechanisms is found in the Organization Department (OD) of the Chinese Communist Party (FT 10/30/17, p. 9). The OD meets privately and reviews selections for leadership on the basis of a ‘complex combination of nominations, written and oral exams and investigations, and a majority vote among ministers. Leaders, thus selected, assume collective responsibility – and they do not position themselves by ‘leaking decisions’ (FT ibid).

Conclusion

In both the US and China the selection of leaders are not based on elections or consultations with the citizens. However, there are vast differences in the process and procedures of leader selection resulting in vast differences in the outcomes.

China is largely a meritocracy, with vestiges of family nepotism, especially with reference to some business-state appointments.

Performance counts a lot, and most citizens credit the leadership of the Chinese Party for China’s long-term, large-scale socio-economic success. In contrast, the vast majority of US citizens are cynical and dissatisfied with top economic appointments because of their documented past and present socio-economic failures. The citizens direct their greatest dismay at the top financial leaders (whom they view as corrupt oligarchs) for plunging our country into repeated crises, perpetual wars, growing inequalities and deep, widespread poverty. The loss of stable, well-paying jobs and the deterioration of community and family cohesion has outraged the citizens because these are in stark contrast with pervasive, deep-seated corruption in high places and almost total judicial impunity for high officials, politicians and oligarchs alike.

China’s on-going prosecution of corrupt leaders has no counterpart in the US.

Business-politician bribes are legalized in the US when they are termed ‘campaign financing’ or ‘consultant fees’. One has only to consider the half-million dollar lecture fees paid to the Clintons by grateful Wall Street financiers for their 30 minute recitations of platitudes and influence peddling.

In the field of foreign policy, China’s leaders defend their national interest. US leaders shamelessly kowtow to Israeli lobbyists, promoting Tel Aviv’s interests.

Chinese leaders marginalize critics in the name of harmony, stability, peace and growth.

US leaders marginalize, imprison and brutalize Afro-Americans, immigrants, environmentalists and anti-war activists, as well as Wall Street and government whistle blowers, in the name of free markets and nebulous liberal democratic ‘values’.

China, with all of its drawbacks in terms of democratic procedures and rights, is moving toward a less corrupt, less bellicose and more accountable dynamic society with carefully vetted and developed leadership.

The US is moving toward a more corrupt, crime ridden and despotic (‘police state’) society with unaccountable leaders, warmongers and criminal at the helm.

The gap between promise and performance is widening in the US, while it narrows in China.

China’s rigorous, meritocratic selection process has demonstrated greater capacity to respond to new challenges and majority needs than the dysfunctional and corrupt US electoral charade, which cannot even address the addiction crisis brought on by unregulated over-prescription of opiates, let alone respond to the environmental crises of climate change and mega-storms ravaging US communities.

Honor the Veterans

We honor the brave men and women who have served in our armed forces.

Some of the most generous, dedicated, brave people we have ever met are veterans.

But the government scorns them …

Veterans returning from the front lines are labeled “potential terrorists”, to the horror of both the Republican and Democratic leadership.

Veterans receive horrible health care.

Veterans who exercise the freedom of speech which they fought for abroad are harassed, beaten, and then denied medical treatment. (It’s been that way for a long time.)

The big banks – which are continually being bailed out and otherwise enabled by the government – have been cheating veterans on their mortgages, and the government isn’t doing much about it. And in numerous other ways, veterans are treated like trash.

War is a Racket

“War is a racket“, according to one of the most highly-decorated military men of all time (and the hero who stopped a coup against FDR ).

Top economists say that war is horrible for the economy. It benefits a handful of elites, while levying a tax on the vast majority of Americans.

President Eisenhower – formerly a top general – tried to warn us:

The Founding Fathers also tried to warn us.

But we didn’t listen.

The Only Winners … War Profiteers

The heads of the big defense firms make huge salaries off of war, and are part of the oligarchy.

They not infrequently fund and sell arms to both sides of wars … and make a killing in the process.

Top economists have also proven that war is horrible for the vast majority of Americans.

Congress members – part of the super-elite which has made money hand over fist during this economic downturn – are heavily invested in the war industry, and routinely trade on inside information … perhaps even including planned military actions.

