Global Research

Che! – You are one of the greatest revolutionaries of the 20^th Century. You inspired tens of millions of people throughout the world to fight for justice, for their freedom and civil rights. You have left a vision of hope, of never giving up – a legacy of solidarity and of Venceremos! – we shall overcome. You have been murdered by the most criminal organization of the most evil empire, the CIA of the United States of America – but your spirit lives on in Latin America, Africa, Asia and even in vassal Europe, inspiring generation after generation for class struggle, that there is universal justice that must be fought for and will be won. Che – you are a true Hero – an icon for the poor and powerless!

Ernesto “Che” Guevara was born in Rosario, Argentina, on 14 June 1928 and was assassinated in Higuera, Bolivia, by CIA-led Bolivian forces on 9 October 1967. It was a summary execution – no trial, no questions asked – 50 years ago. What has changed in 5 decades? – At the surface, one might say – not much. The world is still divided between the capitalist, neocolonialist west and the much more visionary and peaceful east.

However, moral consciousness is rising everywhere. There is slow progression; the vessel is slowly veering towards a more peaceful multi-polar world. Not just the ascent of Russia and China are bringing a new wind of consciousness to millions of people, but the sensation of change is noticeable everywhere – from South to North and from East to West. It is still brittle and weak – but it is growing and gaining strength. And Che – his unquestioned determination to fight for a better world – was instrumental in this awakening.

Che left Argentina in the early 1950s as a medical student, accompanied by his pal, Alberto Granado, a young doctor, on a single-cylinder sputtering 1939 Norton motor cycle – they called it “La Poderosa” (“the Mighty”), exploring the Latin American Subcontinent which they knew only from books. Granado was probably the first one to give Ernesto the famous nickname “Che” – an Argentinian equivalent to ‘buddy’ or ‘pal’. They travelled through South America and discovered misery, poverty and disease. Combining Che’s “The Motor Cycle Diaries” and Granado’s “With Che Through Latin America”, Robert Redford turned the diaries in 2004 into an epic movie that has since become as symbolic for young revolutionary rebellion as has Alberto Korda’s famous photography of Che’s.

The film portrays the two friends exposed to utmost destitution throughout South America, turning Che gradually into the revolutionary, who eventually was instrumental in freeing Cuba, at the side of Fidel and Raul Castro, from the deadly oppression of US-supported dictator, Fulgencio Batista.

During their trip, the two friends served as doctors in San Pablo, an isolated leprosy colony near Iquitos, in Peru’s Amazon region. They went their separate ways at the end of their trip in 1953 in Venezuela. Granado stayed on in Venezuela, where he felt his raison d’être was to be a medical doctor, working as a leprosy specialist in a Venezuelan hospital. It took 8 years until they met again in Havana, when Che, who by then was second-in-command to Fidel, invited Alberto Granado to Cuba, where he was to teach biology at Havana University and in 1962 created the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Santiago in Cuba.

As a medical doctor, Che saw often hopelessness and misery. When he treated once a woman dying from tuberculosis, he was horrified by the public health system: 

“How long this present order, based on the absurd idea of caste, will last is not within my means to answer, but it’s time that those who govern spent less time publicizing their own virtues and more money, much more money, funding socially useful works.”

And he continued,

“It is at times like this, when a doctor is conscious of his complete powerlessness, that he longs for change: a change to prevent the injustice of a system in which only a month ago this poor woman was still earning her living as a waitress, wheezing and panting but facing life with dignity. In circumstances like this, individuals in poor families who can’t pay their way become surrounded by an atmosphere of barely disguised acrimony; they stop being father, mother, sister or brother and become a purely negative factor in the struggle for life and, consequently, a source of bitterness for the healthy members of the community who resent their illness as if it were a personal insult to those who have to support them.”

Ernesto Che Guevara moved on from Venezuela on a cargo boat to Miami and from there through Central America to Mexico. He later learned about Guatemala’s President Arbenz’s assassination by a CIA-led coup d’état in 1954 on behalf of United Fruit – which Arbenz wanted to nationalize. Che became increasingly a revolutionary, whose goal it was to fight for justice and equality, for a better world and to free oppressed people throughout the globe from nefarious capitalism – starting with Latin America.

In Mexico, Che met with Fidel and Raul Castro. Together with a small revolutionary armada, they sailed on the now famed yacht Granma, participating in the historic 26^th of July 1953 Movement (M-26-7) against the Moncada army Barracks in Santiago de Cuba. The assault failed. Che was injured, Castro was captured and sentenced to 15 years in prison but freed after two years in an armistice. They then returned to Mexico, where they organized and planned another, better prepared attack on the Batista regime.

In 1955, together with others by now renowned Cuban revolutionaries, like Camilo Cienfuegos and Juan Almeida Bosque, Fidel, Raul and Che formed a disciplined 82 men-strong guerilla force, aiming at overthrowing Batista. They left Veracruz, Mexico in late November 1956 and targeted the small town of Niquero, Oriente Province of Cuba. However, they were discovered by Cuban air force helicopters and had to land on 2 December 1956 on a beach called Los Colorados, about 25 km south of the designated spot where Celia Sánchez, a comrade revolutionary in Cuba, waited for them with jeeps, petrol, weapons and food. Due to the emergency landing, they could not benefit from this essential guerilla war materiel.

They fought hard against Batista’s troops and lost 70 of the 82 men that sailed aboard Granma. But they did not give up. They regrouped in the Sierra Maestra mountains, where they attracted hundreds of young Cuban volunteers. They won many battles against Batista’s army. These battles became the Cuban Revolution and eventually ended on New Year’s Eve of 1958, when they marched victoriously into Havana. In January 1959 Batista fled to the Dominican Republic.

Following the triumphant Cuban Revolution, Che Guevara gained prominence and was soon promoted to second-in-charge to Fidel. He occupied several key roles in the new government, like instituting the agrarian land reform, leading a successful countrywide literacy campaign; he was Minister of Industry, Director of Cuba’s Central Bank, instructed Cuba’s armed forces. As such, he also trained the militia forces who repelled the Bay of Pigs Invasion and was instrumental in bringing the Soviet nuclear missiles to Cuba which prompted the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Che also toured the world as Cuba’s chief diplomat, representing Cuba’s socialism at the United Nations in both New York and Geneva, as well as everywhere he traveled.

In 1965, Che decided to leave Cuba. His major contribution to the Cuban Revolution, though ongoing to this day – was done. He was heavily influenced by Marxism-Leninism and saw the so-called Third World’s underdevelopment – poverty, destitution, disease – as a dependence on the abusive exploitation by the west – that which, in turn, is the inherent result of imperialism and monopoly capitalism. The only remedy to fight it was socialist internationalism, a world revolution.

Che left Cuba for Congo-Kinshasa, now Zaïre, where he was unsuccessful in fomenting a revolution against Joseph Mobutu, one of the most corrupt and murderous dictators Africa has known until this day. Che Guevara was particularly inspired to help the people of then Congo (a former Belgian colony, today neocolony), because his comrade Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected President of the Congo in 1960, was overturned in a coup d’état by Colonel Mobutu, helped by Belgian forces. Mobutu ordered Lumumba’s murder by firing squad in January 1961.

After a second coup, the brutal authoritarian Mobutu assumed power in 1965. With the help of the neocolonial US and the UK, he stayed in power more than three decades, until 1997, putting the extraordinary riches of minerals and petrol basically at western disposal (against a hefty fee, of course, for his own (Swiss) bank accounts, not for his country), to the detriment of the Congolese people. Che Guevara was powerless against these boundless and ruthless military forces – forces that continue to protect also the Kabila dynasty that followed Mobutu in 1997, first by Laurent Kabila, and after his assassination in 2001, by his son Joseph – who to this day is ruling mineral-rich Zaïre, while sustaining bloody civil war-like conditions that has killed millions of people, including women and children, all for the benefit of western – mostly US – mineral giants feeding mainly the US military industrial complex.

Back to Che. After his unfortunate experience at revolution in Africa, he went back to his roots – Latin America, a culture which he was familiar with and where he believed a true and lasting revolution was possible – to bring dignity and sovereignty back to the peoples who were miserably oppressed by Washington backed military regimes for decades. On November 4, 1966, Che crossed the border into Bolivia under false identity. He thought Bolivia, the center of South America, was ideal to start and spread a revolution throughout Latin America.

Che formed a small army of 47 fighters from Bolivia, Cuba, Peru and Argentina, the ‘Ejército de Liberación Nacional de Bolivia’ – ELN (The Bolivian National Liberation Army). Che and his people fought on several occasions the army of the cruel military dictator, René Barrientos, (1964-1969), who came to power in 1964 by a coup helped – by whom else – Washington. Che and his troops had also a non-fighting network that kept them informed and supplied them with food and water as their hardship and information inaccessibility made them vulnerable in the jungle of Bolivia.

Two members of Che’s support team, Regis Debray (French) and Ciro Bustos (Argentinian), were captured and tortured. It is said, but has been often contested, that they revealed Che’s whereabouts, which allowed Barrientos’ army to intensify its battle and eventually by the end of September 1967 have a clear advantage over Che’s guerilla army. Che and his men fought their last battle on 8 October in the Churro gorge, when they were captured and taken to an area called La Higuera, in the Department of Santa Cruz in Bolivia. Che was executed on 9 October and his body hidden by the military, though his diary made the way into Fidel’s hands. Fidel eventually published it.

In 1995, Fidel Castro initiated with the President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozado, also called Goni the “Gringo”, a search for Che’s remains. They were found in Vallegrande near La Higuera and sent to Cuba, where they were laid to rest in Santa Clara in a Mausoleum especially built for Che.

On 17 October 1997 CNN reports “Cuba paid tribute to revolutionary hero Ernest “Che” Guevara … with a pomp-filled state burial and a ringing tribute from Fidel Castro, the man he helped propel to power nearly four decades ago. He said:

 “His inerasable mark is now in history, and his luminous gaze of a prophet has become a symbol for all the poor of this world.””

Fidel’s words still keep ringing through the ether of the universe. Undoubtedly, Che, Fidel and Hugo Chavez were among the most influential revolutionaries of the Western Hemisphere in the 20^th Century. Their legacy keeps emitting signals of peace and justice throughout the world.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media (China), TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. 

During his visit to hurricane-stricken Puerto Rico, President Donald Trump shocked the bond market when he told Geraldo Rivera of Fox News that he was going to wipe out the island’s bond debt. He said on October 3rd:

You know they owe a lot of money to your friends on Wall Street. We’re gonna have to wipe that out. That’s gonna have to be — you know, you can say goodbye to that. I don’t know if it’s Goldman Sachs but whoever it is, you can wave good-bye to that.

How did the president plan to pull this off? Pam Martens and Russ Martens, writing in Wall Street on Parade, note that the U.S. municipal bond market holds $3.8 trillion in debt, and it is not just owned by Wall Street banks. Mom and pop retail investors are exposed to billions of dollars of potential losses through their holdings of Puerto Rican municipal bonds, either directly or in mutual funds. Wiping out Puerto Rico’s debt, they warned, could undermine confidence in the municipal bond market, causing bond interest rates to rise, imposing an additional burden on already-struggling states and municipalities across the country.

True, but the president was just pointing out the obvious. As economist Michael Hudson says, “Debts that can’t be paid won’t be paid.”

Puerto Rico is bankrupt, its economy destroyed. In fact it is currently in bankruptcy proceedings with its creditors. Which suggests its time for some more out-of-the-box thinking . . . .

Turning Disaster into a Win-Win

In July 2016, a solution to this conundrum was suggested by the notorious Goldman Sachs itself, when mom and pop investors holding the bonds of bankrupt Italian banks were in jeopardy. Imposing losses on retail bondholders had proven to be politically toxic, after one man committed suicide. Some other solution had to be found.

Italy’s non-performing loans (NPLs) then stood at €210bn, at a time when the ECB was buying €120bn per year of outstanding Italian government bonds as part of its QE program. The July 2016 Financial Times quoted Goldman’s Francesco Garzarelli, who said,

“by the time QE is over – not sooner than end 2017, on our baseline scenario – around a fifth of Italy’s public debt will be sitting on the Bank of Italy’s balance sheet.”

His solution: rather than buying Italian government bonds in its quantitative easing program, the European Central Bank could simply buy the insolvent banks’ NPLs. Bringing the entire net stock of bad loans onto the government’s balance sheet, he said, would be equivalent to just nine months’ worth of Italian government bond purchases by the ECB.

Puerto Rico’s debt is only $73 billion, one third the Italian debt. The Fed has stopped its quantitative easing program, but in its last round (called “QE3”), it was buying $85 billion per month in securities. At that rate, it would have to fire up the digital printing presses for only one additional month to rescue the suffering Puerto Ricans without hurting bondholders at all. It could then just leave the bonds on its books, declaring a moratorium at least until Puerto Rico got back on its feet, and better yet, indefinitely.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs data, 33,000 US jobs were lost in September, the first time the country has had a negative figure since 2010. It could be time for a bit more economic stimulus from the Fed.

Successful Precedent

Shifting the debt burden of bankrupt institutions onto the books of the central bank is not a new or radical idea. UK Prof. Richard Werner, who invented the term “quantitative easing” when he was advising the Japanese in the 1990s, says there is ample precedent for it. In 2012, he proposed a similar solution to the European banking crisis, citing three successful historical examples.

One was in Britain in 1914, when the British banking sector collapsed after the government declared war on Germany. This was not a good time for a banking crisis, so the Bank of England simply bought the banks’ NPLs.

“There was no credit crunch,” wrote Werner, “and no recession. The problem was solved at zero cost to the tax payer.”

For a second example, he cited the Japanese banking crisis of 1945. The banks had totally collapsed, with NPLs that amounted to virtually 100 percent of their assets:

But in 1945 the Bank of Japan had no interest in creating a banking crisis and a credit crunch recession. Instead it wanted to ensure that bank credit would flow again, delivering economic growth. So the Bank of Japan bought the non-performing assets from the banks – not at market value (close to zero), but significantly above market value.

Werner’s third example was the US Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program, in which it bought $1.7 trillion in mortgage-backed securities from the banks. These securities were widely understood to be “toxic” – Wall Street’s own burden of NPLs. Again the move worked: the banks did not collapse, the economy got back on its feet, and the much-feared inflation did not result.

In each of these cases, he wrote:

The operations were a complete success. No inflation resulted. The currency did not weaken. Despite massive non-performing assets wiping out the solvency and equity of the banking sector, the banks’ health was quickly restored. In the UK and Japanese case, bank credit started to recover quickly, so that there was virtually no recession at all as a result.

The Moral Hazard Question

One objection to this approach is the risk of “moral hazard”: lenders who know they will be rescued from their bad loans will recklessly make even more. That is the argument, but an analysis of data in China, where NPLs are now a significant problem, has relieved those concerns. China’s NPLs are largely being left on the banks’ books without writing them down. The concern is that shrinking the banks’ balance sheets in an economy that is already slowing will reduce their ability to create credit, further slowing growth and triggering a downward economic spiral. As for the moral hazard problem, when researchers analyzed the data, they found that the level of Chinese NPLs did not affect loan creation, in small or large banks.

But if Puerto Rico got relief from the Fed, wouldn’t cities and states struggling with their own debt burdens want it too? Perhaps, but that bar could be set in bankruptcy court. Few cities or states can match the devastation of Puerto Rico, which was already in bankruptcy court when struck by hurricanes that left virtually no tree unscathed and literally flattened the territory.

Arguably, the Fed should be making nearly-interest-free loans to cities and states, allowing them to rebuild their crumbling infrastructure at reasonable cost. That argument was made in an October 2012 editorial in The New York Times titled “Getting More Bang for the Fed’s Buck”. It was also suggested by Martin Hutchinson in Reuters in October 2010:

An alternative mechanism could be an extension of the Fed’s [QE] asset purchases to include state and municipal bonds. Currently the central bank does not have the power to do this for maturities of more than six months. But an approving Congress could remove that hurdle at a stroke . . . .

The Fed lent $29 trillion to Wall Street banks virtually interest-free. It could do the same for local governments.

Where There’s a Will

When central banks want to save bankrupt institutions without cost to the government or the people, they obviously know how to do it. It is a matter of boldness and political will, something that may be lacking in our central bankers but has been amply demonstrated in our president.

If the Fed resists the QE alternative, here is another possibility: Congress can audit the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Defense, and retrieve some of the $21 trillion gone missing from their accountings. This massive black money hole, tracked by Dr. Mark Skidmore and Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of HUD, is buried on the agencies’ books as “undocumented adjustments” – entries inserted without receipts or other documentary support just to balance the books. It represents money that rightfully belongs to the American people.

If our legislators and central bankers can find trillions of dollars to bail out Wall Street banks, while overlooking trillions more lost to the DoD and HUD in “undocumented adjustments,” they can find the money to help an American territory suffering the worst humanitarian crisis in its history.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, a Senior Fellow of the Democracy Collaborative, and author of twelve books including Web of Debt and The Public Bank Solution. A thirteenth book titled The Coming Revolution in Banking is due out this winter. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.

This article was originally published by Web of Debt.

I listened with interest to CBC call-in shows about the mass killing in Las Vegas. Caller after caller, some who’d been there months before, or never, described confusion, guilt about surviving, helplessness. A commentator spoke of one person shielding another with his body: “Therein lies the hope for our species”, she said. One person sacrificing for another.

The radio commentator said people come together under existential threat. Maybe. But the threat is exceptional, or so we should believe. That’s why it was the call-in topic on two successive days.

Cuban independence leader and philosopher, José Martí, distinguished north and south Americas by the fact that the US was born behind a plough and the south was born out of panic and trauma. It was born out of terror. He said that for this reason there are two, and only two, Americas. ^[i]

He drew heavily upon Nátuatl imagery, inspired by his time in Guatemala. ^[ii] Martí’s poetry is replete with images of volcanic eruptions, lava and swords. The eruptions symbolize “la energía original” or humanness. Lava is disruptive. It seems to come from nowhere.

It burns. Náhuatl culture, dominated by the myth of Quetzalcátl, relies on images of fire and sun to portray freedom. Martí’s image of the “warrior whose path leads to the heavens” is nonetheless still “fiery and devastating”. In the Náhuatl dialectic of lava, fire and glittering swords lies, Cuban philosopher Cintio Vitier argues, the “key” to Martí’s poetry: its americanness.

The other America.  When we hear about solidarity after disasters like Las Vegas, we are supposed to be comforted. Hope for the species.  In Martí’s poetry, the “lengua de lava” does not get a chance to cool. It emerges into human consciousness as a sword that becomes sheathed in the sun. Nature’s chaos is real, and acts upon us according to the laws of nature. But we can respond with sacrifice.

The sacrifice noted on CBC is what Martí, following the Náhuatl, calls “love”. It is how to escape what Marx called “alienation”: separation from humanness.^[iii] Martí’s americanness is realistic. “Hope” for humanity is not something soft and fuzzy for extraordinary moments of trouble. Humanness must be discovered. It takes work, and can be as disruptive as nature’s unpredictable and devastating events.

Che Guevara also referred to love as sacrifice. He was murdered 50 years ago this week by US agents. Che Guevara is criticized for what he said about sacrifice, just as he is criticized for much else. His vision is little understood. It is deeply philosophical. It matters today.

Che wrote that solidarity “has something of the bitter irony of the plebeians cheering on the gladiators in the Roman circus”. It is not enough “to wish the victim success”, he wrote. Instead, “one must share his or her fate…. in victory or death”.^[iv]

We don’t like reference to death. We prefer “pathological upbeatness”,^[v] believing in (our own) survival no matter what. Antonio Gramsci called such an attitude lazy.

It’s easy. It means we don’t have to think about solidarity as we might when survival is threatened.

It always is. The truth is that we are all in the path of an oncoming train, just as in Alex Colville’s famous painting. Che Guevara said, “at the risk of seeming ridiculous” that revolutionaries have to be guided by “great feelings of love”.  He meant the sacrifice sort.

But he wasn’t referring to dramatic events.

Speaking to medical workers in 1960, Che told them:

“If we all use the new weapon of solidarity … then the only thing left for us is to know the daily stretch of the road and to take it. Nobody can point out that stretch … in the personal road of each individual; it is what he will do every day, what he will gain from his individual experience”.

“What he will do every day”. The sacrifice part of Guevara’s message about solidarity, about love, is a day by day affair. This is what you find in the Nátuatl cosmology. Images of fire and volcanoes are coupled with images of liberation. It is realistic, like Martí’s poetry, like Che’s “new person”. It must be.

Che compared the “self-made man” to an invisible cage: we are enslaved by socially produced beliefs and values and we call that “freedom”. Like Martí, he took the question of freedom to be about how to get out of the cage without creating another one. Put differently, how do you respond to slavery without reasons and acts drawn from the same enslavement?

Critics say Che Guevara is naïve, expecting a new type of being. Instead, he is practical, as the other America has always had to be. He knows an ancient dialectic, in which we have to lose – or sacrifice – in order to gain – truth.  The “new person” recognizes the dialectic of sacrifice, called “love”. Such practical (not moral) insight is lost in the only “America” most now recognize.

Drawing upon his America, Martí wrote: “Despídete de ti mismo, y vivirás”.^[vi] It needn’t be so remarkable an inclination that only a horror like that of Las Vegas brings it to attention.

Ana Belén Montes is an example, urgently relevant.^[vii] She’s in jail in the US. Please sign petition here.

Susan Babbitt is author of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014).

Notes

[i] Cited in Juan Marinello, “Discurso en la clausura del 11 semanario juvenile nacional de estudios martianos” ACEM 1974

[ii] Cintio Vitier, “Lava, espada, alas (en torno a los versos libres)” in José Martí: Edición al cuidado de Ana Cairo Ballestar (Havana: Casa de las Américas, 2007) 211-225

[iii] Vitier, op. cit. 216

[iv] Che Guevara, “Create two, three, many Vietnams”, The Che Guevara Reader (Ocean Press, 1997) 316

[v] Terry Eagleton, Reason, faith and revolution (Yale University Press, 2009) 138

[vi] ‘Say good-bye to yourself, and you will live”

[vii] http://www.prolibertad.org/ana-belen-montes. For more information, write to the [email protected] or [email protected]

This article was originally published by CounterPunch.

Featured image is from Photo by Jamie C2009 | CC by 2.0

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Syria’s Foreign Ministry released video and other evidence, showing US and Israeli arms and munitions ending up in the hands of ISIS, al-Nusra and other terrorists.

It’s well known this has been going on throughout years of conflict, Washington wants it continued endlessly, not resolved.

According to Arabic-language Al-Manar news, ISIS and terrorists comprising the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) agreed to hand over the city to the SDF, no clashes occurring between their fighters.

The US-led battle for Raqqa was all about raping and destroying the city, not liberating it, most ISIS fighters redeployed to Deir Ezzor, Hama and Homs.

The battle dragged on for months to give Pentagon warplanes enough time to turn the city to rubble, massacring thousands of civilians, helping, not combating, ISIS.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov blasted US regional forces in southern Syria for letting ISIS and other terrorists use its illegally established al-Tanf base as a platform for launching attacks on Syrian troops.

He asked “the American side to clarify another instance of turning a blind eye to the activities of militants operating under their very noses.”

“It is purely for military ethics reasons that we do not publish the latest photos of the US base in al-Tanf with an abundance of pick-up trucks with heavy machine guns and recoilless guns” used by ISIS and other terrorist groups.

“Considering such serious manpower reinforcements with US benevolence and the creation of the stock of medicines with food supplies, one should not be an expert to forecast an attempt to disrupt the peace agreement now in the southern de-escalation zone as well. We are warning that all the responsibility for the peace process sabotage will be borne by the US side.”

On Wednesday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem met with Sergey Lavrov in Sochi, discussing coordination of political, economic and military issues, along with the Astana peace process.

“We still and will always consider the Turkish presence in Syria as illegal,” he stressed. “The Turks say their presence is taking place under the Astana umbrella, but I realized today that Astana has nothing to do with this Turkish act.”