Similarly – as detailed below – the Federal Reserve helps to start wars by financing them (no, I’m not talking about the billions the Fed sent to Iraq or Gaddafi’s Libyan bank or other recently-disclosed shenanigans).

The Real Meaning of Veterans Day

David Swanson notes that Veteran’s Day began as a pledge to end all wars:

Believe it or not, November 11th was not made a holiday in order to celebrate war, support troops, or cheer the 11th year of occupying Afghanistan. This day was made a holiday in order to celebrate an armistice that ended what was up until that point, in 1918, one of the worst things our species had thus far done to itself, namely World War I.

***

A ten-year campaign was launched in 1918 that in 1928 created the Kellogg-Briand Pact, legally banning all wars. That treaty is still on the books, which is why war making is a criminal act and how Nazis came to be prosecuted for it.

“[O]n November 11, 1918, there ended the most unnecessary, the most financially exhausting, and the most terribly fatal of all the wars that the world has ever known. Twenty millions of men and women, in that war, were killed outright, or died later from wounds. The Spanish influenza, admittedly caused by the War and nothing else, killed, in various lands, one hundred million persons more.” — Thomas Hall Shastid, 1927.

Many active-duty service men are opposed to the endless wars, which only weaken our national security and increase terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

The troops want to come home, and the American public want them to come home as well.

It is only the elite who want war. As Nazi leader Hermann Goering famously said:

Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Indeed, those who start wars on false premises are the biggest traitors.

As I wrote on Veterans’ Day 2008:

Today, I sincerely and passionately honor our veterans.

So many have endured unimaginable hardship, trauma or injury. Some have paid the ultimate price to defend our country.

Veterans are Against the Iraq War

You might assume veterans of the Iraq war support the war.

Overwhelmingly, that is false.

Talk to some of the veterans. By and large, they think that the invasion of Iraq, or at least our continued occupation, is wrong.

They have seen first-hand the killing and maiming of innocent Iraqi civillians.

They have heard the cries of those falsely accused, who were shipped off to Abu Ghraib.

They have woken up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, reliving the nightmares they experienced.

They know that the chicken-hawk civilians who started the war and their yes-men in the military leadership are wrong, that the war should be stopped, and the troops brought home.

Renewing My Commitment

That’s why on Veterans’ day, I am honoring the brave men and women who served in the military by renewing my commitment to end the Iraq war.

The Iraq war might have been forgotten by the mainstream media, but I will not forget the troops and veterans. I will fight to end the war [all unnecessary wars] . . . for them.

“Aside from the meteor strike that took out the dinosaurs, every single mass extinction event in the history of Earth was triggered by too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

And we are actually injecting more CO2 into the atmosphere faster than occurred during the Permian mass extinction event.”

-Dahr Jamail (From this week’s show)

.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW 

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Once again, the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is gathering, this year in Bonn Germany with the government of Fiji presiding.

The stated aim of the Convention is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.”

In the twenty three years since the Convention came into force, the state of the world’s environment has only become more dire:

• August 2017 was the hottest in the 137 years that records have been kept.
• Three-fourths of all flying insects in German nature reserves have disappeared in the last quarter century.
• The world’s tropical forests have degraded due to the point of being net carbon emitters, outproducing emissions from all of the traffic in the United States.
• Hurricane Harvey dumped a record level of precipitation (27 trillion gallons of water in just six days) over Texas and Louisiana. Hurricane Irma existed as a Category 5 hurricane for a record-setting three days. Both hurricanes are believed to have been amplified by climate change effects.
• Nine of the 10 worst fire seasons in the past 50 years have all happened since 2000, with 2015 being the worst fire season in U.S. history, surpassing 10 million acres for the first time on record.
• In late August, for the first time in history, a naval vessel made the journey over the northern sea route without an ice breaker. A Russian tanker transported cargo from Norway to South Korea in the record-setting time of six and one half days.
• According to a recent study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a sample of 177 well-studied mammal species all saw population declines of 30 percent or more in their geographic ranges, and 40% of those species saw declines of more than 80% of their ranges, all between 1990 and 2015. Further, the study suggests that the population of animal individuals that once inhabited the Earth has been cut in half.(sources: Dahr Jamail and CNN) [1][2][3][4][5]

On top of the release of greenhouse gases as a by-product of human industrial and other activities, some researchers have argued that deliberate clandestine activities, underway for decades, have been impacting the environment and human health. These researchers are referring to geoengineering, which involves as one of its primary processes, the release of aerosol particulates from jet aircraft which are then manipulated through ground-based radio frequency microwaves transmissions.