“Therefore, any measure that is not coordinated with the Syrian government is an act of aggression, and we don’t recognize its legitimacy.”

“Turkey trains terrorists, arms them and facilitates their infiltration into the territory of Syria. This is why I can state that Turkey’s presence in Syria is illegal.”

Separately, Moallem blasted the so-called coalition led by Washington, saying it’s not combating ISIS as claimed. It’s supporting the terrorist group.

It’s “annihilating the Syrian people,” massacring “thousands…(W)omen and children mainly have become the victims of these crimes.”

Moallem told Lavrov Washington uses the so-called anti-terrorist coalition to support this scourge and “destroy Syria,” mainly its vital infrastructure, wanting war continuing “as long as possible.”

“(T)he US-led coalition…is systematically destroying anything but ISIL,” he stressed. “The American coalition is systematically destroying the economic infrastructure, so we…strongly demand that it (be) disbanded.”

Moallem earlier raised the issue of granting Kurds local autonomy in northern Syria, not permitting a separate Kurdish state.

“Today, the Kurds are actually competing with the Syrian army for control over the oil-bearing areas,” he explained. “They are well aware of the fact that Syria will not let anyone violate its state sovereignty under any circumstances.”

“At the moment, they are apparently intoxicated with US aid and support. However, it is must be understood that this aid will not last forever.”

Throughout its history, they were never supported by a reliable major power, Moallem added. Washington, of course, uses them to serve its interests.

Its goal is regime change or destroying Syrian sovereignty by partitioning the country. Russia’s goal is defeating US-supported terrorism, along with preserving Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

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

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Just one week after uttering his now-infamous “this is the calm before the storm” statement to the press ahead of a dinner with military leaders, we now learn that President Trump has dispatched a second nuclear aircraft carrier, the USS Theodore Roosevelt, filled with 7,500 marines, to the Korean Peninsula. Of course, this comes after rumors swirled earlier this week that North Korea is preparing to fire multiple short-range rockets around the opening of the Chinese Communist Party’s twice-a-decade congress on Oct. 18th.

The USS Theodore Roosevelt, a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, is en route to the western Pacific after leaving San Diego port last week.

The Roosevelt will focus on maritime security operations in the Pacific and Middle East, the US military announced.

But the £3.4billion ($4.5billion) warship, known as “the Big Stick”, has been sent to boost US defence on the Korean peninsula, according to South Korean media.

It is expected to arrive in region in the coming weeks amid fears North Korea is about to test another missile or nuclear weapon.

Per the following map from Stratfor, the USS Theodore Roosevelt will join the USS Ronald Reagan which is already operating in the region.

According to a statement from Admiral Steve Koehler, a strike group commander on the ship, the Roosevelt is carrying some 7,500 sailors and marines that are “ready as a war fighting force”.

“The US Navy carrier strike group is the most versatile, capable force at sea,” he said in a statement before the ship’s launch.

“After nearly a year of training and integration exercises, the entire team is ready as a warfighting force and ready to carry out the nation’s tasking.”

Of course, as we noted above, this buildup of naval forces in the Pacific follows an ominous warning from the President last week that preceded a dinner with military leaders: “You guys know what this represents? Maybe it’s the calm before the storm,” he said: “It could be the calm… before… the storm.”

A reporter quickly asked what the storm might be –“Is it Iran, ISIS, what’s the storm?”  to which he replied… “…you’ll find out.”

TRUMP: "Maybe it's the calm before the storm."
…
REPORTER: "What storm Mr. President?"
TRUMP: "You'll find out." (via Satellite News) pic.twitter.com/bWMzGrDPNa

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) October 5, 2017

So what say you? Just more bluster from a headline seeking President and normal-ish naval patrols in the Pacific or have we reached a point of no return in an escalating conflict with a rogue North Korean leader that could turn violent at any moment?

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons.

More than 1,000 foreign Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists have entered Syria via Iraq, the pro-opposition Syrian Opposition for Human Rights claimed on Thursday.

According to the report released by the pro-opposition group, the 1,000+ ISIS terrorists came from several countries in central Asia, including Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan.

The terrorists entered the Deir Ezzor Governorate via Albukamal, which is the last crossing for the terrorist group between Iraq and Syria.

The SOHR report also claimed that more than 500 Islamic State terrorists had been killed in Syria over the past two weeks – this cannot be confirmed by Al-Masdar.

Featured image is from the author.

With tensions once again flaring up between the United States and North Korea, it was reported Tuesday that former U.S. president Jimmy Carter has offered to meet with leader Kim Jong-un to discuss ways to achieve peace.

The revelation comes by way of South Korean news outlet JoongAng Ilbo, which spoke with Park Han-shik, a prominent scholar on North Korean-related issues. Park previously helped Carter plan diplomatic trips to the country in 1994 and 2010.

JoongAng Ilbo writes that Park met with the former president at his home in Georgia on September 28, and it was there that Carter reportedly expressed his wishes.

“Should former President Carter be able to visit North Korea, he would like to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and discuss a peace treaty between the United States and the North and a complete denuclearization of North Korea,” Park told the outlet, “and contribute toward establishing a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.”

Earlier in September, while speaking before gatherers at his Carter Center in Atlanta, the former president was highly critical of the Trump administration, particularly in the area of foreign policy. Then, last week, Carter penned an editorial for The Washington Post in which he addressed North Korea directly.

Carter wrote that his more than 20 years’ worth of experience in dealing with the North taught him that what the country’s leadership wants more than anything is direct talks with the U.S. that would lead to a permanent peace treaty. Technically, the agreement to cease the Korean War in 1953 was only an armistice, and the two countries are still at war.

The former president says that, indeed, “the preservation of their regime” is priority one for the government in Pyongyang, and current strategies that attempt to de-escalate the situation are failing because the North Korean leadership “believes its survival is at stake.”

Carter says what’s needed now is for the U.S. to “send a high-level delegation to Pyongyang for peace talks or to support an international conference” of all the relevant regional players, including China.

In his piece, Carter doesn’t nominate himself to lead such an effort, but if Tuesday’s report out of South Korea is accurate, he seems willing to fill the role. He would need permission from the federal government, however, as a ban on U.S. citizens traveling to North Korea went into effect in September.

Featured image is from The Carter Center / Facebook.

Featured image: North Korean missile launch on March 6, 2017.

The Western media has been awash in speculation as to why, about a year ago, North Korea’s “crazy” leadership suddenly launched a crash program to vastly improve its ballistic missile capabilities. That question has now been answered.

In September 2016, North Korean cyber-defense forces hacked into South Korean military computers and downloaded 235 gigabytes of documents. The BBC has revealed that the documents included detailed U.S. plans to assassinate North Korea’s president, Kim Jong-un, and launch an all-out war on North Korea. The BBC’s main source for this story is Rhee Cheol-hee, a member of the Defense Committee of the South Korean National Assembly.

These plans for aggressive war have actually been long in the making. In 2003, the U.S. scrapped an agreement signed in 1994 under which North Korea suspended its nuclear program and the U.S. agreed to build two light water reactors in North Korea. The two countries also agreed to a step-by-step normalization of relations. Even after the U.S. scrapped the 1994 Agreed Framework in 2003, North Korea did not restart work on the two reactors frozen under that agreement, which could by now be producing enough plutonium to make several nuclear weapons every year.

However, since 2002-03, when President George W. Bush included North Korea in his “axis of evil,” withdrew from the Agreed Framework, and launched an invasion of Iraq over bogus WMD claims, North Korea once again began enriching uranium and making steady progress toward developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver them.

By 2016, the North Koreans also were keenly aware of the horrific fate of Iraq and Libya and their leaders after the countries did surrender their unconventional weapons. Not only did the U.S. lead bloody “regime change” invasions but the nations’ leaders were brutally murdered, Saddam Hussein by hanging and Muammar Gaddafi sodomized with a knife and then summarily shot in the head.

So, the discovery of the U.S. war plan in 2016 sounded alarm bells in Pyongyang and triggered an unprecedented crash program to quickly expand North Korea’s ballistic missile program. Its nuclear weapons tests established that it can produce a small number of first-generation nuclear weapons, but it needed a viable delivery system before it could be sure that its nuclear deterrent would be credible enough to deter a U.S. attack.

In other words, North Korea’s main goal has been to close the gap between its existing delivery systems and the missile technology it would need to actually launch a retaliatory nuclear strike against the United States. North Korea’s leaders see this as their only chance to escape the same kind of mass destruction visited on North Korea in the first Korean War, when U.S.-led air forces destroyed every city, town and industrial area and General Curtis LeMay boasted that the attacks had killed 20 percent of the population.

Through 2015 and early 2016, North Korea only tested one new missile, the Pukkuksong-1 submarine-launched missile. The missile launched from a submerged submarine and flew 300 miles on its final, successful test, which coincided with the annual U.S.-South Korean military exercises in August 2016.

North Korea also launched its largest satellite to date in February 2016, but the launch vehicle seemed to be the same type as the Unha-3 used to launch a smaller satellite in 2012.

However, since the discovery of the U.S.-South Korean war plans a year ago, North Korea has vastly accelerated its missile development program, conducting at least 27 more tests of a wide range of new missiles and bringing it much closer to a credible nuclear deterrent. Here is a timeline of the tests:

Two failed tests of Hwasong-10 medium-range ballistic missiles in October 2016.

Two successful tests of Pukguksong-2 medium-range ballistic missiles, in February and May 2017. The missiles followed identical trajectories, rising to a height of 340 miles and landing in the sea 300 miles away. South Korean analysts believe this missile’s full range is at least 2,000 miles, and North Korea said the tests confirmed it is ready for mass production.

Four medium-range ballistic missiles that flew an average of 620 miles from the Tongchang-ri space center in March 2017.

Two apparently failed missile tests from Sinpo submarine base in April 2017.

Six tests of Hwasong-12 medium-range ballistic missiles (range: 2,300 to 3,700 miles) since April 2017.

A failed test of a missile believed to be a “KN-17” from Pukchang airbase in April 2017.

Test of a Scud-type anti-ship missile that flew 300 miles and landed in the Sea of Japan, and two other tests in May 2017.

Several cruise missiles fired from the East coast in June 2017.

A test of a powerful new rocket engine, maybe for an ICBM, in June 2017.

North Korea tested two Hwasong-14 “near-ICBMs” in July 2017. Based on these tests, the Hwasong-14 may be capable of hitting city-sized targets in Alaska or Hawaii with a single nuclear warhead, but cannot yet reach the U.S. West Coast.

Four more missiles tested in August 2017, including a Hwasong-12 that flew over Japan and travelled 1,700 miles before breaking up, maybe as a result of a failure in a “Post Boost Vehicle” added to improve range and accuracy.

Another ballistic missile flew 2,300 miles over the Pacific on September 15, 2017.

An analysis of the two tests of the Hwasong-14 in July by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) concluded that these missiles are not yet capable of carrying a 500 kg payload as far as Seattle or other U.S. West Coast cities. BAS notes that a first generation nuclear weapon based on the Pakistani model that North Korea is believed to be following could not weigh less than 500 kg, once the weight of the warhead casing and a heat shield to survive reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere are taken into account.

Global Reaction

Awareness of the role of the U.S. war plan in spurring the dramatic escalation of North Korea’s missile program should be a game changer in the world’s response to the crisis over Korea, since it demonstrates that the current acceleration of the North Korean missile program is a defensive response to a serious and potentially existential threat from the United States.

If the United Nations Security Council was not diplomatically and militarily intimidated by the United States, this knowledge should trigger urgent action in the Security Council to require all sides to make a firm commitment to peaceful and binding diplomacy to formally end the Korean War and remove the threat of war from all the people of Korea. And the whole world would unite politically and diplomatically to prevent the U.S. from using its veto to avoid accountability for its leading role in this crisis. Only a unified global response to potential U.S. aggression could possibly convince North Korea that it would have some protection if it eventually halted its nuclear weapons program.

But such unity in the face of a threat of U.S. aggression would be unprecedented. Most U.N. delegates quietly sat and listened on Sept. 19 when President Donald Trump delivered explicit threats of war and aggression against North Korea, Iran and Venezuela, while boasting about his missile strike against Syria on April 6 over dubious and disputed claims about a chemical weapons incident.

For the past 20 years or more, the United States has swaggered about as the “last remaining superpower” and the “indispensable nation,” a global law unto itself, using the dangers of terrorism and weapons proliferation and highly selective outrage over “dictators” as propaganda narratives to justify illegal wars, CIA-backed terrorism, its own weapons proliferation, and support for its favored dictators like the brutal rulers of Saudi Arabia and other Arab monarchies.

For even longer, the United States has been two-faced about international law, citing it when some adversary can be accused of a violation but ignoring it when the U.S. or its allies are trampling on the rights of some disfavored country. When the International Court of Justice convicted the United States of aggression (including acts of terrorism) against Nicaragua in 1986, the U.S. withdrew from the ICJ’s binding jurisdiction.

Since then, the U.S. has thumbed its nose at the entire structure of international law, confident in the political power of its propaganda or “information warfare” to cast itself as the guardian of law and order in the world, even as it systematically violates the most basic rules spelled out in the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

U.S. propaganda treats the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions, the world’s “Never again” to war, torture and the killing of millions of civilians in the Second World War, as relics of another time that it would be naive to take seriously.

But the results of the U.S. alternative — its lawless “might makes right” war policy — are now plain for all to see. In the past 16 years, America’s post-9/11 wars have already killed at least two million people, maybe many more, with no end in sight to the slaughter as the U.S.’s policy of illegal war keeps plunging country after country into intractable violence and chaos.

An Ally’s Fears

Just as North Korea’s missile programs are a rational defense strategy in the face of the threat Pyongyang faces from the U.S., the exposure of the U.S.’s war plan by American allies in South Korea is also a rational act of self-preservation, since they too are threatened by the possibility of war on the Korean peninsula.

Now maybe other U.S. allies, the wealthy countries that have provided political and diplomatic cover for the U.S.’s 20-year campaign of illegal war, will finally reassert their humanity, their sovereignty and their own obligations under international law, and start to rethink their roles as junior partners in U.S. aggression.

Countries like the U.K., France and Australia will sooner or later have to choose between forward-looking roles in a sustainable, peaceful multi-polar world and a slavish loyalty to the ever-more desperate death throes of U.S. hegemony. Now might be a good moment to make that choice, before they are dragged into new U.S. wars in Korea, Iran or Venezuela.

Even Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is afraid that Donald Trump will lead humanity into World War III. But it might come as a surprise to people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and parts of a dozen other countries already engulfed by U.S.-driven wars to learn that they are not already in the midst of World War III.

Perhaps what really worries the Senator is that he and his colleagues may no longer be able to sweep these endless atrocities under the plush carpets of the halls of Congress without a genteel Barack Obama in the White House to sweet-talk U.S. allies around the world and keep the millions being killed in U.S. wars off U.S. TVs and computer screens, out of sight and out of mind.

If politicians in the U.S. and around the world need the ugliness of Donald Trump as a mirror for their own greed, ignorance and temerity, to shame them into changing their ways, so be it – whatever it takes. But it should not escape anyone anywhere that the signature on this diabolical war plan that now threatens to kill millions of Koreans was not Donald Trump’s but Barack Obama’s.

George Orwell might well have been describing the partisan blindness of the West’s self-satisfied, so easily deluded, neoliberal society when he wrote this in 1945,

“Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage – torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians – which does not change its color when it is committed by our side… The Nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

Here’s the bottom line: The United States has been planning to assassinate Kim Jong Un and to launch an all-out war on North Korea. There. You’ve heard it. Now, can you still be manipulated into believing that Kim Jong Un is simply “crazy” and North Korea is the gravest threat to world peace?

Or do you now understand that the United States is the real threat to peace in Korea, just as it was in Iraq, Libya and many other countries where the leaders were deemed “crazy” and U.S. officials (and the Western mainstream media) promoted war as the only “rational” alternative?

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

Reported by KITV Hawaii:

“Gio Rios and Marissa Castle, from Kaua’i witnessed the shooting in Las Vegas first hand. They said they continued to hear bullets coming and when they dropped to the ground two or three other people landed on their legs and back– the man on Castle’s back was actually dead. It was a traumatizing experience for the couple.”

Here is the report of KITV Hawaii, which quotes Gio Rios as saying that “there was more than one shooter”. Gio Rios’ statement refutes the official FBI story.

Click here to access the KITV news report

Below is the complete video posted by Gio Rios on Facebook, which recounts the details of what he and Marissa Castle experienced during the shootout and they managed to escape.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies are developing momentum against ISIS north and east of Deir Ezzor city.

Government forces have secured the al-Siyasah bridge and further advanced to tighten the siege on ISIS units inside the northern part of Deir Ezzor. Separately, the SAA Tiger Forces captured Balum, Balout, the Electrical sub station, the Taybah school and other points in al-Mayadin city.

Local sources report that the Syrian Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Forces are actively bombing ISIS targets across the entire Deir Ezzor countryside.

On October 11, 40 members of the US-backed militant group, Ahmad al-Abdo Forces, surrendered to the SAA in southeastern Syria. The militants, including their commander Abu Dujana, had been deployed within US-led coalition forces at the at-Tanf garrison.

The militants reportedly handed over their weapons to the SAA and provided info about US forces in at-Tanf. In turn, they got a free passage towards Eastern Qalamun area mostly controlled by Jaish al-Islam branch that has a ceasefire deal with government forces.

Pro-government experts believe that more defections from the US-controlled at-Tanf base is expected in the near future because it lost all its strategic value when the SAA reached the border with Iraq north of it and reached Deir Ezzor city.

On October 12, clashes continued between the SAA and ISIS near al-Qaryatayn city. Earlier, government forces retook from ISIS an area south of the city and secured all hills overlooking it.

An SAA operation to take back al-Qaryatayn is expected soon.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have further advanced at the ash-Shaddaday-al-Busayran road and seized Muwayli and Kabbar villages. As soon as the US-backed force secures the entire road, it will be able to storm al-Busayran itself and to develop momentum in the direction of the Omar oil fields.

In Raqqah city, negotiations continued between US-backed forces and ISIS over terms and conditions of possible withdrawal deal for the terrorist group’s members, according to pro-opposition sources. Separately, a fighting was ongoing near the national hospital in the city center.

If the sides reach no deal, the battle for Raqqah will continue with renewed vigour.

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.

TruePublica Editor: You would have thought after banking scandals such as rigging Libor, mass money laundering operations involving drug cartels, illegal financial transactions with sanctioned countries, fraud on a scale never witnessed before and instigating the implosion of the worlds financial system that has cost taxpayers trillions, that the last people you would seek advice from the organisations that caused it.

But no, the European Central Bank, in seeking advice for banking regulations decided in its infinite wisdom that attendance by the shadowy lobbyists representing the big banks should be swayed in favour against civil society at a ratio of 98 to 2. And they wonder why there is civil disobedience on the streets of capitals across the continent and the popularity of the European Union project is plummeting!

***

ECB advisory groups are used as lobby platforms by the financial industry, as our new report shows. ‘Open door for forces of finance at the ECB’ reveals that the advisory groups counselling the European Central Bank are dominated by representatives of some of the most influential global financial corporations.

Like many other EU institutions, the European Central Bank (ECB) actively seeks external expertise for its policies: a total of 22 advisory groups provide ECB decision-makers with recommendations on all aspects of EU monetary policy. As with other EU bodies, however, there is a hefty industry-bias in many of these expert groups.

• Out of 517 available seats across all groups, 508 have been assigned to representatives of private financial institutions. More than 98 per cent of advisors in these circles are therefore providing expertise with a touch of corporate spin.
• A mere 16 financial groups, including Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, Societé Générale, Citigroup and Unicredit, occupy no less than 208 seats.
• Among all 144 entities with seats in an ECB advisory group, 64 do not even have an entry in the EU’s lobby register, the EU Transparency Register.
• The financial corporations supervised by the ECB command a comfortable majority of the posts as advisers: 346 – two thirds of the total.

Such figures raise the question of whether the membership in the ECB’s advisory groups is a covetable asset for the big private banks, where opportunities to influence programme decisions can come with multi-billion euro stakes for the industry.

There are clear risks hidden in these numbers. The report mentions several key political battles over financial regulations where the advisory groups of the ECB have emerged as straightforward platforms for financial industry lobbying. Examples include the Financial Transaction Tax, the Libor/Euribor scandal, and the Forex scandal.

In connection with the release of the report, Corporate Europe Observatory has sent a letter to the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON), urging members of Parliament to mount pressure on the European Central Bank to adopt rules on the composition and the work of its advisory groups. Rules that would live up to the standards regarding the ‘expert groups’ of the Commission, recommended by the European Ombudsman and the European Parliament itself.

Featured image is from TruePublica.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support a theory that was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said:

We feel very confident that the ICA’s accuracy is going to be supported by our committee.

Burr’s statement is an example of “confirmation bias”  which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one’s own preexisting beliefs.  In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of “hand-picked” analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda.  In other words, the intelligence was fixed to fit the policy. Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee has interviewed and the volume of work that’s been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:

Since January 23,… the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed more than 100,000 documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively spent a total of 57 hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry, going through documents and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both classified and unclassified material.

It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified assumptions, then what’s the point?

Let’s take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see whether Burr and Warner are justified in “feeling confident” in the ICA’s accuracy.

From the Intelligence Community Assessment:

 We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election.  Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.  We have high confidence in these judgments.

This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors’ lack of objectivity. There’s a considerable amount of speculation about Putin’s motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It’s a bit shocking that professional analysts– who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security– would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. It’s also shocking that Burr and Warner think this gibberish should be taken seriously.

Here’s more from the ICA:

Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.

More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn’t think. The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report.  And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It’s beyond me. The report’s greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they’d realize that it’s nonsense. Also, it would have been better if the ICA’s authors had avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the point, Russia hacking.  Dabbling in the former seriously impacts the report’s credibility.

To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who contributed to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:

“We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA,” said Burr. “We’ve spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent putting the ICA together.… We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and, in addition to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have found appropriate for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation.” Burr added that the committee’s review included “highly classified intelligence reporting,” and they’ve interviewed every official in the Obama administration who had anything to do with putting it together. (“Democrats and Republicans in Congress Agree: Russia Did It”, The Nation)

That’s great, but where’ the beef?  How can the committee conduct “100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts” without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections?  How is that possible? The Committee’s job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That’s the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem:

“There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I’m not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven’t any.”

Think about that. After “100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages” there’s not the slightest hint of collusion. It’s mindboggling. Why isn’t this front page news? Why haven’t the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they’ve hyped every other part of this story?

Could it be that Burr’s admission doesn’t mesh with the media’s “Russia did it” narrative so they decided to scrub the story altogether?

But it’s not just collusion we’re talking about here, there’s also the broader issue of Russia meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the interviews, all the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come up with nothing; no eyewitness testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no proof of domestic espionage, no evidence of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.

So here’s a question for critical minded readers:

If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016 elections, then why do senators’ Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn’t really make sense, does it?  Don’t they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn’t the burden of truth fall on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn’t a man innocent until proven guilty or doesn’t that rule apply to Russia?

Let’s cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don’t want to get to the bottom of it. It’s that simple. That’s why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He’s biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype?

Don’t bet on it.

What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly admitted that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn’t been asked to testify nor has he even been contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a credible witness who can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.

Then there’s 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of  Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has produced solid evidence that the DNC emails were “leaked” by an insider, not “hacked” by a foreign government. McGovern’s work squares with Assange and Murray’s claim that Russia did not hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern been invited to testify?

How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose excellent report titled “Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge” also disproves the hacking theory, as does The Nation’s Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation titled “A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack” which thoroughly obliterates the central claims of the ICA.

Finally, there’s California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at the Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence (in the form of “a computer drive or other data-storage device”) that the Russians were not involved in the DNC email scandal.

Wouldn’t you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and credible witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof  that the scandal, that has dominated the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?

Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or evidence that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.

So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee’s behavior? Are Burr and Warner really conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a witch hunt?

It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington’s aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO)  devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the “Full Spectrum Dominance” theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one’s geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

Sources

1. Senate Intelligence Committee briefing on Russia investigation, CSPAN

2. Intelligence Community Assessment, January 6, 2017

3. A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack, Patrick Lawrence, The Nation.

4. Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence

5. Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge, Skip Folden

Featured image is from Photo by Blogtrepreneur | CC by 2.0.

Featured image: An armed British Reaper drone

This month (October 2017) marks ten years of British Reaper drone operations.  Acquired on a  temporary basis as an ‘Urgent Operational Capability’, the UK began operating armed drones in Afghanistan in October 2007 after having three delivered directly to Kandahar airport. A decade later the Reapers have been in continuous use and are now deemed a ‘core capability’.  Having already tripled the number in service, the government are in the process of increasing the fleet up to 26 as the new, updated version of Reaper (re-branded by the British government as ‘Protector’) are delivered over the next two – three years.

The UK’s commitment to the use of armed drones is clear, not only through expanding numbers in service, but also through increased funding for the development of more advanced drones, as well as the infrastructure needed to operate them.

Secrecy grows

Less attention, however, is being paid to the impact of the growing use of these systems and the legal and ethical concerns raised.  Over the past two years defence ministers have been responding to questions by insisting that the publication of a new policy document would address all such concerns.  Repeatedly delayed, when it was finally published last month the document was underwhelming to say the least.  To a large part it is mainly concerned with caricaturing the issues before then dismissing them.  One part of the document, which states that it had become ‘UK practice’ to target suspected terrorists outside of the armed conflict, was dis-owned by MoD officials within days.

This would perhaps be funny if it was not so serious.  This failure to engage with policy concerns comes on top of concerted attempts to thwart oversight and accountability over UK drone operations.  The refusal of ministers and officials to provide the security-cleared Intelligence and Security Committee with key information and documents about the drone targeted killing of Reyaad Khan is a scandal.  As the Committee put it in their final report, “we cannot ourselves be sure – nor offer an assurance to Parliament or the public – that we have indeed been given the full facts surrounding” the killing of Khan. The refusal of the government to co-operate with its own oversight procedures in the extra-ordinary case of a targeted killing beyond the battlefield is startling. However, the government is also now refusing to provide basic details of regular deployment of its armed drones.  It seems the secrecy surrounding the use of these systems is expanding with their growing use. This bodes ill for the future.

Hand-in-hand with Trump

But any discussion of the British use of armed drones however, cannot be done in isolation from US use. Over the past decade British armed drones have operated alongside and at times interchangeably, with the US drones operations.  British and US drone strikes are ‘the sharp end’ of a combined data gathering machine operated by the British GCHQ and Defence Intelligence, as well as the US National Security Agency (NSA), CIA and a whole host of other secretive US agencies.  Just last month, documents released from the Snowden cache revealed just how much a small British base, RAF Digby in Lincolnshire, located just a couple of miles from RAF Waddington, is involved in acquiring intelligence via the UK’s drones and sharing  it with the United States.

While there has long been international concern, not to say outrage, at the US use of drones for targeting killing in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, the Trump administration is now considering policy changes which would increase these types of drone operations. Changes include expanding strikes from those who are said to pose a ‘continuing and imminent threat’ to the US, to those against ‘low-level’ militants, as well as pushing the authority for such strikes down the command chain to lower-level officials (remember this is for strikes in countries in which the US is not at war). In addition the US is also considering giving the CIA a greater role in undertaking strikes inside traditional armed conflicts, normally the preserve of the Pentagon.

In the past government ministers have – publicly at least – sought to distance the UK from these US targeted killing operations, and disagreed with the US legal interpretation of a geographically boundless ’global war on terror’.   However the drone killing of Reyaad Khan in 2015 and the UK Attorney General’s speech earlier this year adopting US legal interpretations for pre-emptive strikes shows that, for practical purposes the UK is hand-in-hand with Trump.

A fork in the road

However we are about to reach a fork in the road; an opportunity to make clear that the UK does not consider war to be a permanent state of affairs and to open up clear blue water between the UK and the US on this issue.  As Iraqi forces continue to gain control over their territory, it is likely that Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi will declare victory over ISIS in the next few months.  This will be a clear opportunity for the UK to call a halt to its decade of drone strikes.

In 2014, Parliament dispatched its drones and other armed aircraft directly from Afghanistan to Iraq in response to a call for security assistance from Haider al-Abadi.  In the UK parliamentary resolution authorising the deployment, MPs strictly limited the use of force to the territory of Iraq.  However, within weeks British drones were ignoring this restriction and crossing the border into Syria, first to undertake intelligence gathering missions and then to strike.  Later, this was regularized as parliament authorised strikes in Syria, but the international legal situation is very different with regard to strikes in Iraq and Syria.  The use of lethal force in Iraq is at the request of the Iraqi authorities.  This is not the case in Syria.  Any legal argument for British strikes against ISIS in Syria is predicated on the threat to Iraq, (the so-called ‘unable and unwilling test’, which continues to be controversial).  If the Iraq government says the war is over, this should be an end to UK air strikes both in Iraq and in Syria.

Ground the drones

There will be many siren voices insisting that the global war against terror goes on.  Indeed, as the Telegraph reported this weekend, the Pentagon is already lobbying the UK to send its forces back to Afghanistan.  These voices will no doubt increase after every awful terrorist act (‘Send in the Drones’). But this dangerous and unlawful call to perpetual war must be resisted.  Dropping bombs and firing missiles does not and will not solve international security problems.  Indeed, as many have stated, it has the opposite effect.  Diplomatic and political solutions must come to the fore.

Many politicians and military officials dismiss – and even express horror – at the idea that the UK is involved in a permanent war alongside the United States.  But after seventeen years of military intervention and bombing – in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iraq (again) and Syria – unless we take a positive decision to choose a different path, war will have become a normal and permanent state.

All images in this article are from the author.

In less than an hour on Thursday morning, President Donald Trump went from encouraging Americans to watch his favorite show, Fox & Friends, to telling residents of Puerto Rico the crisis there is “largely of their own making” to ultimately saying that the U.S. government cannot keep federal emergency workers there “forever.”

.

.

"Puerto Rico survived the Hurricanes, now a financial crisis looms largely of their own making." says Sharyl Attkisson. A total lack of…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2017

…accountability say the Governor. Electric and all infrastructure was disaster before hurricanes. Congress to decide how much to spend….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2017

…We cannot keep FEMA, the Military & the First Responders, who have been amazing (under the most difficult circumstances) in P.R. forever!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2017

The series of tweets comes as relief workers on the ground and Puerto Rican officials say the humanitarian crisis is much worse on the ground than the rosy picture Trump continues to paint.

Disgust aimed at the president came swiftly:

This is like blaming home owners for the mortgage crisis. Focus on the banks that sold the P.R. bonds or we will see 2008 all over again. https://t.co/XIE6gPRgP0

— Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) October 12, 2017

I am Disgusted Beyond Belief.
RETWEET For Puerto Rico!https://t.co/D2xv46nGY4

— Impeach Donald Trump (@Impeach_D_Trump) October 12, 2017

Trump woke up this morning and decided to attack Puerto Rico while 84% of the country is still without power and 37% is still without water.

— Michael Skolnik (@MichaelSkolnik) October 12, 2017

Trump is alternating between yelling at people saying he doesn't care about Puerto Rico and saying he doesn't care about Puerto Rico.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) October 12, 2017

Trump serves notice to Puerto Rico that federal government may eventually abandon the U.S. territory amid humanitarian crisis https://t.co/Ojja9xrBlX

— Philip Rucker (@PhilipRucker) October 12, 2017

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

Featured image is from SocialistWorker.org.

Featured image: Above: Left: UPS CEO David Abney (Photo via UPS.com); Right: FedEx CEO Fred Smith (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

FedEx and UPS—two of America’s biggest employers—have been publicly pushing tax cuts as job creators even as they plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a coming wave of automation at their distribution centers and along their delivery lines, corporate documents show.

Neither company has said what effect their automation plans may have on their job numbers, but both FedEx and UPS are also actively developing new technology designed to expand automation, according to patent applications reviewed by TYT. One UPS executive told Wall Street analysts new automation initiatives currently being planned will be coming online as late as 2020.

Pushing for Tax Cuts

Following last month’s tax-cut proposals put forward by congressional Republicans and President Trump, both FedEx and UPS have made statements in support of dramatically lowered corporate tax rates.

At a September 21 event promoting the tax cuts, UPS CEO David Abney said,

“It’s not about, ‘Okay, corporations would like to pay less taxes.’ It’s about growing the American economy, creating jobs and giving us all a chance to be competitive.”

The event was hosted by the Business Roundtable, a group of executives that is pushing for lower corporate tax rates.

FedEx CEO Fred Smith discussed corporate taxes on September 27, telling CNBC,

“It’s got to be changed for U.S. competitiveness and to incent investment in the United States because that’s the only way you get blue-collar wages up.”

On August 14, Smith and Abney had joined forces to co-author an op-ed on economic growth, writing in the Wall Street Journal,

“If you lower rates, eliminate loopholes, and otherwise simplify the tax code, you create opportunity for growth.”

That same month, congressional Republicans rolled out a national campaign to promote tax cuts as a job-creation tool. Abney hosted and attended one such event, featuring two congressional Republicans, at the UPS Worldport facility in Louisville, KY.

In addition to membership in Business Roundtable, both companies also belong to a number of organizations actively pushing for corporate tax cuts. These include the RATE (Reforming America’s Taxes Equitably) Coalition, a constellation of corporations that have banded together to promote the Republican tax plan through lobbying efforts; ad buys; writing reports, editorials, and letters to Congress; and testifying before Congress.

UPS is also a member of the Alliance for Competitive Taxation, while David Short, senior counsel for legal, trade, and international affairs for FedEx Express, serves on the Advisory Board for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Both groups maintain that federal tax cuts will generate job creation.

In addition to public-relations efforts by UPS, FedEx, and their affiliated advocacy groups, both companies also employ lobbyists to push for their preferred policies in Washington. Including in-house lobbying and work done by outside firms, FedEx has spent over $5.2 million on federal governmental lobbying in 2017, while UPS has spent nearly $4.3 million. Sixteen of the 31 federal lobbying disclosure forms filed by FedEx this year list tax reform, while 12 out of 19 UPS forms disclose lobbying on tax reform, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

In February, Smith met with Vice President Mike Pence. FedEx President and COO David Bronczek met with President Donald Trump.

Neither company has said it will use its windfall from a tax cut to hire more workers. In his appearance last month on CNBC, Smith said,

“We put a lot of money into the business … to invest for the future. We bought a lot of shares back. We steadily increased our dividends … We’ve been able to increase our wages every year. So a tax decrease would allow us to do all of those things at greater scale.”

Abney does not appear to have suggested wages will go up at UPS. He told the Business Roundtable,

“We’re in a reinvestment cycle here at UPS in the U.S., and [as] part of this tax reform, we’d like to bring some of those foreign earnings back and invest them into our network here.”

One investment both companies are making is in increased automation.

Investing in Automation

In the June FedEx earnings call, CFO and Executive Vice President Alan Graf Jr. said FedEx Ground has made “significant investments in capacity and automation and will continue to invest” in the next fiscal year. He said the company expects to spend $5.9 billion next year on capital expenditures, including new planes and “continued investments in FedEx Ground automation and capacity expansion.”

Asked about transitioning from manual to automated loading and unloading of its trucks, FedEx Ground CEO and President Henry Maier, on the same call, said,

“We are making investments in material handling and lifting technologies to address that. We review hub designs over the normal course of business that account for package size. So that would divert packages, for instance, that we would have to handle manually today to a more automated mode.”

Last November, UPS outlined plans to invest more than half a billion dollars in automating processing at three major hubs.

UPS is “mid-process of a multiyear approach to our automation process, but they are giving us 20 percent to 25 percent greater productivity,” UPS Senior Vice President and President of U.S. Operations Myron Gray said during a January earnings call. “That helps us to improve flexibilities, reduce the handles in our network, which obviously continue to help us reduce or bend the cost curve. So we’re about midway through the process, with most of the capacity and automation coming online in 2018, 2019, and 2020.”

Plans include a $400 million, 1.2 million-square-foot processing facility in Atlanta. UPS also announced a $196 million investment to increase processing capacity in Jacksonville, Florida, by 33 percent, and $175 million to double processing capacity at its hub in Columbus, Ohio, which will reportedly add 75 new jobs as a result by next fall.

All three projects reportedly received local tax breaks as incentives for job creation.

In its 2016 annual report, filed with the SEC in February 2017, UPS wrote,

“In order to meet demand, we are increasing capital expenditures to expand network capacity and increase productivity by automating existing facilities. We are making strategic investments in our top 30 processing hubs, as well as adding new facilities to our network.”

A UPS representative told industry publication Logistics Management in November 2016 that the equipment used at the Atlanta hub will serve as a “showpiece for us with new automation systems.”

At its Worldport facility in Kentucky, UPS has told reporters it defines automation as meaning that workers do not touch actual packages at any point except two times: before the package enters the high-speed, computerized, assembly-line distribution system, and once it’s done.

Neither company appears to be relying solely on existing technology for automating package scanning, processing, distribution, and delivery. Both UPS and FedEx are actively researching and creating new methods of automation, based on patent applications reviewed by TYT.

On August 24, for example, the World Intellectual Property Organization granted UPS a patent for “Assembly Including an Imaging System, and Methods of Using the Same.”

A year before that, UPS received a patent in August 2016 titled, “Automated Loading and Unloading Items,” from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the automated unloading and retrieval of goods being prepared for shipment.

“In various embodiments, items are received at a loading station where identification data may be captured for each item and handling instructions may be generated. In some embodiments, a label having indicia asso­ciated with the item may be generated and affixed to the item,” according to the patent. “The items may then be deposited through an access door into the vehicle identified in the handling instructions. Once the items are loaded into the access door, an automated load/unload device may deposit the item in the appropriate storage location. The automated load/unload device may also retrieve and rearrange items as desired.”

In 2014 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted UPS a patent titled, “Methods, Apparatuses and Computer Program Products For Automating Arrivals and Departures.” The patent’s background description explains how it will reduce hours of manual work related to trucks coming in and out of UPS shipping centers.

“Hours of valuable time are consumed every day as transportation personnel contact dispatchers or others regarding their arrival and departure to areas such as hubs,” according to the description. “Such processes may cause reduced productivity, as the vehicles may need to come to a complete stop and be turned off to allow the transportation employee to use a telephone to speak with appropriate personnel such as a dispatcher to determine where loads should be placed in a hub.”

The description anticipates reducing staffing, saying, “Currently, dispatch operations typically require excessive time as well as staffing resources to manage the activities surrounding the arrivals, departures, and pre-dispatch of loads at hubs. As such, a need may exist for automating arrival and departure dispatch activities.”

TYT identified at least 21 patent applications geared toward automated scanning, processing, or delivery.

Jobs

It’s not clear what effect automation will have on the number of jobs at FedEx and UPS, the ninth and tenth biggest employers in the world, respectively, according to the Fortune 500 list. Nor is it clear that current tax rates have impeded hiring.

FedEx does not list its U.S. employee numbers in its SEC filings. But in its report for fiscal year 2016, it reported 353,000employees globally, up from 213,500 in fiscal year 2008. UPS went from reporting 340,000 U.S. employees in fiscal year 2008 to reporting 355,000 in fiscal year 2016.

Neither company has claimed a lack of resources to hire new employees. At UPS, last year’s dividend payments amounted to $2.8 billion. It had $3.546 billion in cash on hand and paid Abney $13.7 million, according to a UPS proxy statement filed in March, up more than 20 percent from the previous year.

FedEx paid Smith $15.6 million in compensation in fiscal year 2017, according to a proxy filing submitted to the SEC this September. The company ended 2016 with $3.53 billion in cash on hand. It gave its shareholders $227 million in dividends both last year and in 2015. As Smith indicated to CNBC, he expects to use his company’s tax windfall to expand those payments.

FedEx did not respond to multiple questions about its plans for its tax windfall or how its spending would affect hiring. UPS spokeswoman Kara Gerhardt Ross, formerly an assistant press secretary for then-President Bill Clinton, said the company could not answer TYT’s questions because they involved “proprietary information.” Ross referred The Young Turks to UPS’ statement released after President Trump released the contours of his proposed tax plan in September.

“[UPS] commends the Administration and Congressional leaders on the release of a unified framework which details a plan for tax reform that will stimulate the economy, create jobs and develop a globally competitive tax structure,” reads the statement. “UPS strongly supports the tax reform outlined in this proposal.”

The state is growing more desperate and dangerous.

It faces a crisis, one where its own legitimacy is being questioned.

In a re-play of the repression faced by Black liberation forces in the 1960s and ‘70s, news broke that the Black resistance movement is in the cross hairs of the state. So-called “Black-identity extremists” are now the new FBI targets, a category that can include anyone who believes Black people have the right to resist and deserve self-determination, one of BAP’s grounding principles.

But we will not be intimidated. We will intensify our organizing and educational work and meet this challenge as we have met challenges in the past.

Now don’t forget to give—we need all of the resources we can get!

The struggle continues and we will win. Here are articles, videos and events to help you tackle the crises we face:

Events

1. October 14, Washington, D.C.: BAP member Pan-African Community Action is organizing the sixth-annual Thomas Sankara conference in Washington, D.C., to help develop pan-African strategies.3
2. October 14, Columbus, Ohio: Meet BAP national organizer Ajamu Baraka in Columbus, Ohio! You can also hear him speak at a second event about resistance and Black liberation in the age of Trump.3.
3. October 17, Decatur, Georgia: The Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition is hosting Ajamu to discuss the history of the U.S.-Korea conflict.

Video

1. Despite Trump’s bluster, nothing has really changed with how the United States deals with the world, said Margaret Kimberley, BAP Coordinating Committee member, at the United National Antiwar Coalition’s rally on Saturday to commemorate the 16th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan.

Articles

1. BAP member Charo Mina-Rojas discussed the heated Colombian peace process.
2. The state is not playing. Already, a convergence of white opinion exists on the left and on the right in opposition to what they call “identity politics” and what we call racial justice. Now folks are being targeted as “Black identity extremists.”
3. When the social compact is weak, everybody is the ‘Other’—and, therefore, a target.
4. In the twisted, racist, profit-seeking minds of U.S. and E.U. leaders, a military buildup mainly using Black and Brown U.S. bodies is designed to create peace.
5. It’s important for folks to understand the United States funds terrorists when it wants to take control of a country.
6. Are Russians collaborating with or influencing U.S. Blacks? This allegation is not new.

Let’s continue to build the resistance we all have been waiting for!

Lars Schall: 70 years ago, on September 18, 1947, the National Security Act created the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA. Douglas, you refer to the CIA as “the organized crime branch of the U.S. government.” Why so?

Douglas Valentine: Everything the CIA does is illegal, which is why the government provides it with an impenetrable cloak of secrecy. While mythographers in the information industry portray America as a bastion of peace and democracy, CIA officers manage criminal organizations around the world. For example, the CIA hired one of America’s premier drug trafficker in the 1950s and 1960s, Santo Trafficante, to murder Fidel Castro. In exchange, the CIA allowed Trafficante to import tons of narcotics into America. The CIA sets up proprietary arms, shipping, and banking companies to facilitate the criminal drug trafficking organizations that do its dirty work. Mafia money gets mixed up in offshore banks with CIA money, until the two are indistinguishable.

Drug trafficking is just one example.

LS: What is most important to understand about the CIA?

DV: Its organizational history, which, if studied closely enough, reveals how the CIA manages to maintain its secrecy. This is the essential contradiction at the heart of America’s problems: if we were a democracy and if we truly enjoyed free speech, we would be able to study and speak about the CIA. We would confront our institutionalized racism and sadism. But we can’t, and so our history remains unknown, which in turn means we have no idea who we are, as individuals or as a nation. We imagine ourselves to be things we are not. Our leaders know bits and pieces of the truth, but they cease being leaders once they begin to talk about the truly evil things the CIA is doing.

LS: A term of interest related to the CIA is “plausible deniability”. Please explain.

DV: The CIA doesn’t do anything it can’t deny. Tom Donohue, a retired senior CIA officer, told me about this.

Let me tell you a bit about my source. In 1984, former CIA Director William Colby agreed to help me write my book, The Phoenix Program. Colby introduced me to Donohue in 1985. Donohue had managed the CIA’s “covert action” branch in Vietnam from 1964-1966, and many of the programs he developed were incorporated in Phoenix. Because Colby had vouched for me, Donohue was very forthcoming and explained a lot about how the CIA works.

Donohue was a typical first-generation CIA officer. He’d studied Comparative Religion at Columbia and understood symbolic transformation. He was a product and practitioner of Cook County politics who joined the CIA after World War Two when he perceived the Cold War as “a growth industry.” He had been the CIA’s station chief in the Philippines at the end of his career and, when I spoke to him, he was in business with a former Filipino Defense Minister. He was putting his contacts to good use, which is par for the course. It’s how corruption works for senior bureaucrats.

Donohue said the CIA doesn’t do anything unless it meets two criteria. The first criterion is “intelligence potential.” The program must benefit the CIA; maybe it tells them how to overthrow a government, or how to blackmail an official, or where a report is hidden, or how to get an agent across a border. The term “intelligence potential” means it has some use for the CIA. The second criterion is that it can be denied. If they can’t find a way to structure the program or operation so they can deny it, they won’t do it. Plausible denial can be as simple as providing an officer or asset with military cover. Then the CIA can say, “The army did it.”

Plausible denial is all about language. During Senate hearings into CIA assassination plots against Fidel Castro and other foreign leaders, the CIA’s erstwhile deputy director of operations Richard Bissell defined „plausible denial“ as “the use of circumlocution and euphemism in discussions where precise definitions would expose covert actions and bring them to an end.”

Everything the CIA does is deniable. It’s part of its Congressional mandate. Congress doesn’t want to be held accountable for the criminal things the CIA does. The only time something the CIA does become public knowledge – other than the rare accident or whistleblower – is when Congress or the President think it’s helpful for psychological warfare reasons to let the American people know the CIA is doing it. Torture is a good example. After 9/11, and up until and through the invasion of Iraq, the American people wanted revenge. They wanted to see Muslim blood flowing, so the Bush administration let it leak that they were torturing evil doers. They played it cute and called it “enhanced interrogation,” but everyone understood symbolically. Circumlocution and euphemism. Plausible denial.

LS: Do the people at the CIA know that they’re part of “the organized crime branch of the U.S. government”? In the past, you’ve suggested related to the Phoenix program, for example: „Because the CIA compartmentalizes itself, I ended up knowing more about the program than any individual in the CIA.“

DV: Yes, they do. I talk at length about this in my book The CIA as Organized Crime. Most people have no idea what cops really do. They think cops give you a speeding ticket. They don’t see the cops associating with professional criminals and making money in the process. They believe that when a guy puts on a uniform, he or she becomes virtuous. But people who go into law enforcement do so for the trill of wielding power over other people, and in this sense, they relate more to the crooks they associate with than the citizens they’re supposed to protect and serve. They’re looking to bully someone and they’re corrupt. That’s law enforcement.

The CIA is populated with the same kind of people, but without any of the constraints. The CIA officer who created the Phoenix program, Nelson Brickham, told me this about his colleagues: “I have described the intelligence service as a socially acceptable way of expressing criminal tendencies. A guy who has strong criminal tendencies but is too much of a coward to be one, would wind up in a place like the CIA if he had the education.” Brickham described CIA officers as wannabe mercenaries “who found a socially acceptable way of doing these things and, I might add, getting very well paid for it.”