Government authorities are refusing to admit geoengineering is much more than a strategy being considered, rather than something that has been underway for decades. The National Oceanic and atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has allegedly refused to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on these climate engineering projects. As a result, the Legal Alliance to Stop Geoengineering (LASG), part of an anti-geoengineering collaborative effort, has filed a lawsuit with the US Department of Commerce which oversees the NOAA.

Adding to the bad news, US President Donald Trump has announced his intentions to pull the US out of the Climate Accord signed in Paris in 2015. The president has also placed a number of fossil-fuel industry friendly players and climate change deniers to his cabinet.

On this week’s Global Research News Hour radio program, we explore these human impacts on our environment in detail with two feature guests.

Dahr Jamail, is an award-winning journalist, staff writer for Truthout.org and author of the forthcoming book The End of Ice, published by New Books. He is the author of regular Climate Dispatches chronicling the most up to date information from the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the state of our planet. In the first half hour, Jamail discusses some of the more concerning signs in evidence over the last year, the changes under the new Trump Administration, the overall stakes, and the prospects for any kind of political body to make the changes needed to curb the threat of abrupt climate disruption.

Dane Wigington is the lead researcher with Geoengineeringwatch.org. He has investigated all levels of geoengineering from stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG) to solar radiation management (SRM), to ionosphere heater facilities like HAARP. Geoengineeringwatch is one of the lead organizers behind the LASG lawsuit. Wigington joins the show in the second half hour to discuss the suit, the evidence that these programs are actually happening, their impacts, and the general efforts by government and media to conceal this information from the general public.

Finally, we hear short excerpts from an October 14th  2017 interview for the CKUW radio program Where Angels Fear to Tread, in which the guest spoke of high levels of deadly UVC radiation he has independently recorded from his ground-monitor since February 2017. More background on his research can be found at the site: https://iray2017.wixsite.com/sacredseeds/uv-work

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in everyThursday at 6pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Notes:

1) http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/42413-scientists-warn-of-ecological-armageddon-amid-waves-of-heat-and-climate-refugees

2) http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/15/us/climate-change-hurricanes-harvey-and-irma/index.html

3) http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/41887-welcome-to-the-new-world-of-wildfires

4) http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/42127-climate-disruption-could-pose-existential-threat-by-2050

5) http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/41425-biological-annihilation-trillion-ton-icebergs-warming-levels-unseen-for-115-000-years

First published by GR on January 13, 2017

Americans are outraged by allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an intelligence service to hack email accounts of the Democratic National Committee. How inexpressibly heinous that one country, Russia, would try to influence elections in another sovereign country, in this case the United States!  How unprecedented!  How diabolical! How uniquely Russian!

In response, the Obama administration has expelled Russian diplomats, hinted at economic sanctions, and promised further retaliation using America’s “world-class arsenal of cyber weapons.”  (NYT Dec. 16, 2016) Obama’s Republican opponents, for their part, have demanded “rocks” instead of Obama’s “pebbles.”

But does the USA meddle in the presidential elections of other countries?

Our friends in South America might have insights here—hundreds of cases of economic and military blackmail, election fraud, assassination,and the violent overthrow of democratically elected leaders.  So too in Europe (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Georgia, Ukraine, etc.), east Asia (Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Korea, the Philippines, etc.), north Africa (Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco), and dozens of other countries on five of the six inhabited continents. (Joshua Keating, “Election Meddling Is Surprisingly Common,” Slate.com, 4 Jan., 2017; Tim Weiner, CIA:  Legacy of Ashes, 2008; Noam Chomsky, Deterring Democracy, 1992, 2006.)