It’s well known that when the CIA selects agents or people to run militias or secret police units in foreign nations, it subjects its candidates to rigorous psychological screening. John Marks in The Search for the Manchurian Candidate told how the CIA sent its top psychologist, John Winne, to Seoul to “select the initial cadre” for the Korean CIA. “I set up an office with two translators,” Winne told Marks, “and used a Korean version of the Wechsler.” CIA shrinks gave the personality assessment test to two dozen military and police officers, “then wrote up a half-page report on each, listing their strengths and weaknesses. Winne wanted to know about each candidate’s ability to follow orders, creativity, lack of personality disorders, motivation – why he wanted out of his current job. It was mostly for the money, especially with the civilians.”

In this way, the CIA recruits secret police forces as assets in every country where it operates, including occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. In Latin America, Marks wrote, “The CIA…found the assessment process most useful for showing how to train the anti-terrorist section. According to results, these men were shown to have very dependent psychologies and needed strong direction.”

That “direction” came from the CIA. Marks quoted one assessor as saying, “Anytime the Company spent money for training a foreigner, the object was that he would ultimately serve our purposes.” CIA officers “were not content simply to work closely with these foreign intelligence agencies; they insisted on penetrating them, and the Personality Assessment System provided a useful aid.”

What’s less well known is that the CIA’s executive management staff is far more concerned with selecting the right candidates to serve as CIA officers than it is about selecting agents overseas. The CIA dedicates a huge portion of its budget figuring how to select, control, and manage its own work force. It begins with instilling blind obedience. Most CIA officers consider themselves to be soldiers. The CIA is set up as a military organization with a sacred chain of command that cannot be violated. Somebody tells you what to do, and you salute and do it. Or you’re out.

Other systems of control, such as “motivational indoctrination programs”, make CIA officers think of themselves as special. Such systems have been perfected and put in place over the past seven decades to shape the beliefs and responses of CIA officers. In exchange for signing away their legal rights, they benefit from reward systems – most importantly, CIA officers are immune from prosecution for their crimes. They consider themselves the Protected Few and, if they wholeheartedly embrace the culture of dominance and exploitation, they can look to cushy jobs in the private sector when they retire.

The CIA’s executive management staff compartments the various divisions and branches so that individual CIA officers can remain detached. Highly indoctrinated, they blindly obey on a “need to know” basis. This institutionalized system of self-imposed ignorance and self-deceit sustains, in their warped minds, the illusion of American righteousness, upon which their motivation to commit all manner of crimes in the name of national security depends. That and the fact that most are sociopaths.

It’s a self-regulating system too. As FBN Agent Martin Pera explained, “If you’re successful because you can lie, cheat, and steal, those things become tools you use in the bureaucracy.”

LS: Can you tell us please what’s behind a term you like to use, the „Universal Brotherhood of Officers“?

DV: The ruling class in any state views the people it rules as lesser beings to be manipulated, coerced, and exploited. The rulers institute all manner of systems – which function as protection rackets – to assure their class prerogatives. The military is the real power in any state, and the military in every state has a chain of command in which blind obedience to superiors is sacred and inviolable. Officers don’t fraternize with enlisted men because they will at some point send them to their deaths. There is an officer corps in every military, as well as in every bureaucracy and every ruling class in every state, which has more in common with military officers, top bureaucrats, and rulers in other states, than it does with the expendable, exploitable riff raff in its own state.

Cops are members of the Universal Brotherhood of Officers. They exist above the law. CIA officers exist near the pinnacle of the Brotherhood. Blessed with fake identities and bodyguards, they fly around in private planes, live in villas, and kill with state-of-the-art technology. They tell army generals what to do. They direct Congressional committees. They assassinate heads of state and murder innocent children with impunity and with indifference. Everyone to them, but their bosses, is expendable.

LS: In your opinion, it is the „National Security Establishment’s deepest, darkest secret“ that it is involved in the global drug trade. How did this involvement come about?

DV: There are two facets to the CIA’s management and control of international drug trafficking, on behalf of the corporate interests that rule America. It’s important to note that the US government’s involvement in drug trafficking began before the CIA existed, as a means of controlling states, as well as the political and social movements within them, including America. Direct involvement started in the 1920s when the US helped Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist regime in China support itself through the narcotics trade.

During World War II, the CIA’ predecessor, the OSS, provided opium to Kachin guerrillas fighting the Japanese. The OSS and the US military also forged ties with the American criminal underworld during the Second World War, and would thereafter secretly provide protection to American drug traffickers whom it hired to do its dirty work at home and abroad.

After the Nationalists were chased out of China, the CIA established these drug traffickers in Taiwan and Burma. By the 1960’s, the CIA was running the drug trade throughout Southeast Asia, and expanding its control worldwide, especially into South America, but also throughout Europe. The CIA supported its drug trafficking allies in Laos and Vietnam. Air Force General Nguyen Cao Ky, while serving in 1965 as head of South Vietnam’s national security directorate, sold the CIA the right to organize private militias and build secret interrogation centers in every province, in exchange for control over a lucrative narcotic smuggling franchise. Through his strongman, General Loan, Ky and his clique financed both their political apparatus and their security forces through opium profits. All with CIA assistance.

The risk of having its ties to drug traffickers in Southeast Asia exposed, is what marks the beginning of the second facet – the CIA’s infiltration and commandeering of the various government agencies involved in drug law enforcement. Senior American officials arranged for the old Bureau of Narcotics to be dissolved and recreated in 1968 within the Justice Department as the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. The CIA immediately began infiltrating the highest levels of the BNDD for the purpose of protecting its drug trafficking allies around the world, especially in Southeast Asia. The CIA’s Counter-Intelligence Branch, under James Angleton, had been in liaison with these drug agencies since 1962, but in 1971 the function was passed to the CIA’s operations division. In 1972, CIA officer Seymour Bolten was appointed as the CIA director’s Special Assistant for the Coordination of Narcotics. Bolten became an advisor to William Colby and later DCI George H.W. Bush. By 1973, with the establishment of the DEA, the CIA was in total control of all foreign drug law enforcement operations and was able to protect traffickers in the US as well. In 1990 the CIA created its own counter-narcotics center, despite being prohibited from exercising any domestic law enforcement function.

LS: Is the war on drugs also a war on blacks? Let me give you some framework for this question, because John Ehrlichman, a former top aide to Richard Nixon, supposedly admitted that: “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” (1) And I can quote from H. R. Haldeman’s diaries in this respect, of course. In the early stages of his presidency, more specifically on April 28, 1969, Nixon outlined his basic strategy to his chief of staff: “[President Nixon] emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to.” (2) So, is the war on drugs that started under Nixon also a war on blacks? And if so, what does this tell us about the United States?

DV: America is a former slave state and a blatantly racist society, so yes, the war on drugs, which is managed by white supremacists, was and is directed against blacks and other despised minorities as a way of keeping them disenfranchised. The old Bureau of Narcotics was blatantly racist: not until 1968 were black FBN agents allowed to become group supervisors (Grade 13) and manage white agents.

I interviewed former FBN Agent William Davis for my book about the FBN, The Strength of the Wolf. Davis articulated the predicament of black agents.  After graduating from Rutgers University in 1950, Davis, while visiting New York City, heard singer Kate Smith praising FBN Agent Bill Jackson on a radio show. “She described him as a black lawyer who was doing a fine job as a federal narcotic agent,” Davis recalled, “and that was my inspiration. I applied to the Narcotics Bureau and was hired right away, but I soon found out there was an unwritten rule that Black agents could not hold positions of respect: they could not become group leaders, or manage or give direction to whites. The few black agents we had at any one time,” he said bitterly, “maybe eight in the whole country, had indignities heaped upon us.”

Davis told how Wade McCree, while working as an FBN agent in the 1930s, created a patent medicine.  But McCree made the mistake of writing to Eleanor Roosevelt to complain that prosecutors in the South were calling black agents “niggers.”  As a result, the FBN’s legal staff charge McCree with using FBN facilities to create his patent medicine. McCree was fired with the intended ripple effect: his dismissal sent a clear message that complaints from black agents would not be tolerated.

In an interview for The Strength of the Wolf, Clarence Giarusso, a veteran New Orleans narcotic agent and its chief of police in the 1970s, explained to me the racial situation from local law enforcement’s perspective. “We made cases in Black neighborhoods because it was easy,” he said. “We didn’t need a search warrant, it allowed us to meet our quotas, and it was ongoing. If we found dope on a Black man we could put him in jail for a few days and no one cared. He has no money for a lawyer, and the courts are ready to convict; there’s no expectation on the jury’s part that we even have to make a case.  So rather than go cold turkey he becomes an informant, which means we can make more cases in his neighborhood, which is all we’re interested in. We don’t care about Carlos Marcello or the Mafia. City cops have no interest in who brings the dope in. That’s the job of federal agents.”

Anyone who thinks it is any different nowadays is living in a fantasy world. Where I live, in Longmeadow, MA, the cops are the first line of defense against the blacks and Puerto Ricans in the nearby city of Springfield. About 15 years ago, there was a Mafia murder in Springfield’s Little Italy section. At the time, blacks and Puerto Ricans were moving into the neighborhood and there was a lot of racial tension. The local TV station interviewed me about it, and I said the Al Bruno, the murdered Mafia boss, was probably an FBI informant. The next day, people I knew wouldn’t talk to me. Comments were made. Someone told me Bruno’s son went to the same health club as me. In a city like Springfield and its suburban neighborhoods, everyone is related to or friends with someone in the Mafia.

A few years before Bruno’s murder, I had befriended the janitor at the health club I belong to. By chance, the janitor was the son of a Springfield narcotics detective. The janitor and I shot pool and drank beers in local bars. One day he told me a secret his father had told him. His father told him that the Springfield cops let the Mafia bosses bring narcotics into Springfield and in exchange, the hoods named their black and Puerto Ricans customers. That way, like Giarusso said above, the cops keep making cases and the minority communities have a harder time buying houses and encroaching on the established whites in their neighborhoods. This happens everywhere in the US every day.

LS: Is it ironic to you that the whole drug trade wouldn’t exist as it does today if the drugs were not illegal in the first place?

DV: The outlawing of narcotic drugs turned the issue of addiction from a matter of “public health” into a law enforcement issue, and thus a pretext for expanding police forces and reorganizing the criminal justice and social welfare systems to prevent despised minorities from making political and social advances. The health care industry was placed in the hands of businessmen seeking profits at the expense of despised minorities, the poor and working classes. Private businesses established civic institutions to sanctify this repressive policy. Public educators developed curricula that doubled as political indoctrination promoting the Business Party’s racist line. Bureaucracies were established to promote the expansion of business interests abroad, while suppressing political and social resistance to the medical, pharmaceutical, drug manufacturing and law enforcement industries that benefited from it.

It takes a library full of books to explain the economic foundations of the war on drugs, and the reasons for America’s laissez faire regulation of the industries that profit from it. Briefly stated, they profit from it just like the Mafia profits from it. Suffice it to say that Wall Street investors in the drug industries have used the government to unleash and transform their economic power into political and global military might; never forget, America is not an opium or cocaine producing nation, and narcotic drugs are a strategic resource, upon which all of the above industries – including the military – depend. Controlling the world’s drug supply, both legal and illegal, is a matter of national security. Read my books for examples of how this has played out over the past 70 years

LS: Is the CIA part of the opium problem today in Afghanistan?

DV: In Afghanistan, CIA officers manage the drug trade from their hammocks in the shade. Opium production has soared since they created the Karzai government in 2001-2 and established intelligence networks into the Afghan resistance through “friendly civilians” in the employ of the opium trafficking warlord, Gul Agha Sherzai. The American public is largely unaware that the Taliban laid down its arms after the American invasion, and that the Afghan people took up arms only after the CIA installed Sherzai in Kabul. In league with the Karzai brothers, Sherzai supplied the CIA with a network of informants that targeted their business rivals, not the Taliban. As Anand Gopal revealed in No Good Men Among the Living, as a result of Sherzai’s friendly tips, the CIA methodically tortured and killed Afghanistan’s most revered leaders in a series of Phoenix-style raids that radicalized the Afghan people. The CIA started the war as a pretext for a prolonged occupation and colonization of Afghanistan.

In return for his services, Sherzai received the contract to build the first US military base in Afghanistan, along with a major drug franchise. The CIA arranged for its Afghan drug warlords to be exempted from DEA lists. All this is documented in Gopal’s book. The CIA officers in charge watch in amusement as addiction rates soar among young Afghan people whose parents have been killed and whose minds have been damaged by 15 + years of US aggression. They don’t care that the drugs reach America’s inner cities, for all the economic, social, and political reasons cited above.

The drug trade also has “intelligence potential”. CIA officers have an accommodation with the protected Afghan warlords who convert opium into heroin and sell it to the Russian mob. It’s no different than cops working with Mafia drug dealers in America; it’s an accommodation with an enemy that ensures the political security of the ruling class. The accommodation is based on the fact that crime cannot be eradicated, it can only be managed.

The CIA is authorized to negotiate with the enemy, but only if the channels are secure and deniable. It happened during the Iran Contra scandal, when President Reagan won the love of the American people by promising never to negotiate with terrorists, while his two-faced administration secretly sent CIA officers to Tehran to sell missiles to the Iranians and use the money to buy guns for the drug dealing Contras. In Afghanistan, the accommodation within the drug underworld provides the CIA with a secure channel to the Taliban leadership, with whom they negotiate on simple matters like prisoner exchanges. The criminal-espionage underworld in Afghanistan provides the intellectual space for any eventual reconciliation. There are always preliminary negotiations for a ceasefire, and in every modern American conflict that’s the CIA’s job. Trump, however, is going to prolong the occupation indefinitely.

The fact that 600 subordinate DEA agents are in Afghanistan makes the whole thing plausibly deniable.

LS: Did the U.S. employ characteristics of the Phoenix program as a replay in Afghanistan? I ask especially related to the beginning of „Operation Enduring Freedom“ when the Taliban leaders initially laid down their weapons.

DV: Afghanistan is a case study of the standard two-tiered Phoenix program developed in South Vietnam. It’s guerrilla warfare targeting “high value” cadre, both for recruitment and assassination. That’s the top tier. It’s also psychological warfare against the civilian population – letting everyone know they will be kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured, extorted and/or killed if they can be said to support the resistance. That’s the second tier – terrorizing the civilians into supporting the US puppet government.

The US military resisted being involved in this repugnant form of warfare (modeled on SS Einsatzgruppen-style special forces and Gestapo-style secret police) through the early part of the Vietnam War, but got hooked into providing soldiers to flesh out Phoenix. That’s when the CIA started infiltrating the military’s junior officer corps. CIA officers Donald Gregg (featured by the revisionist war monger Ken Burns in his Vietnam War series) and Rudy Enders (both of whom I interviewed for my book The Phoenix Program), exported Phoenix to El Salvador and Central America in 1980, at the same time the CIA and military were joining forces to create Delta Force and the Joint Special Operations Command to combat “terrorism” worldwide using the Phoenix model. There are no more conventional wars, so the military, for economic and political reasons, has become, under the junior officer corps recruited by the CIA years ago, the de-facto police force for the American empire, operating out of 700 + bases around the world.

LS: In what form and fashion is the Phoenix program alive today in America’s homeland?

DV: Karl Marx explained over 150 years ago how and why capitalists treat workers the same, whether at home or abroad. As capitalism evolves and centralizes its power, as the climate degenerates, as the gap between rich and poor widens, and as resources become scarcer, America police forces adopt Phoenix-style “anti-terror” strategies and tactics to use against the civilian population. The government has enacted “administrative detention” laws, which are the legal basis for Phoenix-style operations, so that civilians can be arrested on suspicion of being a threat to national security. Phoenix was a bureaucratic method of coordinating agencies involved in intelligence gathering with those conducting “anti-terror” operations, and the Department of Homeland Security has established “fusion centers” based on this model around the nation. Informant nets and psychological operations against the American people have also proliferated since 9-11. This is all explained in detail in my book, The CIA as Organized Crime.

LS: How important is mainstream media for the public perception of the CIA?

DV: It’s the most critical feature. Guy Debord said that secrecy dominates the world, foremost as secret of domination. The media prevents you from knowing how you’re being dominated, by keeping the CIA’s secrets. The media and the CIA are same thing.

What FOX and MSNBC have in common is that, in a free-wheeling capitalist society, news is a commodity. News outlets target demographic audience to sell a product. It’s all fake news, in so far as each media outlet skews its presentation of the news to satisfy its customers. But when it comes to the CIA, it’s not just fake, it’s poison. It subverts democratic institutions.

Any domestic Phoenix-style organization or operation depends on double-speak and deniability, as well as official secrecy and media self-censorship. The CIA’s overarching need for total control of information requires media complicity. This was one of the great lesson defeat in Vietnam taught our leaders. The highly indoctrinated and well rewarded managers who run the government and media will never again allow the public to see the carnage they inflict upon foreign civilians. Americans never will see the mutilated Iraqi, Afghani, Libyan, and Syrian children killed by marauding US mercenary forces and cluster bombs.

On the other hand, falsified portrayals of CIA kidnappings, torture, and assassinations are glorified on TV and in movies. Telling the proper story is the key. Thanks to media complicity, Phoenix has already become the template for providing internal political security for America’s leaders.

LS: Is the CIA an enemy of the American people?

DV: Yes. It’s an instrument of the rich political elite, it does their dirty business.

***

Douglas Valentine is the author of the non-fictional, historical books “The Hotel Tacloban”, “The Phoenix Program”, “The Strength of the Wolf”, “The Strength of the Pack”, and “The CIA as Organized Crime”.

Sources

(1) Dan Baum: “Legalize It All – How to win the war on drugs”, published at Harper’s Magazine in April 2016 under: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

(2) “Haldeman Diary Shows Nixon Was Wary of Blacks and Jews”, published at The New York Times on May 18, 1994 under: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/18/us/haldeman-diary-shows-nixon-was-wary-of-blacks-and-jews.html

Featured image is from Photo by Tom Thai | CC BY 2.0.

Amidst the hellish chaos of the Donald Trump catastrophe, it’s more essential than ever to understand how he got into the White House and who put him there. Then we need to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

In her recent blame-everybody-else-while-doing-nothing screed, “What Happened,” Hillary Clinton fingers James Comey, the Russians and Bernie Sanders.

But, in fact, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry put this madman in office.

This trio of multi-millionaire corporate Democrats won the presidential races of 2000, 2004 and 2016. Then they lay down, said hardly a word and did even less as they let George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump rule the land.

All three presidencies were stolen by stripping large numbers of black, Hispanic, Asian-American and young citizens from the voter rolls, and then electronically flipping the vote count. In 2000 and 2016, the thefts were finalized by the Electoral College.

Along the way, the United States House, Senate and a thousand state, federal and local offices also have been flipped. The Supreme Court has come along for the ride.

The impacts—eight years of George W. Bush and an eternity of Donald Trump—have been somewhere between catastrophic and apocalyptic.

We will recover only if we do what the corporate Democrats have not: Face up to how our entire electoral system has been become a sham and then change it.

Let’s start with Al Gore and Florida 2000.

In 2000, Gore was duly elected president of the United States. He won the popular vote nationwide by more than 500,000 ballots. Later, independent assessments showed he rightfully won Florida, which would have given him a majority in the Electoral College.

Officially, Gore lost Florida by 537 votes. In its infamous 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision, the Supreme Court stopped the recount that might have given Gore the presidency. The deciding vote was cast by Clarence Thomas. Gore, as a U.S. senator, had voted to put him on the bench.

But then-Gov. Jeb Bush, George’s brother and son of the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, actually prevented the legitimate citizen votes that would have won Gore the presidency. In shifting Florida from Gore to George W. Bush, Jeb Bush used a wide array of strategies perfected by their father at the CIA for overthrowing Third World regimes that American corporate interests deemed inconvenient. Florida 2000 was the logical follow-up.

As Greg Palast reported, Jeb used the ChoicePoint computer program to strip some 90,000 mostly black and Hispanic citizens from the voter rolls. As reported by activist Bev Harris, some 20,000 votes were electronically bounced around in Volusia County and elsewhere. At critical points on election night, they kept Bush2’s chances alive.

About 50,000 votes were tallied for the great consumer activist Ralph Nader in Florida 2000. Corporate Democrats still scream at him for daring to run at all. That pubic assault has shifted the focus away from how the election was actually stolen while undercutting America’s most effective corporate critic. In the perennial war waged by corporate Democrats against social democrats, this has been the new millennium’s centerpiece.

But had Nader not run, and had all who voted for him tried to vote for Gore, Bush still would have become president. With computerized stripping of the voter rolls, and electronic flipping of the vote count, Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris showed that a governor and secretary of state can take any reasonably close statewide vote and engineer whatever outcome they want.

Until very recently, Al Gore never publicly challenged the existence of the Electoral College, which was originally formed in part to empower slave owners. He was the fifth presidential candidate to rightfully win an election but lose the White House.

After 17 years, Gore still has not confronted publicly the issue of Jeb Bush’s stripping the voter registration rolls or flipping the electronic vote count. Gore has never used his considerable public persona or immense personal wealth to open a public dialog about that election’s corrupted outcome—or to work to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Indeed, while presiding over the U.S. Senate as vice president, Gore crushed a legitimate challenge to Florida’s stolen Electoral College delegation that put the GOP in the White House.

Gore has since got a Nobel Prize for his work on climate change. But his actions were the first inconvenient steps to a Trump administration now making climate chaos infinitely worse.

Four years later, John Kerry followed suit.

In Ohio 2004—as in Florida 2000—the voter rolls were stripped and the electronic vote count flipped. This time, the prime perpetrator was GOP Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, today a member of Trump’s “election integrity” commission.

Working with Bush2, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, Ohio’s first African-American secretary of state unleashed a veritable barrage dirty tricks to take the Buckeye State—and the presidency—away from John Kerry.

In Democratic urban strongholds and college towns, precincts were riddled with chaos that was distinctly lacking in rural Republican regions. Incorrect addresses were posted on the state’s official website, and polling stations were shorted on voting machines. While Blackwell spread confusion about the weight of the paper stock required for ballots, he refused to send usable ones to precincts short on voting machines. As a result, thousands of Ohioans—many students and people of color—simply could not vote.

Official letters were also sent to “ex-felons” threatening criminal prosecution if they dared to vote, even though ex-felons can legally vote in Ohio and many who were threatened weren’t ex-felons anyway. At least 300,000 citizens were stripped from the voter rolls, nearly all in heavily Democratic urban areas. Some absentee ballots in southern Ohio were sent out missing Kerry’s name.

In some Democratic strongholds, voters who pressed Kerry’s name on touchscreen machines saw Bush’s name light up. Some who chose Kerry saw that their choice had disappeared by the time they got to the end of the ballot.

There was much, much more, which Bob Fitrakis and I have documented in “How the GOP Stole America’s 2004 Election,” at freepress.org.

On Election Day, Bush and Rove made one trip out of Washington, D.C.—to check in with Blackwell. They made no public appearances and didn’t bother with Ohio’s GOP governor, Bob Taft.

At 12:20 on election night, despite mass chaos and huge lines (up to five hours long) in Democratic precincts, CNN showed John Kerry winning Ohio—and thus the presidency—by 4.2 percent of the vote. The projected margin was well over 200,000 ballots.

Somehow, a “glitch” stopped the tally. The “problem” was in a server in Chattanooga, Tenn., where the email accounts of Karl Rove and the national Republican Party also resided. They were all managed by Michael Connell, a Bush family high-tech consultant running Ohio’s vote count under a no-bid contract from Blackwell. [Editor’s note: Connell died in a small plane crash in Ohio in 2008, after recently being subpoenaed to testify in a lawsuit alleging vote rigging in the 2004 Ohio election.]

When the flow resumed at 2 a.m., all was flipped. Bush somehow won by 2.5 percent—a 6.7 percent shift. Scholars such as Ron Baiman deemed this change a “virtual statistical impossibility.” Bush’s Blackwell-approved Ohio margin was a beyond-improbable 118,000-plus votes, much of it from three southwestern counties riddled with chaos.