In the welter of red-faced indignation, the torrents of denunciations from Senate hearings and press conferences, talk shows and podcasts, one might have expected someone to pose the rather obvious question whether American agencies have ever meddled in Russian presidential elections.  And yet (surprise surprise!) America’s corporate-owned press of record, an institution that constantly flaunts its “objectivity,” has failed to raise that straightforward question.

So, let us raise it here:  Has the USA engaged in this sort of meddling?  And if so, what effect has it had on Russia?

The answer to the first question, of course, is a resounding Yes.  Even as you read these words, you can bet that one or more of seventeenFederal agencies of the United States are busy hacking Russia.  (It is a safe bet that other countries are engaged in cyber espionage against Russia and the United States, too, including China and Israel.)

Let us limit our discussion to one single case.  Readers will recall that in the run-up to the 1996 presidential election in Russia, opinion polls put the pro-western incumbent, Boris Yeltsin, in fifth place among the presidential candidates, with only 8% support.  The same polls showed that the most popular candidate in Russia by a wide margin was the Communist Party’s Gennady Zyuganov. Moved to desperation by the numbers, well-connected Russian oligarchs suggested just cancelling the election and supporting a military takeover, rather than facing a defeat at the polls.  Neocons in the West embraced the idea–all in the name of Democracy, of course.  In the end, though, Yeltsin and the oligarchs decided to retain power by staging the election.

In keeping with Russian laws at the time, Zyuganov spent less than three million dollars on his campaign.  Estimates of Yeltsin’s spending, by contrast, range from $700 million to $2.5 billion.   (David M. Kotz, Russia’s Path from Gorbachev to Putin, 2007) This was a clear violation of law, but it was just the tip of the iceberg.

In February 1996, at the urging of the United States, the International Monetary Fund (which describes itself as “an organization of 188 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation”) supplied a $10.2 billion “emergency infusion” to Russia.The money disappeared as Yeltsin used it to shore up his reputation and to buy votes.  He forced the Central Bank of Russia to provide an additional $1 billion for his campaign, too.  Meanwhile, a handful of Russian oligarchs, notably several big contributors residing in Israel, provided more billions for the Yeltsin campaign.

In the spring of 1996, Yeltsin and his campaign manager, billionaire privatizer Anatoly Chubais, recruited a team of financial and media oligarchs to bankroll the Yeltsin campaign and guarantee favorable media coverage on national television and in leading newspapers.  In return, Chubais allowed well-connected Russian business leaders to acquire majority stakes in some of Russia’s most valuable state-owned assets.

Campaign strategists for the former Republican governor of California Pete Wilsoncovertly made their way to the President Hotel in Moscow where, behind a guard and locked doors, they served as Yeltsin’s “secret campaign weapon” to save Russia for Democracy.  (Eleanor Randolph, “Americans Claim Role in Yeltsin Win,” L.A. Times, 9 July 1996)  Yeltsin and his cohorts monopolized all major media outlets, print and electronic, public, and private. They bombarded Russians with an incessant and uncontested barrage of political advertising masquerading as news, phony “documentaries,” rumors, innuendos, and bad faith campaign promises (including disbursement of back pay to workers and pensioners, stopping further NATO expansion, and peaceful settlement of Yeltsin’s brutal war against Chechnya). Yeltsin campaigners even floated the threat that he would stage a coup and the country would descend into civil war if Zyuganov were to win the vote.

It is now public record that the Yeltsin campaign conducted extensive “black operations,” including disrupting opposition rallies and press conferences, spreading disinformation among Yeltsin supporters, and denying media access to the opposition.  The dirty tricks included such tactics as announcing false dates for opposition rallies and press conferences,disseminatingalarming campaign materials that they deceitfully attributed to the Zyuganov campaign, and cancelling hotel reservations for Zyuganov and his volunteers.  Finally, widespread bribery, voter fraud, intimidation, and ballot stuffing assured Yeltsin’s victory in the runoff election.