Kerry’s staff was thoroughly briefed on the likely fraud. At noon the next day, with 250,000 votes still uncounted, Kerry conceded. Then he went windsurfing.

Kerry has yet to say a public word about what happened in Ohio 2004, or in other states that year where election theft was blatantly obvious. The fraudulent tactics the GOP “test marketed” in 2004 have been used full force right through the “Trump triumph” of 2016, flipping an untold number of critical elections along the way.

Like Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004, Hillary Clinton was the designated winner in 2016. And like them both, she has said and done nothing about the third theft of the U.S. presidency in the first five presidential elections of the new millennium.

Clinton won the national popular vote by at least 2.9 million, despite a massive Jim Crow vote-stripping fraud perpetrated by GOP governors and secretaries of state in about 30 states. Parallel to ChoicePoint in Florida 2000, they used a program called Interstate Crosscheck, spread by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. As reported by Greg Palast, Crosscheck stripped voter rolls on the pretext that citizens were double-registered, even if their names did not match from one state to the other.

Palast estimates that at least 1 million voters were denied their ballots in this way, most of them likely Clinton voters who were black, Hispanic, Asian-American, Muslim and young. As featured in Palast’s book and movie “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy,” Kobach chairs the White House commission aimed at stripping registration rolls in upcoming elections. Clinton mentions Kobach briefly in “What Happened,” but offers no meaningful discussion of how his Jim Crow disenfranchisement campaign might have turned the 2016 outcome—or how to prevent it from happening again.

Clinton also briefly mentions the Electoral College that cost her the White House, but—like Gore and Kerry—gives no indication she plans to do anything significant about abolishing it.

She also fails to explore the fact that she won the exit polls in Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin—more than enough to give her an Electoral College victory. In all those states, the official vote count was deeply tainted with massive registration stripping and widespread electronic flipping.

But she harshly assaults Green candidate Jill Stein, echoing Democrat party-line attacks on Nader.

Trump’s total alleged margin in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania was under 100,000. As in Florida 2000, Clinton counts Stein’s votes and complains that had they all gone to her, she could have won.

But she never mentions that she stiffed Stein’s attempts to investigate the obvious fraud in all three states. As Palast has reported, more than enough Wisconsin voters were stripped from the registration rolls using new photo ID requirements to flip that key state to Clinton. In lawsuits filed on behalf of the Stein campaign, Bob Fitrakis has established that Wisconsin also failed to provide transparent electronic voting machine source codes, as required by law.

In Michigan, where Clinton allegedly lost by about 10,000 votes, some 70,000 ballots were recorded without a presidential preference. In the face of obvious manipulation, Clinton has never questioned the absurd presumption that tens of thousands of Democratic voters in Detroit and Flint would slog through long lines and official abuse to cast ballots without marking a choice for chief executive.

In fact, Clinton killed Stein’s attempt to force a recount in Michigan. When a judge ruled Stein lacked standing, but that Clinton had it, Clinton’s lawyers refused to support the recount. They also stonewalled Stein’s investigationsin Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

None of this is mentioned in “What Happened” or in Clinton’s public appearances. The candidate who rightfully won the 2016 election never mentions the obvious stripping and flipping that defined her losses in the three states that put Trump in the White House. Like Gore and Kerry, she has never indicated anywhere that she intends to do anything to stop this from happening again.

Clinton does, however, famously attack former FBI Director James Comey and the Russians for allegedly derailing her campaign at crucial moments.

Comey’s announcement of an investigation of her emails did, in fact, put a crimp in Clinton’s campaign. She still won the popular vote and the exit polls in the five key states that could have won her the Electoral College.

The Russians may or may not have hacked our electronic voting machines. But it’s abundantly clear, 17 years after Florida 2000, that those machines canbe hacked with ridiculous ease, and that the likeliest culprits will always be local officials whose access is universal, quick and predictable.

The Russians may or may not have also released emails showing that Clinton’s cronies on the Democratic National Committee wrongfully sabotaged the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Again and again, Clinton contemptuously assaults Sanders for his allegedly lukewarm support of her candidacy. But she completely ignores the massive grass-roots social democratic uprising that continues to make him America’s most popular politician.

Instead, she locked up her boring, uninspired candidacy behind the mighty fortress of corporate Democrats who seem to fear the social/green democrats to whom the party must ultimately belong if it’s ever again to take power. She let her personal hatred of Vladimir Putin convince even many of her followers that she might well spark a new Cold War with Russia.

Thus, she still misses and disses the activist nation that nominated Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, helped him survive the GOP’s strip-and-flip assaults, and thus escape the Electoral College death trap.

In 2016 the grass-roots “Hope and Change” tidal wave segued into the “Sandernista” uprising. It became the most powerful grass-roots movement for eco-social democracy in modern U.S. history. The latest incarnation is now in a desperate struggle to take the Democratic Party back from the “Clintonista” corporate elite that has gutted it. Its agenda is to turn the party into a force for peace, social justice and ecological sanity that can actually win elections.

Had Clinton lowered herself to embrace it, she might well have overcome a thoroughly corrupted electoral system and kept Trump out of the White House.

But as of now, there is no indication that either she, Al Gore or John Kerry are awake to the power of that movement, or to the need to confront an electoral system that strips millions of citizens from its registration rolls, flips electronic vote counts, and has used the Electoral College twice in this century to elect the likes of Bush and Trump as president.

With the corrupt remnants of the Clintons’ corporate-owned Democratic Leadership Council (which Hillary praises in “What Happened”) still in control of the party machinery, more than a thousand federal, state and local offices have slipped to the Republicans since 2000. Much of that clearly stems from grass-roots disgust with a party run by a dull, tone-deaf corporate cabal whose agenda on war, trade, welfare and more, is often indistinguishable from that of the GOP.

But much also has to do with the death grip Republican governors and secretaries of state have on the electoral apparatus. In 2016 and 2018, six U.S. Senate seats went to Republican candidates who lost in the exit polls, a virtual statistical impossibility. With those races went control of the upper House—and the Supreme Court.

Trump’s federal commission on “voter fraud,” headed by Kobach, with Blackwell by his side, is escalating the Jim Crow assault on our voter rolls. Easily hacked electronic voting machines guarantee flipped outcomes. The Electoral College still lets small red states deny the duly elected presidential candidates rightful access to the White House.

The reforms we need to our electoral apparatus include universal automatic voter registration, transparent poll books to guarantee duly registered citizens can actually vote, a four-day holiday for voting, easily accessible polling stations, and, above all, universal hand-counted paper ballots, to stay where they are cast in translucent containers with clear chain of custody until they can be tallied in full daylight, with open national oversight.

We also need an end to gerrymandering, the death of the Electoral College and an end to corporate money in campaigns.

All this seems beneath the corporate Democrats. But without such reforms, it’s a sad illusion that the Congress can be retaken in 2018, or that the GOP rampage through state and local legislatures can be reversed.

As for 2020, with the current electoral claptrap, a progressive presidency is almost certainly out of reach.

It will be up to the grass-roots sequel to the Sandernista movement to end this nightmare.

If “What Happened” and their timid inaction are any indicator, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore still don’t get it. That they opened the door for Donald Trump will be their most profound collective legacy.

“Truth!” shouts Jack Nicholson at the end of the legendary film “A Few Good Men.” “You can’t handle the truth!”

Until they can, these three biggest losers—and their moribund corporate Democrats—are destined for the scrap heap of history.

The sooner, the better.

Harvey is a lifelong activist who speaks, writes and organizes widely on energy, the environment, election protection, social justice, grass-roots politics and natural healing, personal and planetary. 

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons.

Over the past 18 months the British Labour party has been beset by a moral panic. According to pro-Israel activists in Labour, there has been a surge of anti-semitism in the party since Jeremy Corbyn became leader two years ago. Corbyn has broken with decades of party policy by placing a much stronger emphasis on the need to end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians.

As we will show, these activists’ concerns are much less about anti-semitism than about Corbyn and the trend he represents. Pro-Israel groups, who have strong backing among the party establishment opposed to Corbyn, fear he is changing the nature of the British political discourse about Israel and the Palestinians. Beyond this, they are worried that should Corbyn, or someone else from his wing of the Labour party, reach power, they will put the Palestinians at the heart of a Labour government’s foreign policy. Much is at stake.

A strange, if largely obscured feature of the supposed anti-semitism crisis – set out at length in my first Mondoweiss article – is that so many of those accused and convicted in Labour of this hate crime are Jews. The latest person accused by the party of anti-semitism – and this week expelled – is Moshe Machover, a mathematician and philosophy professor at the University of London. He was born and raised in Israel.

Machover appears to be among the first Labour members to be netted by a rule change on anti-semitism introduced at the party conference last week. Activists in a new group called Jewish Voice for Labour, launched at the conference, had warned that the change in wording would allow the party bureaucracy to expel members for “thought crimes”.

As previously explained, the rule change was pushed hard by a powerful pressure group in Labour called the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), which is the sister organisation of Israel’s own Labour party. The JLM helped create Labour Friends of Israel, which has traditionally been a key pro-Israel lobbying group among Labour members of parliament.

Both organisations have clandestine ties to the Israeli government through Israel’s London embassy, as was revealed earlier this year by an Al Jazeera undercover investigation. It secretly filmed this collusion in action, as pro-Israel Labour activists plotted to subvert Corbyn’s leadership, even at the cost of irreparably damaging the party.

Professor expelled

In decrying an “anti-semitism plague” in Labour, the JLM and its supporters have claimed that they are not conflating anti-semitism with anti-Zionism. But Machover’s case clearly illustrates that they are precisely doing that.

Machover received a letter from Labour head office this week alleging that he had breached the party’s anti-semitism rules with an article (PDF), paradoxically titled “Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism”, in a publication of the Labour Party Marxists group

In it, Machover pointed out the widespread opposition of most Jews to the ideas propagated by the Zionist movement before the rise of Hitler, and the problematic ideological affinites between Zionists and anti-semites. He wrote:

“The founder of political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, had pointed out that anti-Semitic regimes would be allies, because they wanted to get rid of the Jews, while the Zionists wanted to rid them of the Jews. That was the common interest.”

For this reason, observed Machover, quoting Zionist and Nazi leaders of the time, many Zionists welcomed the early policies of the Nazis, including even the notorious Nuremberg Laws of 1935. This was before the Nazis switched to a policy of extermination in the death camps. Both anti-semites and Zionists wanted Jews and non-Jews separated, and both rejected miscegenation. A similar argument, expressed more clumsily, led to the suspension of Ken Livingstone, a former London mayor, earlier this year.

It is notable that the Labour party accused Machover of anti-semitism on the grounds that his article was likely to “cause offence to Jewish people”. It begged the question: which Jewish people?

That issue had, in fact, become a battleground at the conference. Jewish Labour party activists had set up a new group, Jewish Voice for Labour, to act as a countervailing force against the traditional dominance of the JLM in influencing the party’s policies towards Israel and the Palestinians and against its accusations of anti-semitism by Corbyn supporters. Jewish Voice for Labour represents a broad range of Jews who have until now been marginalised in the Labour party, including trenchant critics of the occupation, anti-Zionists and supporters of BDS, the boycott movement. For the first time they have a collective voice within the party.

As Machover observed, pro-Israel groups are in trouble in Labour and elsewhere.

“They are losing credibility on the arena of what could be called international opinion, but – more importantly – they are losing the Jewish public outside Israel, especially those under 30. There is a clear generational shift in opinion. These people are becoming very critical of Israel and its colonisation project.”

Vague definitions

The letter from Labour head office also accused Machover of violating the definition of anti-semitism produced last year by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an inter-governmental body. The definition has been adopted by the Labour party, as well as the British government.

For some time, pro-Israel lobby groups in the UK and Europe have been trying to promote new, much vaguer definitions of anti-semitism that would cover strong criticism of Israel. The IHRA’s is the most significant and successful. Its working definition is: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.” (PDF)

As Stephen Sedley, a Jewish former British appeal court judge, has noted, this raises many problems. If anti-semitism is defined as a “perception”, who is qualified to do the perceiving? And if anti-semitism “may be expressed as hatred”, does that not also imply, more troublingly, that it “may not be” so expressed.

In fact, the examples of anti-semitism provided by the IHRA include several that are clearly designed to include criticism of Israel:

* Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

* Applying double standards by requiring of [the state of Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

* Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour.

Any discourse that takes as its premise that Israel is not a liberal democracy, but rather a Jewish state, as it declares itself to be, or that it practises apartheid, or that it should be subject to a boycott, appears to fall foul of this definition.

A dangerous trend

Under pressure from the JLM, the National Executive Committee, Labour’s ruling body, and last week’s conference accepted a compromise amendment to the membership rule book. An existing clause protecting freedom of thought and speech was dropped. From now on, members can be expelled if their behaviour “might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice”.

The JLM, however, had tried to foist on the party a more draconian definition: that an anti-semitic incident should be “defined as something where the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice”. Noticeably, the letter from Labour head office to Machover echoed this rejected definition. It objected to the use of “language that may be perceived as provocative, insensitive or offensive” (emphasis added).

As Labour activist Bob Pitt observed, in the letter to Machover party officials rode roughshod over the new rule.

“It is not enough for someone to perceive that an incident is antisemitic and be offended by it; it is necessary for the party to establish that the perception has a reasonable basis,” he wrote of the approved rule change.

Instead, officials were “apparently trying to introduce the JLM’s abandoned rule change through the back door. According to [the letter], Moshé has opened himself up to disciplinary action because he has written articles that are ‘perceived as provocative, insensitive or offensive’ by Zionists who don’t like to be reminded about embarrassing episodes from the history of Zionism.”

This process of redefining anti-semitism by the Labour party is not happening in a vacuum. Politicians and media pundits are starting to push the debate about anti-semitism in disturbing new directions more generally – and this process has accelerated since Corbyn became leader.

This dangerous trend was highlighted in a commentary last week in the midst of the conference. Jonathan Freedland, a senior columnist at the Guardian newspaper and the Jewish Chronicle, is highly influential among Britain’s liberal Zionist community. He is possibly the most prominent arbiter of “anti-semitism” on the British left.

He used his column to attack three well-known Labour figures closely identified with Corbyn who had each dismissed the “Labour’s anti-semitism plague” as mischief-making. Freedland accused former London mayor Ken Livingstone, award-winning film-maker Ken Loach, and trade union leader Len McCluskey of anti-semitism denial and leading Labour into a “dark place”.

In a circular proof of Labour’s anti-semitism crisis, Freedland cited calls from some Labour activists – in fact, a handful – to expel the JLM from the party. He avoided mentioning why: that the JLM had been caught redhanded conspiring against the party leader by the Al Jazeera investigation.

Freedland also noted that there were “Marxists” at the conference handing out leaflets – presumably a reference to Machover’s article – repeating Livingstone’s point about the documented negotiations between Zionists and Nazis in the early 1930s.

Orwellian ‘newspeak’

Freedland, a former winner of Britain’s Orwell Prize, then indulged in some trademark Orwellian “newspeak”. He argued that the three leading Labour lights, as non-Jews, were not in a position to assess whether there was an anti-semitism crisis in the party. Only Jews could make that call – and, he added, Labour’s Jews were adamant that the party had a big problem.

Here Freedland effectively backed the draconian and rejected definition of anti-semitism originally proposed by the JLM at the conference. According to both the JLM and Freedland, anti-semitism cannot be adduced through objective criteria, or by applying traditional definitions, such as hateful statements or actions against Jews because they are Jews.

Instead, Freedland and the JLM believe that anti-semitism can be defined far more broadly. It exists, they say, if it is perceived as such by its victims, even if no tangible evidence can be identified. It is like a mood sensed only by those – Jews – who are attuned to it through their firsthand experience of anti-semitism.

Witchfinder Freedland

Disturbing as this definition is, Freedland went further. He posited that Livingstone, Loach and McCluskey were arrogantly dismissing a Jewish consensus on the prevalence of anti-semitism in the party. But there was a deep flaw in his reasoning: the conference had just proved that this consensus did not, in fact, exist.

The non-Jewish trio were speaking not only about their own failure to identify examples of anti-semitism in the Labour movement. As prominent figures in the party, they were also giving voice to those Jewish members whose views had long been ignored because they did not accord with those of the party’s Israel lobby, the JLM.

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a leading member of Jewish Voice for Labour, made precisely this point:

“When McCluskey and Loach say they know Labour is not a hotbed of antisemitism, they speak with the authority of Jewish comrades who have said so repeatedly, and been ignored.”

Jewish Voice for Labour had been established to provide a counterweight to the JLM and give Jews critical of Israel a collective voice. Here was Freedland not only discounting their voice but failing to notice it even existed. Jews, Freedland implied, only counted when, like the JLM, they wrapped themselves in the Israeli flag.

But Freedland was still not satisfied. Like some Witchfinder General, he accused the trio not just of ignorance about the prevalence of anti-semitism in Labour, but of actually being anti-semitic themselves for claiming that the moral panic about anti-semitism had been manipulated for political ends. Freedland quoted as proof Loach’s comment: “It’s funny these stories [about anti-semitism] suddenly appeared when Jeremy Corbyn became leader, isn’t it?”

Anti-Jewish trope?

Freedland observed, again with a satisfyingly circular logic:

“For Len [McCluskey] and the Kens [Loach and Livingstone] and their allies, it’s all made up. Perhaps they don’t realise that that itself is a tired anti-Jewish trope: that Jews invent stories of suffering to drive a secret political agenda. Or, to put it more simply, that there is a Jewish conspiracy.”

But Livingstone, Loach and McCluskey never posited a Jewish conspiracy. That was a figment of Freedland’s feverish imagination. Unlike him, they fully recognised that a significant section of Jewish opinion in the Labour party felt exactly the same way they did about the misuse of unsubstantiated anti-semitism allegations to discredit Corbyn and deflect attention from his efforts to focus the party’s attention on Palestinian suffering.

What this trio and the Jewish Voice for Labour had argued instead was that a small, unrepresentative group inside Labour – a self-declared pressure group – was trying to advance the aims of the Israeli state. This was hardly a radical conclusion. After all, the JLM was doing exactly what it claims to be doing – promoting Israel’s interests – while additionally seeking to conflate those interests with the supposed interests of all Jews and the Labour party.

Like all lobbies, the Israel lobby plays the cards it has in its hand to win its case. But unlike other lobbies, the Israel lobby can silence critics with a powerful threat – of tarring them as anti-semites. Sadly, Freedland amply proved a very human truth: people who wield power, however limited, invariably end up using and abusing it to their own benefit.

Divisive identity politics

The new definition of anti-semitism that liberal Zionists, and the JLM, wish to foist on British political life is troubling indeed, and draws heavily on the most divisive kind of identity politics. It asserts that Israel and Zionism are at the core of modern Jewish identity. To criticise Israel is, therefore, to attack Jewish identity – to commit a hate crime. To be “offensive”.

If that sounds Orwellian in its implications, too bad. To dispute this claim is proof of anti-semitism too. Like the Medieval dunking of witches, you cannot win.

Here is Freedland, in another column, rationalising in more detail an idea taking ground in left politics in Britain and much of the west: that Jews should be left to decide what constitutes anti-semitism:

“On the left, black people are usually allowed to define what’s racism; women can define sexism; Muslims are trusted to define Islamophobia. But when Jews call out something as anti-semitic, leftist non-Jews feel curiously entitled to tell Jews they’re wrong, that they are exaggerating or lying or using it as a decoy tactic – and to then treat them to a long lecture on what anti-Jewish racism really is.

“The left would call it misogynist ‘mansplaining’ if a man talked that way to a woman. They’d be mortified if they were caught doing that to LGBT people or Muslims. But to Jews, they feel no such restraint.”

Unrepresentative lobbies

First, it needs pointing out that plenty of British Jews, including experts on the subject like Antony Lerman and Stephen Sedley, also take issue with the definition of anti-semitism employed by pro-Israel Jews, like Freedland and the JLM. They too believe it is being abused and manipulated for political ends.

These Jews have struggled to make their voices heard, not necessarily because they lack numbers but because they have not been organised in the way the Israel lobby is in much of Europe and the US. And in turn, that is largely because they lack the support, funding and organisational backing that comes from allying oneself to a powerful benefactor like the Israeli state. There is nothing unique about this. Lobbies revolve around powerful interests, as one can see spectacularly demonstrated in the United States, where unrepresentative gun, medical, financial and military lobbies dominate political life.

But in addition, the Israel lobby benefits from the oxygen of publicity offered by the state-corporate media in a way countervailing groups like Jewish Voice for Labour don’t. The corporate media failed to send a single journalist to cover the group’s establishment at the conference, despite the obvious newsworthiness of the event. And Freedland has continued to ignore the intervention by the Jewish Voice for Labour in the anti-semitism debate.

To understand this “oversight” requires a lengthy, separate analysis of the role of the western corporate media in supporting related corporate interests like the arms industry, and of the readiness of European political and media elites to submit to the so-called “Washington consensus” – whatever the US state decides are its core interests.

Once these issues are factored in, Freedland’s argument becomes entirely self-fulfilling. The definitions we hear from organised Jewish groups conflate anti-semitism with anti-Zionism precisely because they support Israel’s interests and those of its western patrons.

Victim becomes oppressor

But there is an even more profound flaw in Freedland’s thesis.

Black people, women and gays are groups whose views should be listened to sensitively and considered seriously by oppressor groups, precisely because the oppressor is still in a position to oppress. It is not that white people’s views of racism are worthless; it is that their position of privilege makes it extremely hard for them to consider fully what it is like to suffer a particular form of racism and discrimination, or what it means to be a victim.

But Freedland and the JLM’s views of anti-semitism do not fit neatly into this model of victim-oppressor. When the JLM ties its Jewish identity to Israel – a state that privileges one ethnic group, Jews, over native Palestinians; that was built on the dispersion and ethnic cleansing of that native people; and continues to oppress them through a brutal military occupation – it precisely subverts the notion of Jew as victim.

In fact, it can be argued that this is the very appeal of Israel to Zionist Jews like Freedland and the JLM. They enjoy at a distance the empowerment provided by Israel. This is the excitement, described at length by liberal Israeli professor Yaron Ezrahi in his book Rubber Bullets, of the Jew who is transformed by Israel into a warrior. It is the reason many Zionist Jews are publicly thrilled by the sight of Israeli soldiers, “his and her” weapons casually slung over their shoulders.

Implicated in oppression

But in the case of Jews living outside Israel, this self-image of power, the ability to inflict violence, is more complex. Israel offers Freedland and the JLM a strangely privileged status of oppressor by proxy: they demand a collective identification with a nuclear-armed, highly militarised state while still demanding the right to claim personal victimhood.

But Zionist Jews, those who identify their Jewishness with Israel, have compromised that right in relation to Israel. They cannot straightforwardly define themselves as victims precisely because they have chosen to implicate themselves in the oppression of Palestinians.

Palestinians have almost no visibility in western debates about victimhood. Even acknowledgment of Islamophobia covers only a few of the problems they face in the diaspora – of their possible denial of entry at airports, of the insults and discrimination they face as Arabs and Muslims in western societies. But it does not address their victimhood as Palestinians, their oppression at the hands of Israel, the complicity of powerful states in the west, and the decades of silence and inaction from liberal Zionists and organised Jewish groups like the JLM.

When real leftists, Jewish or not, speak in solidarity with Palestinians, and reject Jewish privilege in relation to Israel, it is not evidence of anti-semitism. It is part of their responsibility to lobby on behalf of a highly victimised group. A group that unlike blacks, women and gays has almost no formal status in western debates about oppression.

When the Palestinians gain even a little visibility, it is chiefly because of the actions of grassroots activists promoting initiatives like Israel Apartheid Week and the BDS movement. When Freedland and the JLM reject these initiatives as evidence of anti-semitism, they choose to speak in the loud voice of Jewish privilege, not the quieter voice of Jewish victimhood.

The real racism problem

The real racism problem in the Labour party, and more generally in western societies, is not currently anti-semitism. It is a profound racism against Arabs and Muslims generally and against Palestinians in particular – a legacy of recent western colonialism, and of anti-semitism in a much broader sense that refers to all semitic peoples, not just Jews.

It is a racism that defers indefinitely a remedy for the Palestinians whose land was stolen from them by British colonialists who had no right to transfer it to someone else. It is a racism that confers legitimacy on a Jewish state, even as it boasts of its tribalism in marginalising a fifth of its own citizens because they are non-Jews. It is a racism that claims to champion a two-state solution while preferring not to lift a finger to realise it. Further, it is a racism that smears as anti-semites those whose consciences drive them to fight for Palestinian rights.

What is changing in the British Labour party is a growing acknowledgment of this among ordinary members, including an ever larger number of Jewish party activists. The consensus that the JLM and Jonathan Freedland helped to manufacture among left and liberal British Jews is slowly evaporating. Social media – and the instant window it provides on the brutality of life under Israeli occupation – is exposing these purveyors of misinformation for what they are, even as they howl “fake news”. Their time is going, and won’t likely return.

Nonetheless, these enforcers of liberal Zionist orthodoxy are not going down without a fight. And in the process they will doubtless wreak much damage on the Labour party – and further hollow out what was once the grave charge of anti-semitism. It is strategy of folly by those who may one day need the protection of both as the real anti-semites try to blaze a trail back to power.

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 new website is jonathan-cook.net.

Featured image is from the author.

Media platforms either directly funded by the United States government or by their political proxies in Thailand, including US-funded Prachatai and Khao Sod English, have begun investing increasing amounts of energy into fueling a currently non-existent sectarian divide in Thai society.

They are concentrating their efforts in promoting the activities of a small anti-Muslim movement in Thailand’s northeast region often referred to as Issan. Issan – it is no coincidence – is also the epicenter of previous US efforts to divide and overthrow the political order of Thailand via their proxy Thaksin Shinawatra, his Pheu Thai Party, and his ultra-violent street front, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD or “red shirts”). Shinawatra and his political proxies were ousted from power in 2014 by a swift and peaceful military coup.

Today, temples affiliated with Shinawatra’s political network are turning from a tried and tired, primarily class-based narrative, to one targeting Thailand’s second largest religion – Islam, in hopes of dividing and destroying Thai society along sectarian lines.

From northern cities like Chiang Mai to the northeast in provinces like Khon Kaen, suspiciously identical movements, with identical tactics, organized across social media platforms like Facebook are protesting Mosques, calling for specific acts of violence against Muslims, and using the same sort of factual and intellectually dishonest rhetoric peddled by veteran Western Islamophobes used to fuel the West’s global campaign of divide, destroy, and conquer everywhere from the US and Europe itself, to Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and more recently, Myanmar and the Philippines in Southeast Asia.

Tools of Empire: Divide and Conquer 

Myanmar, which borders Thailand, currently finds itself at the apex of nationalist and racist-driven violence targeting its primarily Muslim Rohingya ethnic minority. Groups of supposed “Buddhists” who form a more deeply rooted version of what the US and its proxies are trying to create in Thailand, were used to both create a deep sectarian divide where once there was coexistence, and to help put the US and European-funded political network of Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party into power.

Aung San Suu Kyi, sectarian extremists posing as “Buddhist monks,” and the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) together in Washington D.C. 

The humanitarian crisis created in Myanmar serves several functions for the US and its European partners who have meticulously cultivated it over the course of several decades.

First, it allows the West to continuously hold significant leverage over the current government – one who at any moment may be tempted to break away from its decades-long Western sponsors and collaborate with a more local, sustainable, and constructive partner like China.

Second, because the Rohingya crisis is highly localized to Myanmar’s western state of Rakhine, it also presents a highly controlled conflict the US can use to introduce foreign-funded terrorism, and in turn, create a pretext for Western “counter-terrorism” assistance in the form of US and European troops, military assets, and even bases on the ground.

A small contingent of Saudi-funded and directed militants has already been introduced into Myanmar’s ongoing crisis and will likely be expanded until US military “assistance” and thus the first stage in establishing a permanent military presence in Myanmar can be justified.

This would fulfill a long-term goal the United States has sought to achieve in Southeast Asia – the permanent positioning of US military assets in a nation directly bordering China.

A similar scenario is unfolding in the Philippines – a nation that was decisively shifting away from Washington – a one time colonial power over the Philippines – in favor of closer and more constructive ties with Beijing. The nation is now faced with a sudden surge in foreign-funded terrorists – a surge so significant, militants managed to take over the southern city of Marawi resulting in full-scale military operations including airstrikes in order to retake it.

Amid the manufactured crisis featuring terrorists sponsored by the United States’ closest Persian Gulf allies – specifically Saudi Arabia – the US found itself with the perfect pretext to reassert itself militarily and geopolitically over an increasingly independent Philippines.

The Daily Beast in its article, “The Philippines Is Destroying the City of Marawi to Save It From ISIS,” would attempt to portray the US-Saudi engineered crisis and subsequent pretext for the US military’s expanded role in the Philippines as more ironic and coincidental than part of a cynical plan, claiming:

The Mautes have pledged allegiance to the so-called Islamic State, and use many of the tactics that the terror group honed in years of conflict in Iraq and Syria. 

Despite vehement antagonism toward the U.S. and its military expressed by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte back in December, after the Mautes moved on Marawi in May, The New York Times reported U.S. Special Operations Forces were here as advisers supporting Philippine operations in June.

The Philippines represents the future of Myanmar once the crisis there reaches critical mass. For Thailand, the downward spiral of both the Philippines and Myanmar represents its own future should it allow the sociopolitical rot of sectarian divide take root at home.

For the US – it has sought for decades to encircle and contain China along multiple fronts. This includes across Southeast Asia where US policymakers envision a united front composed of US-backed client states used to box China in – or a series of failed and dysfunctional states that prevent China from developing any beneficial ties with its neighbors to the south.

Considering the success the US is having in the Philippines and Myanmar regarding its use of terrorism and reactionary sectarian division, it is logical that signs of US efforts in Thailand to do likewise are now appearing.

How the US and its Proxies Seek a Sectarian Divide in Thailand  

Muslims and Buddhists have coexisted in Thailand for centuries, with Thai Muslims an integral component of Thailand’s history and cultural fabric. Halal restaurants stand side-by-side Thai and Thai-Chinese cuisine, including those serving pork, in markets across the country. Mosques stand side-by-side with Buddhist temples. Buddhists and Muslims work side-by-side in businesses big and small nationwide.

While Thailand has a violent insurgency raging in its southernmost Muslim-majority provinces, of Thailand’s 7.5 million Muslims, only 1.4 reside in the deep south. The conflict is also seen as being primarily political, with militants targeting both Buddhists and Muslims in pursuit of their separatist goals. The rest live scattered across the country, and with significant communities coexisting in the capital of Bangkok itself.

For most Thais, the notion of Islamophobia is another facet of intolerance associated with a corrosive and declining Western culture – not Thai. Yet there are still fertile grounds of profound ignorance, gullibility, poor education and lacking economic prospects that make a fraction of the population still vulnerable to otherwise childish, crass propaganda seeking to divide and destroy Thai tolerance, unity, and culture – primarily among the dwindling support base of US proxy Thaksin Shinawatra.

Khao Sod – an unabashedly pro-US, pro-Shinawatra newspaper – recently published an article titled, “Rising Islamophobia in Thailand Irrational and Dangerous Scholars,” written by veteran pro-West commentator Pravit Rojanaphruk, which would claim:

After Muslims in Khon Kaen registered a converted home as their place of worship – the northeast province’s seventh such venue – a local Buddhist group cited terrorism in its petition asking the governor to deny it.

The article continues by stating:

Last week, a Thai monk who has called for mosques to be destroyed in revenge for Buddhist deaths in the Deep South was seized by the military and flown to Bangkok to be forcibly expelled from the order. 

Pages such as No Mosques in Bueng Kan mix stories of violence in the Deep South with anodyne news stories involving Thai Muslims and toxic internet conspiracy theories about Muslims plotting to displace non-Muslim populations worldwide. The comments are filled with Muslim-bashing messages in Thai.

And while the article appears at first to be laying the ground work to unequivocally condemn calls for specific acts of violence, bigotry, and hate speech, it adds an essential caveat – one used by the United States and its front of faux-rights advocates worldwide to shield both terrorists it sponsors, and reactionary fronts it encourages to divide and destroy nations.

The article states – in regards to the “monk” who called for the destruction of mosques, who was detained and defrocked by the current Thai government – that:

Ekkarin said the junta’s detention and defrocking of radical anti-Islam monk Apichat Punnajanatho last week was wrong despite the hate preached by the monk because it resorted to using special power of the junta by detaining the monk at military camps first instead of going through the proper channel of having the Sangha Order investigates the matter. This, Ekkarin added, could lead to resentment by some Buddhists, particularly his supporters, and backfire.

The article, along with US-funded media front, Prachatai, appear to condemn the Thai government for its zero-tolerance stance on terrorsitic speech, bigotry, and hate.

As the US and its network of media fronts around the world have done elsewhere, it is expected that attempts by the Thai government to stifle manufactured sectarian division will be systematically condemned by Western-funded fronts as violations of “human rights” and in particular, violations of “free speech.”

Prachatai – a supposed “independent media platform” entirely funded by the US government – published its own article regarding Punnajanatho and his calls to burn down mosques titled, “Buddhist authorities to defrock monks with ‘inappropriate’ online behaviour.”

In it, systematic complaints about the Thai government’s interference with Buddhism are made, in an apparent attempt to call government intervention inappropriate and unwarranted. For the US-funded scribes at Prachatai, Thailand’s best course of action appears to be to let the rot of sectarian division spread under the auspices of Western-style “free speech,” just as it has in neighboring Myanmar.

Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater is not Free Speech  

In even the most liberal nations on Earth, threats of specific harm against others or their property is considered a crime. Threats of death can be punished under US law with up to 20 years or more in prison. Likewise, deceiving people – particularly in a manner that causes physical harm – is also illegal and not protected under free speech. The classic “yelling fire in a crowded theater” example illustrates the very real harm intentionally deceitful words have and why it is not protected by free speech.

Similarly, networks suspiciously overlaying US-proxy Thaksin Shinawatra’s political networks, buried deep within his former political strongholds making specific threats of violence toward Thailand’s Muslim communities is not “free speech.” It is a crime and it must be punished swiftly and severely.

Likewise, these networks propagating elementary lies about Islam in general, and about Thai Muslims more specifically, are designed to create social division and discord that will inevitably and intentionally lead to violence – as similar lies have done everywhere from across the West itself to neighboring Myanmar. It is the equivalent of “yelling fire in a crowded theater” with the specific goal of provoking dangerous and unwarranted hysteria, chaos, division, and bodily harm to those subjected to these lies.

US-funded media fronts attempting to frame this reality in any other way – particularly in a manner meant to hinder the government from addressing it before it spirals out of control – is merely another example of how the US and its proxies hide their self-serving political agendas behind the principles of human rights advocacy rather than genuinely upholding them. They position themselves as accessories to criminals using threats and lies to divide and destroy peace and stability in Thailand, and should likewise be held accountable.

The Other Side of the Divide  

While US-funded organizations and political networks run by their proxies in Thailand attempt to work one side of this engineered sectarian divide, the Thai government must be quick to spot and address US-Saudi attempts to spur similar lies, deceptions, and provocations from the other side – among Muslim groups or those posing as Muslims provided with foreign cash and directives to help fulfill the lies being used to divide Thai society.

Just as is done in the US and Europe – where Western governments fund and perpetuate both terrorists and anti-Islam movements to create a sustainable strategy of tension between both, they seek to likewise create a self-feeding crisis in Thailand where eventually staged provocations on both sides transform into real violence fueled by reprisals and growing distrust among previously coexisting communities.

Thailand and other nations facing foreign-funded attempts to divide their society must take a proactive stance on exposing these efforts through intelligence operations and national media that serve national interests, fostering national unity, and creating clear and effective laws to unambiguously define and punish threats and hate speech – especially speech specifically designed to divide society and create violence.

Failing to stop this sectarian divide from swallowing Southeast Asia may make the difference between a prosperous and peaceful future for the region, or perpetual violence and division as the West has successfully maintained in the Middle East since the end of World War 1.

Tony Cartalucci is Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

This article was originally published by New Eastern Outlook.

All images in this article are from the author.

Featured image: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi & Ashin Wirathu (Source: Voltairenet.org)

Over the last 16 years, numerous debates have troubled the experts in international politics in their attempts to define the objectives of US strategy. It is obviously much easier to answer the question now rather than at the beginning. And yet very few have tried, and many persist in expounding theories which have been belied by the facts. Basing his analysis on the conclusions of this debate, Thierry Meyssan reminds us of the next stage which was planned for the US armies by their theorists of that time – a stage which may soon be put into practice.

The forces who imagined and planned the annihilation of the “Greater Middle East” considered this region as a laboratory in which they would test their new strategy. While in 2001 they were comprised of the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and Israël, they have since lost political power in Washington, and pursue their economic-military project by using private multinational companies.

On one hand, they conceived their strategy around the work of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski and his assistant Thomas Barnett at the Pentagon, and on the other, that of Bernard Lewis and his assistant Samuel Huntington at the National Security Council [1].

Their objective is to update their domination with contemporary technical and economic evolutions and extend them to the countries which were once members of the Soviet bloc. In the past, Washington controlled the world economy via the world energy market. To maintain that position, it imposed the dollar as the default currency for any oil contract, and threatened any recalcitrants with war. However, this system could not be maintained once gas from Russia, Iran, Qatar – and soon Syria – partially replaced oil.

Reconnecting with the criminal origin of a large percentage of US colonists, these forces imagined they could dominate the rich countries by extortion. In order to gain access to the sources of fossil energy, but also prime materials in general, the stable States (including the ex-Soviet States) would be obliged to solicit the “protection” of the US army and also that of the United Kingdom and Israël.

All that was necessary was to split the world into two parts, to globalise the solvent economies and destroy any capacity for resistance in the rest of the world.

This vision of the world is radically different from the prevalent vision of the British Empire and Zionism. This change of paradigm could only be implemented by a massive mobilisation consecutive to a psychological shock – a “new Pearl Harbor”. That was 9/11. Although this project seemed insane and cruel, we can observe today, 16 years later, that it is effectively under way, and also that it has met with some unexpected obstacles.

The economic globalisation of the solvent countries was almost total when one of these countries, namely Russia, offered military opposition to the destruction of the Syrian capacity for resistance, and then the forced integration of Ukraine into the global economy. Washington and London therefore ordered their allies to impose economic sanctions against Moscow. By doing so, they interrupted the process of globalisation of the solvent countries.

By launching its “Silk Roads” project, China has invested considerably in the countries which were slated for destruction. The forces which promote the “new map of the world” reacted by creating a terrorist State which cut the ancient Silk Road in Iraq and in Syria, and by transforming the Ukrainian conflict into a war, effectively cutting the original traces of the second Silk Road.

These forces are currently working to spread chaos to a second region, South-East Asia. At least, it is to that area that the jihadists seem to be migrating, according to the United Nations Anti-Terrorist Committee. By doing so, these forces are closing down the 2012-2016 episode in the Middle East – apart from the possibility of a war around the Kurds – and are preparing the devastation of South-East Asia. This would be the second stage of the “clash of civilisations”.

After the Muslims against the “Judeo-Christians” (sic) [2], we now have the Muslims against the Buddhists.

Translated by Pete Kimberley

Thierry Meyssan is a political consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire (Voltaire Network). Latest work in French – Sous nos Yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump(Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump).

Source

Al-Watan (Syria)

Notes

[1] Network Centric Warfare : Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority, David S. Alberts, John J. Garstka & Frederick P. Stein, CCRP, 1999. The Pentagon’s New Map, Thomas P. M. Barnett, Putnam Publishing Group, 2004. « The Roots of Muslim Rage », Bernard Lewis, Atlantic Monthly, septembre1990. « The Clash of Civilizations ? » & « The West Unique, Not Universal », Samuel Huntington, Foreign Affairs, 1993 & 1996 ; The Soldier and the State & The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington, Harvard 1957 & Simon and Schulster 1996.

[2] Until the 1990’s, the expression ‘Judeo-Christians’ defined exclusively the community of Jews converted to Christianity around St. James – a community which was dissolved after the rape of Jerusalem by the Romans. However, Western Christians continued to allow a large place in their practices to the Old Testament, which they defend, without realising that Jewish points of view often replaced Christian points of view. On the contrary, Eastern Christians, faithful to the tradition of their predecessors, only rarely make reference to the Jewish writings, and refuse to read them during the Eucharist.

A decade on from the 2007-08 global financial crisis, the majority of private banks have changed very little. Most remain solely concerned with maximizing their returns, while sustainable or social goals remain subservient to this. For conventional economists, anything else remains an impossible or distant dream.

But there is hope for a different kind of bank – one that is run democratically and with sustainable principles at its core. Costa Rica’s cooperative Banco Popular and of Communal Development (or BPDC) illustrates a viable and desirable alternative to the average private bank. While not without its own challenges, it offers a number of lessons for the rest of the world.

Banco Popular was established in 1969 by the Costa Rican government to promote economic development. The bank emerged from a tradition of solidarity, and continues to reflect that today. Its mission is to serve the social and sustainable welfare of Costa Ricans.

BPDC is a distinctive, public-like cooperative bank that is worker-owned and controlled. Any worker holding a savings account for over a year has the right to share ownership in it. It combines commercial and developmental functions with clients that include workers, peasants, micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as communal, cooperative, and municipal development associations.

Since 2000, the bank has grown into a large financial conglomerate (Costa Rica’s third largest bank), offering the gamut of banking, pension, stock market, investment and insurance services. It has 103 branches nationwide and employs 4,300 people. Assets exceeded $5.4-billion (U.S.) in 2016 with a net income of $68-million. Its return on assets averages around 1.5 per cent, showing high returns for a retail bank.

The bank benefits from a unique form of permanent capitalization: employers contribute 0.5 per cent and workers 1 per cent of their monthly wages to it. After a year, 1.25% of these “obligatory savings” are transferred to each worker’s individual pension fund. The BPDC keeps the remaining 0.25% as a capital contribution.

The BPDC qualitatively differs from typical private banks. Its current mandate incorporates a triple bottom line: the economic; the environmental; and the social. Earning financial returns is placed on a par with serving the environmental and social good.

Democratic Decision-Making

The BPDC is perhaps the most democratic bank in the world. It has a workers’ assembly as its highest governing body which represents the 1.2m workers-cum-savers serviced by the bank (20% of the population). The assembly is made up of 290 representatives selected from a wide range of social and economic sectors. It gives strategic direction to the bank’s board of directors, which is composed of four members from the assembly and three from the government.

Popular consultation is a crucial part of the bank’s decision-making process. Its 2017-2020 strategic plan was informed by a three-year nationwide consultation, which reached nearly 1,500 participants across 11 regions.

The bank also puts a strong emphasis on gender equity. So at least 50% of the bank’s board must be women, earning the bank the distinction of being the first public organization in Central America to establish at least 50% women in its decision-making bodies. The bank also has a Permanent Women’s Commission that makes gender equality a priority across the conglomerate.

What the BPDC is has much to do with its makeup.

Acting Sustainability

The Banco Popular did not start out very green. But it has become a defining characteristic since 2014 when the left-leaning Citizens’ Action Party came to power and focused on making the economy promote social and environmental good, as opposed to pure profit.

The bank has since developed speciality lending products, like eco-savings and eco-credits to help businesses fund more environmentally friendly projects. For example, earlier this year the bank helped finance the purchase and installation of residential solar energy panels.

On the developmental side, the BPDC supports local communal associations to provide sustainable water supply systems. It also works with regional energy cooperatives to finance everything from hydroelectric energy generation and energy-efficiency retrofitting, to conservation projects involving vulnerable nature areas.

The bank has also started to green itself. It tracks its own consumption of energy, strategises how to reduce its carbon impact, and reports this annually following the international, independent Global Reporting Initiative. The bank’s pensions division has been certified as “carbon neutral” for four years running.

Room for Improvement

Clearly, there is much to commend the Banco Popular as a model of alternative banking. But it is not perfect. Since its inception nearly 50 years ago, the bank has been the object of intense political power struggles and it came close to near collapse during the 1980s. Calls to privatize it are ever-present.

The struggle over effective control rages. Should the BPDC move toward complete worker control of its board or maintain continued government oversight, but with greater popular representation? The problem goes to the heart of how the public interest can and should be democratically represented in the bank.

Operationally, the Bank’s green portfolio needs expanding to be more sustainable. This will demand innovative thinking around green projects that have some kind of financial return. But how its green impact is practically measured has yet to be resolved.

Finally, there are burning strategic questions. The BPDC is relatively profitable. From a solidarity perspective, is this socially justifiable? Still, earning good returns enables the bank to fund more social projects through its subsidiary Social Bank. Some might argue that the whole of the bank’s operations be geared toward this.

These hitches of governance, greenness and socialness are important, but the beauty of the BPDC is that they are resolvable within the democratic processes of the bank and Costa Rican society. For those banking on alternatives to the private profit-maximizing dogma of most banks, the Banco Popular offers hope and direction.

Thomas Marois is Senior Lecturer in Development Studies, SOAS, University of London. Thomas Marois received funding in part from Transnational Institute, Amsterdam to undertake this research. This article first published by theconversation.com website.

Featured image is from the author.

In a menacing speech to the Spanish Congress on Wednesday, Popular Party (PP) Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy stated that, in response to Catalan regional Premier Carles Puigdemont’s speech affirming the October 1 independence referendum, he was preparing to invoke Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution. This provision allows Madrid to suspend the authority of the Catalan regional government and seize control of the region’s finances and administration.

With the Spanish media discussing the invocation of Article 116 to impose a state of emergency or state of siege, it is clear that Rajoy is moving rapidly to establish military rule not only in Catalonia, but across all of Spain.

Army sources told El País Wednesday morning that they are preparing to move into Catalonia and crush any opposition from sections of the 17,000-strong Catalan regional police, the Mossos d’Esquadra, or civilians loyal to the Catalan nationalist parties. Under the attack plan, code-named Cota de Malla(Chain Mail), the army will back police and Guardia Civil operations in Catalonia. It will march significant forces into the region to support two units already there—a motorized infantry battalion in Barcelona and an armored battalion in Sant Climent Sescebes.

This plan has been in preparation for a considerable period of time, according to El País. It was nearly invoked by Rajoy after the August 17 terror attack in Barcelona.

Rajoy is acting with the full support of the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) and on the basis of clear signals from the Podemos party that it will not oppose moves towards military dictatorship.

In his own speech on Tuesday, Puigdemont suspended his declaration of independence in a desperate bid to open talks with Rajoy. But the Madrid political establishment is rapidly falling in line behind the government’s hard-line rejection of talks and plans for mass repression.

Earlier on Wednesday, Rajoy made a brief public statement demanding that Puigdemont clarify whether Catalan independence had in fact been declared. In a letter to Barcelona, Rajoy said he was requesting clarification in order to prepare the invocation of Article 155. He gave Puigdemont until October 19 to reply.

PSOE General Secretary Pedro Sánchez, a self-styled “left” within the party, hailed Rajoy’s initial statement.

“We agree with the premier’s request for clarification, to clear up the swamp in which Premier Puigdemont has placed Catalan politics,” Sánchez said.

Asked whether this meant that Madrid was activating Article 155, he replied:

“Of course, it is obvious that we are activating it.”

Amid rumors of plans for a PP-PSOE government of national unity, Sánchez indicated that the PSOE would work with the PP on plans to rewrite the Spanish Constitution.