The day after his victory, Yeltsin disappeared from the scene and did not reappear until months later, drunk. During Yeltsin’s second term, the “non-ideological” IMF provided another infusion of money, this time $40 billion.  Once again, more billions disappeared without a trace, much of it stolen by the President’s chronies, who placed it in foreign banks.  The re-elected President didn’t even pretend to make good on his campaign promises.

Serious observers, including leading Democrats, agree that even if the recent hacking allegations against Russia turn out to be true, the “dirty tricks” did not affect the outcome of the 2016 election.  By contrast, American meddling and financing of the 1996 presidential election in Russia clearly played a pivotal role in turning Yeltsin from a candidate with single-digit approval at the beginning of the yearinto a winning candidate with an official (but disputed) 54.4% of votes cast in the second-round runoff later that same year.

Let us consider some of the consequences of Yeltsin’s electoral win:

–In the first years of the Chubais-Yeltsin privatization scheme, the life expectancy of a Russian male fell from 65 years to 57.5 years.  Female life expectancy in Russia dropped from 74.5 years in 1989 to 72.8 years in 1999.

–Throughout Yeltsin’s terms as President, flight of capital away from Russia totaled between $1 and $2 billion every month.

–Each year from 1989 to 2001 there was a fall of approximately 8% in Russia’s productive assets.

–From 1990 to 1999 the percentage increase of people living on lessthan $1 a day was greater in Russian and the other former socialist countries than anywhere else in the world.

–The number of people living in poverty in the former Soviet Republicsrose from 14 million in 1989 to 147 million in 1998.As a result of the 1998 financial collapse and the devaluation of the ruble, the life savings of tens of millons of Russian families disappeared over night.  Since then, the Great Recession and low oil pries have only made matters worse.

–In the period from 1992 to 1998 Russia’s GDP fell by half–something that did not happen even under during the German invasion in the Second World War.

Under Yeltsin’s tenure, the death rate in Russia reached wartime levels.  Accidents, food poisoning, exposure, heart attacks, lack of access to basic healthcare, and an epidemic of suicides—they all played a role.  David Satter, a senior fellow at the anti-communist, Washington DC-based Hudson Institute, writing in the conservative Wall Street Journal, described the consequences of this victory of Democracy:  “Western and Russian demographers now agree that between 1992 and 2000, the number of ‘surplus deaths’ in Russia–deaths that cannot be explained on the basis of previous trends–was between five and six million persons.” (Accessed 8 April 2015.  American sociologist James Petras has given a figure of 15 million surplus deaths since the demise of the Soviet Union.)

NATO continued its expansion east. Yeltsin turned the Chechen city of Grozy into a field of rubble, and he quickly became the most reviled man in Russia.  But as one observer put it at the time, “Yeltsin didn’t seem to notice, which is hardly surprising, since he was drunk for most of his tenure in office.”By the time he left office, the American-approved President of the Russian Federation had an approval rating of 2%.  (CNN, 2002)   But by that time it didn’t matter:  the kleptocrats were safely installed in power, and American-imposed Democracy had achieved its aims in Russia’s “transition.”

Yeltsin died in 2007, celebrated as an anti-communist hero by the neocons in Washington and New York, but hated by the vast majority of Russians.  Four years later, Dmitri Medvedev, then-President of Russia, eulogized Yeltsin for creating “the base of a new Russian statehood, without which none of our future successes would be possible.”  But a Time magazine writer reported that, despite Medvedev’s public praise, the story he told privately was quite different.  On 20 February 2012, he reportedly told attendees at a closed-door meeting:  “Russia’s first President did not actually win re-election in 1996 for a second term.  The second presidential vote in Russia’s history, in other words, was rigged.”  (Simon Shuster, “Rewriting Russian History:  Did Boris Yeltsin Steal the 1996 Presidential Election?” Timeonline, 24 Feb. 2012.)

Some readers, perhaps, do not see the point of reminding ourselves of America’s role in the election of Yeltsin and America’s responsibility for the resulting misery and mass death.  But let us remind ourselves that the recent hacking accusations are just one element of a full-on media assault against Russia, led by Washington.  From supposed Russian war crimes in the fight against the murderous jihadi occupiers of Syria to Russia’s re-annexation of overwhelmingly pro-Russian Crimea and the doping of Olympic athletes, America’s neocons are engaged in a propaganda blitz with high stakes.