Speaking to the Congress at 4 pm on Wednesday, Rajoy launched a violent denunciation of Puigdemont and a full-throated defense of the Spanish police’s brutal crackdown on Catalans peacefully seeking to cast votes in the October 1 referendum. Stating that Puigdemont’s reply on October 19 would determine future events, Rajoy made clear that he would accept nothing less than total surrender from Puigdemont as the basis for opening talks.

“No result of this illegal and fraudulent [October 1] referendum can be taken as grounds for justifying any action, much less the independence of Catalonia,” Rajoy said.

Rajoy felt compelled to refute accusations that he was refusing dialogue, insisting that since conflicts emerged in 2012 over European Union (EU) bank bailouts and austerity, he had negotiated continuously with Barcelona. He blamed the failure to reach a deal on the fact that the Catalan government “decided to throw themselves into the arms of the most anti-system and far-left party,” by which he meant the petty-bourgeois nationalist Candidatures of Popular Unity (CUP).

Denouncing the October 1 referendum as a “coup against our model of conviviality,” he insisted that the PP response—a bloody police assault on polling places and thousands of voters across Catalonia that horrified people around the world—was “proportional.” In a moment that captured the class content of the entire session of Congress, Rajoy’s praise of the Guardia Civil crackdown evoked sustained and thunderous applause from the deputies.

Calling Puigdemont’s position a “disloyal way of trying to declare independence,” Rajoy indicated that if mediation began, it would be directed to his efforts to rewrite the Constitution. Citing the need for social peace, diversity and Catalan sentiment as a “mestizo” identity, Rajoy brought his address to a close by hailing nationalist protests for Spanish unity that have been held in a number of Spanish cities. In several of these protests, fascist organizations, including the Falange of the late fascist dictator Francisco Franco, were active.

Rajoy also enjoys the full support of the major EU powers. After statements earlier this week by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in support of Rajoy, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel again backed Rajoy yesterday. Calling Puigdemont’s independence declaration “irresponsible,” he said, “A solution can be found only on the basis of the rule of law and in the context of the Spanish Constitution.”

The statements of the Spanish army, Rajoy, the PSOE and the EU must be taken by the working class as an urgent warning. Plans for a return to authoritarian rule are well advanced, not only in Spain, but across Europe, where politicians support Rajoy because they are preparing similar measures in their own countries.

Workers must oppose plans for military rule and demand the withdrawal of troops and police from Catalonia, but this can be done only in revolutionary opposition to the entire ruling establishment, including its nominally “left” components.

While the immediate target of Rajoy’s crackdown is Catalonia, the broader target is the working class of Spain and Europe. After a quarter century of escalating austerity and imperialist war since the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, European capitalism is in an advanced state of collapse. A decade of deep austerity since the 2008 Wall Street crash has left large swathes of the continent’s economy in tatters, tens of millions of workers unemployed, and social inequality at explosive and unsustainable levels.

Class tensions are reaching extreme levels incompatible with democratic forms of rule. France is under a two-year state of emergency while Germany has recently seen the election of its first fascistic parliamentarians since the end of the Nazi regime. Now the Madrid establishment is rapidly and violently swinging behind Rajoy’s weak minority government, confirming that while Franco is dead, the class forces that underlay his regime survived Spain’s 1978 Transition to parliamentary democracy. They are again pressing for authoritarian rule.

The critical task is the political unification and mobilization of the Spanish and European working class in struggle against the rehabilitation of fascism and military dictatorship, and for socialism. This underscores the bankruptcy of the Catalan nationalist parties. They support the EU, have long overseen pro-austerity governments in Barcelona, and advance a pro-capitalist program of national separation that divides the working class.

Puigdemont’s Democratic European Party of Catalonia (PdeCat) responded yesterday evening by dismissing Rajoy’s remarks and repeating that Catalonia had won the right to declare independence. Calling Madrid’s invocation of Article 155 a “major error,” PdeCat spokesman Carles Campuzano asked Rajoy to accept Puigdemont’s offer of talks.

“Take this opportunity,” he said, “it may be the last chance we all have to reach a solution that is good for everyone.”

The response of the PSOE and Podemos parliamentary group leaders to Rajoy’s speech shows that his crackdown faces no opposition in the political establishment. Their comments, amid a looming danger of military crackdown and a state of siege in Spain, constitute a historic marker of the bankruptcy of what for decades has passed for the Spanish “left.”

PSOE fraction leader Margarita Robles began by declaring herself in full agreement with Rajoy’s speech and hailing the 1978 Constitution Rajoy is now using to tip Spain towards military rule.

“We have always been a state party, a party of government, a party that fought for modernity for this country,” she said, adding, “We will continue our role as a state party defending the constitution.”

Podemos General Secretary Pablo Iglesias showed that while Podemos may have received 5 million votes in the last election, it is incapable of mobilizing any opposition to the bourgeoisie and its dictatorial agenda. In a repugnant display of cowardice and cynicism, Iglesias engaged in a friendly chat with Rajoy. Even as the right-wing premier was preparing to send in the army to carry out a bloody crackdown in Catalonia, Iglesias treated him as a democrat, appealing to him to respect Spain’s linguistic diversity.

Addressing Rajoy directly in the Congress, Iglesias said,

“Today is not a day for polemics. I want to reflect with you. Your group represents 7.9 million Spaniards… You have received PSOE, Ciudadanos support and I congratulate you.”

While he criticized Rajoy for using the Catalan crisis “to defend your party banner,” Iglesias added,

“You know you have to live with the pluri-nationality of the state.”

Ten years ago, the historic October 4, 2007 agreement, signed between the ROK and the DPRK set the basis for establishing peace on the Korean peninsula.

The October 4 agreement was entitled Declaration for Advancing Inter-Korean Relations and Peace and Prosperity (The complete text of the agreement is included below).

This historic agreement was subsequently scrapped by the “pro-US” ROK governments of Lee Myung-bak and (2008–2013) and Park Geun-hye (impeached in 2017). (Park Geun-hye is the daughter of military dictator president Park Chung-hee). 

The Pentagon was pulling the strings. President Lee travelled to Washington for consultations with president George W. Bush and subsequently with Obama. A more “aggressive” ROK policy largely imposed by Washington was adopted against the DPRK at the very outset of president Lee Myung-bak’s mandate.

It was hoped that President Moon Jae-in (elected in 2017 following president Park’s impeachment) who had worked closely with president Roh Moo-hyun would reinitiate the October 4 2007 process of North South Relations.

Washington has systematically worked against North-South Peace Relations. The October 4 agreement as well as the broader Sunshine Policy between the two Koreas was boycotted by the US in favor of continued militarization.

The endgame is Trump’s “fire and fury” which could lead the world into a nuclear war.

What is the choice?

The implementation of the October 4, 2007 North South Agreement or

Trump’s preparations to wage nuclear war against North Korea?

According to the Korean Committee for Solidarity with the World People,

“The October 4 Declaration is the practical thesis which expounds the goals and tasks … to further develop the inter-Korean relations at higher stages and achieve the peace and common national prosperity. Its adoption opened the broad road for the Korean nation to the vitalization of their struggle to achieve the peace and reunification on the Korean peninsula.”

The reinstatement of the October 4, 2007 agreement is the avenue to preventing nuclear war

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 12, 2017

---

The following is the full text of the eight-point agreement signed on October 4, 2007 by the leaders of the two Koreas at the end of their summit.

(Unofficial Translation) Declaration for Advancing Inter-Korean Relations and Peace and Prosperity President Roh Moo-hyun of the Republic of Korea visited Pyongyang during October 2-4, 2007, in accordance with the agreement between President Roh Moo-hyun and Chairman Kim Jong-il of the National Defense Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Historic summit meetings and several talks were held during the visit.

During the summit meetings and talks, the two leaders reaffirmed the spirit of the June 15 Joint Declaration and candidly discussed agenda concerning advancement of inter-Korean relations, the realization of peace and common prosperity, and the unification of the Korean peninsula.

While expressing the belief that Koreans, when their will and strength are combined, can open a new era of national prosperity and unification, both parties declared the following on the basis of the June 15 Joint Declaration: 1. The South and the North adhere to and implement the June 15 Joint Declaration.

The South and the North will resolve the problem of unification through “the spirit of our own initiative”, and through the primacy of Korean people’s dignity and interests.

The South and the North explore measures to commemorate the day of June 15 as a commitment to the June 15th Joint Declaration.

2. The South and the North will transcend differences in ideology and institutions, thereby transforming inter-Korean relations into one of mutual respect and trust. The South and the North do not interfere in the internal affairs and resolve issues of inter-Korean relations on the principles of reconciliation, cooperation, and unification.

The South and the North will develop inter-Korean relations toward the direction of unification and adjust necessary legal institutional apparatus respectively.

The South and the North will actively seek dialogue and contacts in all fields including in the parliament, in order to address issues relating to the expansion and development of inter-Korean relations according to the wishes of the Korean people.

3. The South and the North will closely cooperate in order to terminate military hostilities, ease tension and ensure peace on the Korean peninsula.

The South and the North will not take a hostile stance towards each other, and will reduce military tension, and resolve issues of conflict through dialogue and negotiation.

The South and the North oppose any form of war on the Korean peninsula and firmly comply with the obligations of non-aggression.

The South and the North designate the common fishery zone in order to prevent accidental clashes in the West Sea. Both sides will hold Defense Ministers’ talks in Pyongyang November this year in order to discuss military confidence-building measures, including methods to foster the aforementioned zone into a zone of peace, as well as military assurance measures for various cooperative projects.

4. The South and the North share the wish to terminate the existing armistice regime and to build a permanent peace regime, and cooperate to pursue issues related to declaring the end of the Korean War by holding on the Korean Peninsula, a Three or Four party summit of directly-related sides.

The South and the North will jointly endeavor to smoothly implement the June 19 Joint Declaration and February 13 Agreement of the Six party talks in order to resolve the nuclear problem on the Korean peninsula.

5. The South and the North will actively promote, expand and develop economic cooperation projects for balanced development of national economy and common prosperity on the principles of common interest and prosperity.

The South and the North will encourage investment for economic cooperation, bolster infrastructure and develop natural resources, and provide preferential treatment and privileges concurrent with the special nature of intra-national cooperative projects.

The South and the North will establish “The West Sea Special Zone for Peace and Cooperation” encompassing Haeju area and its adjoining waters, and actively seek the designation of a common fishery zone and peace zone, construction of special economic zone, and utilization of the Haeju port, direct passage of civilian vessels to Haeju, and joint utilization of the Han River estuary.

The South and the North will complete the first phase construction of the Kaesong Industrial Complex as early as possible, and launch the second phase development, and begin railway cargo transportation linking Moonsan and Bongdong, and promptly undertake institutional measures to resolve problems including passage of people, communications and customs clearance.

The South and the North will discuss and undertake improvement of Kaesong-Shineuiju railway and Kaesong-Pyongyang highway for joint use.

The South and the North will construct ship-building cooperative complexes in Anbyun and Nampo, and promote cooperative projects in various areas, including agriculture, health, medicine and environmental protection.

The South and the North upgrade the existing “South-North Committee for Promotion of Economic Cooperation” to “South-North Joint Commission for Economic Cooperation” at the Deputy Prime Minister level in order to facilitate inter-Korean economic cooperation projects.

6. The South and the North will develop exchanges and cooperation in the fields of history, linguistics, education, science and technology, culture and arts, and sports in order to cherish the long history and proud culture of the Korean people.

The South and the North will implement the Paektu Mountain tour and establish a direct Paektu Mountain-Seoul air route.

The South and the North will send inter-Korea cheer teams to 2008 Beijing International Olympics via the Seoul-Shineuiju railway for the first time.

7. The South and the North will actively promote humanitarian cooperative projects.

The South and the North expand the reunion of separated families and relatives and promote exchange of visual materials.

To this end, both parties will have resident representatives upon the completion of Mount Keumgang Meeting Post and routinely implement the reunion of separated families and relatives.

The South and the North will actively cooperate under the principle of brotherhood, humanitarianism and mutual assistance in contingencies, including natural disasters.

8. The South and the North will strengthen cooperation for the interest of the Korean nation, and the rights and interests of overseas Korean nationals in the international arena.

The South and the North will hold the inter-Korean Prime Ministers’ Meeting in order to implement this declaration and convene its first meeting in Seoul November this year.

The South and the North will discuss issues of concern for Inter-Korean development through frequent holding of the inter-Korean summit.

SEOUL, Oct. 4 (Yonhap)

 

Featured image: Elon Musk (Source: @elonmusk / Twitter)

At the end of last month, Tesla boss Elon Musk held a party in South Australia’s mid-north. It seemed premature, but Musk was typically confident. Construction on what will be the world’s most powerful lithium ion battery was going well.

It had to. Musk has made a self-testing gamble with the South Australian government: complete the project within 100-days and duly be compensated for it, or build it for free. This is the sort of technology gambit EM delights in, even if it risks putting him $50 million out of pocket. Should all go well, the battery, once connected to the grid, will be operational by December 1, storing energy from French renewable company Neoen’s Hornsdale Wind Farm near Jamestown.

“To have that [construction] done in two months… you can’t remodel your kitchen in that period of time.” Confidently sparring with the audience, he claimed that the project “serves as a great example to the rest of the world of what can be done.”

The contract between Tesla and the South Australian government stipulates that,

“The facility will provide services to maintain power system security, integrity and stability for the South Australian electricity network, prevent certain load shedding events, provide supply during critical peak periods and participate in ancillary services and wholesale electricity markets”.

Truly, a tall order, though scale is something that has never troubled the billionaire.

The experiment is both dazzling and troubling for the energy-confused politicians who find themselves incapable of dealing with Australia’s energy woes. In a country where energy prices, be it electricity or gas, are astronomically high; where supply is questionable and more than occasionally interrupted during the high points of summer, the brains trust has proven skint.

The only state to attempt to challenge the continent’s troubles is South Australia. That plucky, often neglected entity within the Australian commonwealth has also paid a price, having faced blackouts in September last year. These have, in turn, become highly politicised events, seeing the state singled out by lovers of coal and natural resources for being fundamentalist in greening the grid.

Be it the former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott, or his deposer, Malcolm Turnbull, South Australia is seen as an example to avoid, rather than emulate. Certainly, Musk admits to an element of doubt, even if small.

“There is certainly some risk because this will be the largest battery installation in the world by a significant margin”.

Far from being deterred, efforts are being made from Adelaide to adjust and adapt. This is a crisis abundant with opportunity. Forget smug Victoria and brash New South Wales, the most populous, and supposedly more “advanced” of Australia’s family of states. South Australia, always a curious aberration of Australian development, will take the colours of innovation. In addition to a gas-fired plant comes Musk’s 100-megawatt battery. The latter’s strength lies in its stabilising potential, shoring up shortfalls when required.

The other troubling catch in this is not merely the echo of utopian, spellbinding confidence. Dealing with wealthy moguls and creatures of business on such a scale can make the populace jittery and anti-corruption watchdogs nervous. When parliamentarians choose to throw in their lot with cocksure businessmen, certainly Musk’s clout, rewards can sour.

The Murdoch press, never to pass up an opportunity to target anything environmentally friendly, has eyes on the project. The value of the contract, for instance, has not been disclosed. Business information of a confidential nature has been kept under wraps, though there is that nagging issue of public accountability.

The opposition politicians are similarly sceptical about the Musk dance with South Australia’s energy market, considering it Mephistophelean in nature.

“With every passing day,” suggested Liberal deputy leader Vickie Chapman last month, “Labor’s secret deal sounds more like a marketing con than a genuine plan to deal with South Australia’s electricity problems.”[1]

Were the premier, Jay Weatherill, to not disclose “how much public money he is handing over to a foreign billionaire” the contract might risk, ventured Chapman, being investigated by the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption.

Musk is far from worried. He has a world to remake, grids to electrify, territories to save. While the Labor government in South Australia faces probing questions about deals with the energy devil, Musk is being pushed on another project: re-electrifying hurricane ravaged Puerto Rico. “Let’s talk,” suggested the territory’s governor Ricardo Rossello, keen to take the solar energy and storage route.[2] Musk seems more than willing.

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

Notes

We bring to the attention of Global Research readers, this article by Paul Craig Roberts, which includes a letter by a Trauma Surgeon and comments by readers.

The Trauma Surgeon questions the legitimacy of the official story. 

Dear Dr. Roberts:

This note is in response to your invitation for medical professionals to comment on the LV shootings with respect to the authenticity of the publicly available videos and whether they prove or disprove that actual victims were injured or killed. I am a retired surgeon with experience in managing patients with massive blood loss in an operating room setting and in other in-hospital cases of marked hemodynamic instability from hemorrhage.

The retired surgeon from Florida made many excellent points already and I will try not to repeat them. Here are some additional problems with the scene as presented in the publicly available videos:

1.)  We do not see CPR [Cardiopulmonary resuscitation] being conducted on anyone that I am aware of. This would be extremely unusual for a massive shooting. Surely someone would have captured it on their cell phone. Even if it took a while for the EMT’s to arrive, it would be reasonable for non-medical personnel in the audience who have taken a basic CPR course to have started it.

2.)  Given the alleged number of victims, we should have seen some evidence of arterial bleeding, no doubt at least several instances of massive hemorrhage (arterial bleeding is often associated with blood being ejected from the site of injury, a so-called arterial “pumper”). What is the probability that no one captured an example of it?

3.)  If some of the rounds were from a fully automatic high caliber rifle or machine-gun like weapon(s), some of the victims should have had obvious massive and visible trauma to the head, neck and extremities. So far, I have seen no evidence of it.

4.)  There is a complete absence of the kind of urgency one would expect from the professionals who allegedly responded on display in the videos available. Where are the EMT’s with their stretchers rushing to the victims? We see pictures of people in the audience crouching down, laying down, crawling, walking and running away but no evidence that any of them have sustained a gun shot wound(s).

5.) If hundreds of people were actually injured (not counting those who allegedly died at the scene) and taken to local emergency rooms, someone should have captured evidence on their cell phones of severely injured victims being wheeled into ER trauma rooms and being taken to surgery. I have not seen any videos from emergency rooms in which victims with actual wounds are displayed. Surely some of the local media would have arrived at the local hospital ER’s to take pictures and to interview the uninjured persons accompanying their friends/relatives. No interviews have appeared in which surgeons who attended the victims have been carefully questioned for the extent of injuries sustained. Similarly, no pathologists have been interviewed about their necropsy findings.

6.)  Where are the death certificates of those who died at the scene? Where are the autopsy reports which would have been mandatory? I have seen pictures of alleged deceased persons but not actual proof of death(s). Moreover, why have there been no news conferences from the hospital(s) reporting on the progress or subsequent deaths of injured patients? Surely, someone with critical injuries must have died by now if the event was not staged. The only videos I have seen depict alleged shooting victims who do not appear to have sustained a GSW.

7.)  If hundreds of injuries/deaths occurred, the video evidence should have been overwhelmingly in support of it given that almost everyone has a smart phone with camera capability. Yet, we have clearly been shown videos which do not support it. That is very strange and suggests that better video evidence is lacking, as would be expected.

8.)  It has been reported that a mass casualty drill was taking place in LV either at or prior to the alleged mass casualty event. Many false flag events have been preceded by a drill that “went live.” It has also been reported that citizen researchers who have called the closest local hospitals have been told that they had no record of gunshot victims. These claims need to be substantiated.

9.)  The fact that advertisements/requests were placed asking for “Crisis Actors” in the LV area suggests that the event could have been either partially or totally staged. [a matter for further investigation]

posted on Craig’s List in mid September 2017

These represent only a few of the problems that come to mind at this point.

---

This reader writes that there was an active shooter drill underway in Las Vegas:

There was a FEMA “active shooter” drill going on that very same week in Vegas. Look into it more. It may have overlapped with the real situation to purposefully sow confusion and throw the scent.

Based on developments in England, this reader speculates that laws are coming our way that criminalize independent citizen investigations:

In your October 11 article “More Responses to the Military Surgeon’s Letter”, you ask “Is the real conspiracy one of establishing official stories as fact regardless of evidence?”

There is a strong case for that contention. I refer you to the October 2 Guardian article titled “Amber Rudd: Viewers of Online Terrorist Material Face 15 Years in Jail”. The link to this article is this.

In the article, the Home Secretary is quoted thus:

“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law.”

The inclusion of “far-right propaganda” in her statement is ominous. It appears that the stage is being set for the thwarting of all independent investigation in the aftermath of a tragedy, with severe legal penalties for those who do not comply.

And this from England:

Regarding your question “Why then are what clearly seem to be crisis actors employed?”.

I’m going to take a wild guess. They are preparing us for war and so they don’t want the people to see blood and guts and just how horrendous the injuries are as it might cause people to think about the reality of war. The shocking images would make people fear what war will do to their friends and family and then they will object and oppose the war mongering of the politicians.

They used actors to make being shot seem not so bad – your clothes stay clean and you are soon up and about again – so “Let’s have a war, it’s nothing to worry about”.

Once again, the question that should be on our minds is why such a public event as the mass shooting of 573 people is not a completely clear transparent event?

Why the lack of hard evidence? Why instead do we have videos of non-medical personnel incorrectly carrying non-wounded people?

Some claim that the bullets were fired from too far a distance to do much serious damage. This is the answer to why none of the 500+ reported wounded have been reported to have died from complications from their wounds. So, why then did 58 or 59 people die on site from the bullets? Alternatively, how is it possible that automatic fire into a packed audience only hit 58 or 59 people and the 500+ only suffered minor injuries by wood splinters and pieces of concret thrown up by the bullets, thus, no deaths from the injuries?

Why is it that with these terror events—Las Vegas, Boston Marathon Bombing, 9/11 itself—drills reflecting the alleged events were being conducted? Why has the media, not only the US media, but also the world media, never asked this question? How is it that almost every time that there is a terrorist event, a drill of that event is taking place?

After all this time, how can this question remain unasked and unanswered?

How is it possible that 573 people can be shot in a public place, and aware people can have no confidence in the official story?

We know we were lied to about the JFK and RFK assassinations, the Martin Luther King assassination, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction,” Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Gaddafi, Yemen, Somalia, Obama’s overthrow of the Honduras government, and Maduro in Venezuela still targeted for overthrow along with the governments of Ecuador and Bolivia. The lies we know about are voluminous. There are 3,000 structural engineers and high rise architects, and also physicists, nano-chemists, first responders, high placed former government officials, and military and airline pilots who challenge the official 9/11 story. And all of these experts are dismissed by the presstitute media, which in total probably doesn’t have an IQ of 100, as “conspiracy theorists.” Can you imagine a dumbshit American media talking head calling an internationally known nano-chemist at the Univerisity of Copenhagen a “conspiracy theorist” for publishing a peer-reviewed scientific article that he and his team of scientists found reacted and unreracted nano-thermite in the dust residue of the World Trade Center?

This is the American media, who sell their souls to official lies. America has no greater enemy than its own media.

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

Featured image is from City AM.

The term Back Door Man has several connotations. In the original blues song written by Willie Dixon, it refers to a man having an affair with a married woman, using the back door to flee before the husband comes home. During the Gerald Ford Presidency, Back Door Man was applied to Dick Cheney as Ford’s White House Chief of Staff and his “skills” at getting what he wanted through opaque means. More and more as Cabinet choices are named, it looks like the entire Trump Presidency project is emerging as Henry A. Kissinger’s “Back Door Man,” in the Cheney meaning of the term.

Long forgotten is Trump’s campaign rhetoric about draining the swamp. In October during his campaign candidate Trump issued a press release stating,

“Decades of special interest dealing must come to an end. We have to break the cycle of corruption…It is time to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C…That is why I am proposing a package of ethics reforms to make our government honest once again.”

So far, the President-elect has already named more billionaires to cabinet and other top posts than any other president in US history–Betsy DeVos of the AmWay fortune as Education Secretary, Wilbur Ross as Commerce Secretary, Linda McMahon as Small Business Administrator, and Vincent Viola, as Army Secretary. That’s not including Trump himself as a putative billionaire.