Armenia is one of many frontline positions in Washington’s escalating media campaign against Russia.  Yes, the Russian Federation is an imperialist state, in V.I. Lenin’s technical sense of the term.  And yes, Russia wields undo influence in Armenia.  But by now it is clear that greater sovereignty for Armenia is not what is at stake when it comes to the Russophobe opposition.  After all, the Russia haters do not seem to have much problem with the idea of giving up sovereignty to the American imperialists and their regional surrogate, the Republic of Turkey. More importantly, the cause of greater national sovereignty will be harmed if the Russia haters have their way.  They only confirm the pervasivesense of vulnerability, economic isolation, and military encirclement among Russians, a people who have endured three decades of enormous destruction and humiliation, after a century of invasion and wars that claimed the lives of tens of millions of their compatriots.

Let us remind ourselves that the loudest of Yerevan’s Russia haters are the same fanatics who led Armenia to its present state of ruin.  After so much failure and disaster, they continue to hawk the old dangerous fantasy of Uncle Sam as Armenia’s savior. They are unrepentant, and like Yeltsin, they take their marching orders from Washington.

Markar Melkonian is a teacher and an author. His books include Richard Rorty’s Politics:  Liberalism at the End of the American Century (1999), Marxism: A Post-Cold War Primer (Westview Press, 1996), and My Brother’s Road (2005).

First published by GR on January  31, 2015

NEW YORK – USA – In a remarkable admission by former Nixon era Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, reveals what is happening at the moment in the world and particularly the Middle East. [please note this is a SATIRE, which in many regards says the truth regarding the current situation, the interview is fiction, it never took place, some of the quotes are from Henry Kissinger]

Speaking from his luxurious Manhattan apartment, the elder statesman, who will be 89 in May, is all too forward with his analysis of the current situation in the world forum of Geo-politics and economics.

“The United States is bating China and Russia, and the final nail in the coffin will be Iran, which is, of course, the main target of Israel. We have allowed China to increase their military strength and Russia to recover from Sovietization, to give them a false sense of bravado, this will create an all together faster demise for them. We’re like the sharp shooter daring the noob to pick up the gun, and when they try, it’s bang bang. The coming war will will be so severe that only one superpower can win, and that’s us folks. This is why the EU is in such a hurry to form a complete superstate because they know what is coming, and to survive, Europe will have to be one whole cohesive state. Their urgency tells me that they know full well that the big showdown is upon us. O how I have dreamed of this delightful moment.”

“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”

Mr Kissinger then added: “If you are an ordinary person, then you can prepare yourself for war by moving to the countryside and building a farm, but you must take guns with you, as the hordes of starving will be roaming. Also, even though the elite will have their safe havens and specialist shelters, they must be just as careful during the war as the ordinary civilians, because their shelters can still be compromised.”

After pausing for a few minutes to collect his thoughts, Mr Kissinger, carried on:

“We told the military that we would have to take over seven Middle Eastern countries for their resources and they have nearly completed their job. We all know what I think of the military, but I have to say they have obeyed orders superfluously this time. It is just that last stepping stone, i.e. Iran which will really tip the balance. How long can China and Russia stand by and watch America clean up? The great Russian bear and Chinese sickle will be roused from their slumber and this is when Israel will have to fight with all its might and weapons to kill as many Arabs as it can. Hopefully if all goes well, half the Middle East will be Israeli. Our young have been trained well for the last decade or so on combat console games, it was interesting to see the new Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 game, which mirrors exactly what is to come in the near future with its predictive programming. Our young, in the US and West, are prepared because they have been programmed to be good soldiers, cannon fodder, and when they will be ordered to go out into the streets and fight those crazy Chins and Russkies, they will obey their orders. Out of the ashes we shall build a new society, there will only be one superpower left, and that one will be the global government that wins. Don’t forget, the United States, has the best weapons, we have stuff that no other nation has, and we will introduce those weapons to the world when the time is right.”

End of interview. Our reporter is ushered out of the room by Kissinger’s minder.