Then in terms of the vested special interests of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs has a huge power in the new Administration. Goldman Sachs partner Steven Mnuchin is Trump’s nominee for US Treasury Secretary. Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn will be his top White House Economic Adviser. Anthony Scaramucci, Presidential Transition Team Executive Committee member, is a former Goldman Sachs banker as well as Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist and Senior Counselor.

We add to that assemblage no fewer than four US military generals representing the most corrupt military industrial complex in world history: as Secretary of Defense retired General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, Board member since retiring of major defense contractor General Dynamics; retired Lt. General Mike Flynn, with his own consulting firm, as his National Security Adviser and retired General John F. Kelly as Secretary of Homeland Security.

Add to this collection the naming of Rex Tillerson the CEO of ExxonMobil, the largest oil multinational of the United States, as Secretary of State; the ex-Governor of Texas, America’s largest oil producing state, Rick Perry, as Secretary of Energy, along with pro-shale energy Oklahoma Attorney General, Scott Pruitt to be head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and certain dramatic economic policy flips begin to emerge compared with the previous hapless Presidency.

Back Door for Kissinger Geopolitics

What emerges is not pretty and, sadly, more than confirms my earlier piece on the Trump Deception.

However, all this misses in my view one essential component, namely the shadowy role of former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, who is emerging as the unofficial and key foreign policy adviser of the Trump Administration. If we follow Kissinger’s tracks in recent months we find a highly interesting series of meetings.

On December 26, 2016 the German daily Bild Zeitung published what it said was a copy of an analysis by members of the Trump Transition Team which revealed that as President Trump will seek “constructive cooperation” with the Kremlin, a dramatic contrast to Obama confrontation and sanctions policies. The newspaper went on to discuss the role of 93-year-old former Secretary of State, Henry A. Kissinger as Trump’s leading, if unofficial, foreign policy adviser. The report stated that Kissinger is drafting a plan to bring Putin’s Russia and Trump’s Washington to more “harmonious” relations that includes US official recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and lifting of US economic sanctions that Obama imposed in retribution for the Crimea annexation in 2014, among other steps.

The kicker in this otherwise sensible-sounding US policy change is Kissinger’s sly geopolitical aim in “gettin’ Putin back in the (NATO) tent,” as late Texan President Lyndon Baines Johnson might have elegantly put it.

What is the aim of Kissinger? Not any “multi-polar world” that respects national sovereignty as he claims, of that you can be certain. Kissinger’s aim is to subtly erode the growing bilateral axis between China and Russia that threatens US global hegemony.

The trend of the last several years since Obama’s ill-fated coup d’etat in Ukraine in early 2014, threatened to jeopardize Kissinger’s lifetime project, otherwise called David Rockefeller’s “march towards a World Government,” a World Government in which “supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries,” to use Rockefeller’s words to one of his select groups during the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Bild Zeitung Trump-Kissinger memo states that the idea of warming up to Russia is aimed at offsetting China’s military buildup. In other words, a different game from Obama’s, but a game of power nonetheless.

Real Balance of Power

Kissinger is one of the few surviving practitioners of historical British Balance of Power geopolitics. True British Balance of Power, as practiced in British military and diplomatic history since the Treaty of Windsor of 1386, between England and Portugal, always involved Britain making an alliance with the weaker of two rivals to defeat the stronger and in the process, to afterwards loot the exhausted weaker power as well. It was extraordinarily successful in building the British Empire down to World War II.

British Balance of Power is always about what power, in this case a Kissinger-steered United States, does the “balancing.” Following the defeat of Napoleon’s France at the Congress of Vienna peace talks in 1814, British Foreign Secretary, Viscount Castlereagh, architected a treaty that insured no Continental European power could dominate over the others, a strategy that lasted until 1914 and the First World War. What many political historians ignore is that that Continental Balance of Power was essential for creation of the British Empire that dominated the world as the leading naval power for a century.

In his 1950’s Harvard University PhD dissertation, Kissinger wrote what became a book titled, “A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace, 1812-1822.” That study of British Balance of Power is at the heart of Kissinger’s Machiavellian machinations ever since he took his first job with the Rockefeller family in the 1960’s. In A World Restored Kissinger states,

“Diplomacy cannot be divorced from the realities of force and power. But diplomacy should be divorced…from a moralistic and meddlesome concern with the internal policies of other nations.” Further, he states, “The ultimate test of a statesman, then, is his ability to recognize the real relationship of forces and to make this knowledge serve his ends.”

Since his relationship began in the 1950’s with Nelson Rockefeller and the brothers Rockefeller–Laurance, David, Winthrop– Henry Kissinger has been the core strategist of the Rockefeller family’s globalization or World Government above nation states as David called it in 1991. That included Kissinger’s role with the Bilderberg Meetings, with David’s Trilateral Commission and right down to the present. It was Secretary of State Kissinger who asked his good friend David Rockefeller to facilitate Nixon’s “China opening” to the West in 1971. Then the geopolitical aim of Kissinger’s rebalance was to seduce China, then the weaker of Washington’s two great adversaries, into the Western alliance against the Soviet Union, then the stronger adversary, at least in military and geopolitical terms.

Today, as the year 2017 begins, the roles have turned and clearly China has emerged after more than three decades of unbridled industrial and economic expansion, as the stronger challenger of David Rockefeller’s so-called World Government. Russia, following the economic savagery and deindustrialization of the post-1991 Yeltsin years, is in Kissinger’s view, clearly the weaker of his two adversaries. Both China and Russia under Xi Jinping and Putin, are, together with Iran, the most formidable defenders of national sovereignty–the main obstacles standing in the way of David Rockefeller’s (I use him as the template) World (fascist) Government.

Kissinger’s strange diplomacy

If we perceive Kissinger’s recent actions from this perspective–how to break the emerging Eurasian threat to a Western-dominated One World Order–it makes much sense. He has been shockingly fulsome in his recent praise of the political neophyte casino mogul Trump. In an early December CBS TV interview, Kissinger said that Trump, “has the possibility of going down in history as a very considerable President.” He added that because of perceptions that Obama weakened America’s influence abroad, “one could imagine that something remarkable and new emerges” out of a Trump administration. “I’m saying it’s an extraordinary opportunity.”

The more we look under the rocks and at the key foreign policy choices of neophyte Trump, we find the pawprints of Henry A. Kissinger. The choice of General James “Mad Dog” Mattis to be Secretary of Defense intersects Kissinger. Mattis and Kissinger both served until early 2016 on the Board of Directors of a bizarre and very controversial California medical technology private partnership, Theranos, together with (until recently) former US Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, retired U.S. Navy Adm. Gary Roughead, former Wells Fargo Bank chairman Dick Kovacevich.

Mattis, whom Trump compares to General Patton, in August, 2016 wrote a report attacking both Obama, Bush and Bill Clinton administrations’ foreign military policy, blasting the last three administrations for a perceived lack of national security vision, by ignoring threats posed by Russia, China and terrorist groups worldwide.

As well, the pawprints of the sly Kissinger appear with the surprise naming of ExxonMobil head Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State. ExxonMobil is of course the original core of the Rockefeller family wealth. Kissinger issued a decisive and strong recommendation of Tillerson, stating that because Tillerson has strong personal relations with Russian President Putin and Russian state oil company, Rosneft, it is no reason to disqualify Tillerson: “I pay no attention to the argument that he is too friendly to Russia. As head of Exxon it’s his job to get along with Russia. He would be useless as the head of Exxon if he did not have a working relationship with Russia.” As with Kissinger and Mattis, Kissinger also serves on a Board of Trustees with Tillerson. Both Tillerson and Kissinger are Trustees of the very influential Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), along with such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

In true Kissinger secret diplomacy style so skillfully applied during his role in triggering the October, 1973 Yom Kippur war, Kissinger has apparently won the respect of Vladimir Putin as a “world class politician.” In February, 2016 Kissinger went to Moscow to privately meet with Putin. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called that meeting a continuation of “a friendly dialogue between President Putin and Henry Kissinger, who are bound by a long-standing relationship.”

And on December 2, Kissinger was personally invited by China President Xi Jinping to meet in Beijing to discuss the prospects for China of the Trump presidency. Kissinger is regarded since 1971 as uniquely trusted by the Chinese to serve as a mediator of US policy intentions.

With Kissinger now in a unique relationship with President-elect Trump as shadow foreign policy adviser, with Kissinger allies Tillerson as Secretary of State and Mattis as Secretary of Defense, it is beginning to appear that the heavy hand of Kissinger and his version of British Balance of Power political manipulations is about to target China, as well as Iran, and to try to use Putin and Russia to destroy the genuine possibility of a counterweight to Western One World delusions, by fostering mistrust and bad blood between China and Russia and Iran.

There is simply too much coincidence in the recent emergence of the Kissinger–world statesman of peace–to not think that in truth, from the outset, Donald Trump was designed to be Henry A. Kissinger’s Back Door Man, in order to re-tilt global geopolitics back to a US leading role as Domina über Alles.

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

Finally, the skeleton is out of the Arab Spring closet via an article in Foreign Policy written by Jonathan Spyer. Israel has been at war for total dominance in the Middle East and, according to the senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center (Rubin Center) and Jerusalem Post columnist, Tel Aviv is about to engage in Syria to confront Iran.

All I can say is, if the director of one of Israel’s research centers located at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) is right, then the kickoff to Armageddon could be around the corner. For some months now my research and reporting on Syria and the wider crises has revolved around Israel’s role in world affairs. So, with this revelation it seems clear that the gloves will soon come off where Israel as the instigator of crises is concerned. Bibi and Trump meeting in Washington, the role of AIPAC in pressing for sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea, and the provocative geostrategic role the Netanyahu government has played equal overwhelming circumstantial proof of the tiny nation’s responsibility for Middle Eastern chaos. Quoting Speyer:

“Israeli officials believe that Iran is winning its bid for dominance in the Middle East, and they are mobilizing to counter the regional realignment that threatens to follow. The focus of Israel’s military and diplomatic campaign is Syria.”

From my point of view, I cannot decide which facet of this news is scarier, the apparent fact that top Israeli analysts now don’t care about public opinion or the possibility that Israel really might go nuclear against Iran. The Foreign Policy article also reveals Israeli motives that have driven international incidents. For instance, with regard to the United States’ initial psychotic episode over chemical weapons that the Assad government was supposed to have used against its own people, those “weapons fears” had nothing whatsoever to do with Syrians. Spyer takes special note of Israeli missions against chemical weapons facilities at Masyaf. Let’s face it, Israel does not fly missions to rescue endangered Arabs. But the acute problem for the Israeli regime is not Assad anymore. Since the Syrian Army with Russian and Iranian assistance has nearly eradicated ISIS, Tel Aviv is worried about the aftermath of the Syrian mess. And about their precious Golan Heights. Quoting FP again:

“Iranian forces now maintain a presence close to or adjoining the Israeli-controlled portion of the Golan Heights and the Quneitra Crossing that separates it from the Syrian-controlled portion of the territory. Israel has throughout the Syrian war noted a desire on the part of the Iranians and their Hezbollah clients to establish this area as a second line of active confrontation against the Jewish state, in addition to south Lebanon.”

The Israeli expert goes on to assert that “Syria hardly exists today”, and proclaims Iran and Russia the “masters” of the war-torn country. The Foreign Policy article lays out in no uncertain terms the essential mindset and strategy Israel has deployed against neighboring enemies and allies alike – even though the author did not intend to do so. By showing what Israel fears most, and in listing in convincing form the geopolitical and military counterweights of Tel Aviv, Spyer betrays the actual intentions of Israel. Read how Israel has worked with rebels inside Syria:

“Israel has developed pragmatic working relations with the local rebel groups who at the moment still control the greater part of the border, such as the Fursan al-Joulan group. This cooperation focuses on treating wounded fighters and civilians, and providing humanitarian aid and financial assistance. There has also probably been assistance in the field of intelligence, though no evidence has yet emerged of direct provision of weapons or direct engagement of Israeli forces on the rebels’ behalf.”

Finally, scanning reports and propaganda from the Rubin Center’s website one finds the Israeli group not just focused regionally. First, we find this Spyer fellow with eyes on Ukraine and the Jewish community there in a piece for Jerusalem Post portraying pro-Russian factions as Nazis. Next, I find it interesting that the Caucasus and Georgia are covered in depth. A story by Mahir Khalifa-zadeh (a veteran of the Kosovo OSCE mission in 1999) from September of 2014 entitled “The South Caucasus: Obama’s Failed Russia “Reset” and the Putin Doctrine in Practice” betrays Israeli geostrategy in the heart of that more distant calamity. A pragmatic person might ask the question here, “Was Israel against a reset of US-Russia relations?” The answer there leads us to new ideas on just “who” is behind the current west-east divide. Quoting from the report:

“Since 2009, under President Barack Obama, the U.S. has pursued a “Russian reset” policy, promising a fresh start to previously tense relations. Yet this policy has failed to improve American interests, particularly in the South Caucasus region, which is strategically important for both Israeli and U.S. policy towards the greater Middle East and the post-Soviet space.”

This report from the Azerbaijani expert touches on US and Israel “energy security”, which also reflects the core catalyst for crisis in these regions. We don’t often read or hear about the so-called Contract of the Century between Azerbaijan and the big oil heavyweights in the west, but this quote frames the issue well:

“The discovery of the Azeri, Chirag, and Guneshli oil fields in that region significantly energized U.S. policy and diplomacy to transform the area into an important source of non-Middle-Eastern energy. Huge Azeri oil and gas reserves also raised the issue of energy transportation routes to bypass Russia.”

Bypassing Russia and Iran, cutting Syria off as a gateway for delivering energy, destroying any semblance of resistance to Israeli power in the region, shoring up America’s dominance in the global scheme – these deals and strategies show tradeoffs that have created massive crises. And the Zionists that run Israel are smack in the middle of all of them. This is no longer arguable. The question remains, “What can we do about it?”

The answer to the question is not a positive one, for in the west the game is pretty much rigged. Citizens are either distracted by local crises, or they are uneducated and apathetic toward global geopolitics. In short, we’re ill prepared to do anything at all. This is one reason why we see globalist magazines like Foreign Policy, and even leading politicians, unafraid to simply lay out the plans. These revelations we are seeing are a consequence of our own indifference, and the solutions to Israeli or US encroachments are not easy for people to accept. Where Tel Aviv is concerned, the only mediation that will get its attention is force. In my opinion, until the international community (or Russia perhaps) slaps Israel down (and hard) these crises will only escalate. Israel had the key role in Arab Spring, and in the regime change targeting Assad and Syria. As a result, millions of people are now displaced or worse. It’s high time that these Zionist autocrats face the music. The alternative will be a cataclysm.

Phil Butler is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from the author.

Featured image: Humvees are stored inside the Frigaard Cave in central Norway. The cave is one of six caves that are part of the Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway, which supports the equipping of Marine Expeditionary Brigade consisting of 15,000 Marines and with supplies for up to 30 days. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Marcin Platek)

In these days, when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), it might be worth having a look at what the Norwegian military actually is up to.

In January 2017, the first US Marine Corps base in Norway became operational. It is located in Værnes, in the middle of this long rugged country. The base agreement is notionally on a ‘temporary rotating basis’. Norwegian politicians, with a straight face, insists the 330 Marines are always approved only for six months at the time, even though US budget documents clearly show that the Marine Corps routinely budget for this base several years ahead.

Now there are rumours of the establishment of a second US Marine Corps base, this time several hundred kilometres closer to the Russian border. The location mentioned  is Setermoen, a major hub for the Norwegian forces. The Ministry of Defence have as usual issued a denial, but it is confirmed that general Robert Neller, supreme commander of the US Marine Corps, was shown round the garrison area last week. The timeframe mentioned is a rather hurried stationing sometimes in 2018. The budget document also mentions building of hangars. Værnes is indeed next to an airport, but the use of  ‘location TBD’, could indicate the planning of a third base, possibly Evenes airport, close to Setermoen.

Since NATO was founded in 1949, the country has to some degree followed a policy of caution. Norway will not “conclude any agreement with other states which imposes obligations on Norway to open up bases for foreign powers’ forces in Norwegian territory, as long as Norway is not attacked or threatened with attacks”, as the policy was formulated. It lasted the entire cold war, but with the new base in January 2017, things have changed.

Full integration in the US/NATO military machine

The old concept was essentially a straightforward one – the Norwegian army would be responsible for the defence of Norway. In the last few years, and  in the planning for the coming ones, this concept is scrapped. A new concept, of close integration and intermeshing with foreign armies, is replacing it. This is a trend in many European  armies.

For example, the Norwegian army has a unit stationed  in Lithuania, and contingents with the NATO-rapid reaction force. As a replacement, foreign troops will be stationed in Norway. There is talk of joint headquarters in the NATO framework As a result, the budget for the Home Guards will be slashed. Several top military leaders have complained that such priorities will hollow out the core duty of territorial defence.

Another example are the choices made in purchasing  new equipment.

Source: Midt i fleisen

Norway buys a new generation of maritime patrol planes

Just a few years ago the purchase of 5 P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol planes was dismissed as to expensive. It would take away money from other areas. It is an advanced plane, and not many countries in the world, especially small ones, see the need for it. Purchasers so far are fairly large military forces like Australia, UK and India.

A steady stream of lobbying from one top US official after another seems to have opened  the wallet. Some indirect opposition has come from the defence forces themselves. The chief of the Norwegian army has earlier declared that if the land forces did not receive more funding, one would require allied troops on Norwegian soil. Of course, Norway has a rather large military budget. It is not the level of funding, but the priorities, like this extravagant plane purchase and the F-35, that  forces the hand.

P-8A Poseidon is equipped with torpedoes that can be dropped from  great height. The plane has advanced manoeuvrable rockets, and  is able to work together with the US drone MQ-4C Triton. It is a anti-submarine plane, designed for the task of chasing down Russian  submarines filled with nuclear missiles able to hit US cities.

The purchase of the planes is officially priced at 9.8 billion NOK (1.2 billion USD). The real price is much higher, but would to some degree be offset by US subsidies.

There is plenty of historical precedent for this arrangement. During the cold war, Norwegian military intelligence was in effect a subsidiary of the US. Even as late as 1992, approximately 50 percent of  Norwegian military intelligence staff worked on US funded projects. And what sort of  projects are these?

Norway as an important part of nuclear war

The main thing to keep in mind is the immense strategic usefulness of Norway in a war against Russia. On the Kola peninsula, just a few miles from the border, are the home bases of the Russian Northern Fleet, with its many strategic submarines. For geographical reasons – ice-free harbours – this peninsula is where the main Russian fleet units are, and has to be, based. A bit like Crimea, only much more sensitive.

Several invaluable services in this SIGNIT-cooperation are provided the Globus II/III radar complexes, in the town of Vardø. This is nominally a Norwegian project, but funded by the US and supervised by the US Air Force Space Command. Since Globus III will be able to track space objects as small as a baseball, it is – as usual with official denials – a part of the US ABM-system. Other radar and SIGNINT-stations, including on officially demilitarized Svalbard, are of high military interest. But they are not there only to keep an eye on any Russian activity.

Since this area provides the shortest flight path to Moscow, US ballistic missile submarines are  stationed in the Norwegian Sea. To research possible problems with launches, the Andøya  rocket test base was established in 1962, again with heavy US subsidies. (As anyone who has ever been there would know, the island is a really windswept place, and would be an unlikely place  to place a rocket firing range for any other reasons). One of its missions was to supply telemetric data, since the trajectory and atmospheric conditions for these scientific rockets are virtually identical to the Trident ballistic missiles that would be fired from these submarines. One could also use these test rockets to gauge how the USSR missile warning system would respond.

Over the years, the northern parts of Norway  has been home to many SIGNINT projects. As often as not, the information gathered was not shared with Norway.

All (sensor)eyes on the main target: The Russian nuclear submarine bases on the Kola peninsula

Apart from SIGNINT, Norway has recently found itself in the position of having a more aggressive military posture. Three new F-35 Lighting from Lockheed-Martin are scheduled to be in service by November, the first of 52 of these planes. Barely usable for traditional interception, these planes are designed to carry missiles and precision bombs to target deep inside enemy territory.

Similar upgrades of sea based missiles systems have the same capabilities, to knock out enemy bases from a long distance. As part of an area based missile defence system, in case of a first strike on Russian nuclear assets, these ships might be able to eliminate any remaining Russian missile launchers that manage to survive.

This is tacitly admitted (presented as a response to a Russian invasion) in the Norwegian military’s own strategy documents (leaked draft version 3.1.2.4), where they acknowledge that for the Russians, the northernmost part of Norway “would appear to be an open corridor for attacks with planes and cruise missiles”, the very systems that are being purchased.

The US have put lots of effort into researching how to knock out these bases. They are buried deep underground, in a geologically very hard type of rock. In the 1990’s, after the end of the cold war, the US Nuclear Defence Agency, responsible for researching new nuclear weapons, did several test explosions in an abandoned  mine shaft just a few kilometres from  the Russian border. The purpose of the tests was to see what sort of (nuclear) strikes would be required to penetrate this type of rock.

Conclusion

So in case of a conflict, one could find the ridiculous situation that the bulk of Norwegian forces are stationed far away, whilst home territory becomes a playground for the US Marine Corps. These units might have their own objectives apart from territorial defence.

At the same time, the deep integration into US nuclear war systems will make Norwegian participation inevitable; antisubmarine-planes chasing Russian nuclear strategic submarines; radars being vital to any nuclear strike or ABM-systems; F35 and advanced missiles that only are good for hitting Russian bases. In a tense situation where both Russia and the US are upgrading their Arctic capabilities, one can question the wisdom of insisting on being such an eager part of the encirclement of Russia, in what is obviously a drive for war.

Terje Maloy is a Norwegian/Australian blogger and translator. This article is Creative Commons for non-commercial purposes.

1) Alessandro Bianchi: Self-determination of peoples and respect for the borders and sovereignty of a country. This is of the most complicated issue for international law. How can it be articulated for the case of Catalonia?

Andre Vltchek: Personally, I’m not very enthusiastic about smaller nations forming their own states, particularly those in the West, where they would, after gaining ‘independence’, remain in the alliances that are oppressing and plundering the entire world: like NATO or the European Union.

Clearly, the breaking of the great country of Yugoslavia into small pieces was a hostile, evil design bythe West, and particularly of Germany and Austria. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia after the so-called “Velvet Revolution” was a total idiocy.

But Catalonia (or Basque Country), if it became independent, would become one of the richest parts of Europe. I don’t think it would have any great positive or negative impact on the rest of the world. As an internationalist, I don’t really care if they are separate from Spain or not, or whether they are even richer than they already are, as I care much more about what is happening in places such as Afghanistan, Venezuela or North Korea.

On the other hand, the way Spain has now behaved in Catalonia, after the referendum, is a total disgrace. They decided to treat the Catalan people in the same way as Indonesians have beentreating Papuans for decades. If this continues, it will all reach the point of no return: reconciliation will become impossible. You cannot start sexually harassing women and then break their fingers, one by one, just because they want to have their own state. You cannot injure hundreds of innocent people, who simply don’t want to be governed from Madrid. That’s absurd and thoroughly sick! Of course Spain used to commit holocausts all over what is now called Latin America, so it is ‘in their blood’. But I don’t think Catalans will allow this to be done to them.

What about the constitution of Spain? Look, there should be nothing sacred about constitutions. In the West, they were written to protect the interests of the ruling classes. When they get outdated, they should be moderated, or totally rewritten. If Catalans or Basques want their independence, if they really want it, if it is so important for them, then why not – they should have it. Spain is not a ‘people’s country’. It is an oppressive Western bully. I would have a totally different position if some part of Bolivia or China were to try to secede.

2) AB: Different situation and different reality. Another issue of fundamental international concern in this period is the referendum of Iraqi Kurdistan, which is likely to become the new fuse ready to explode in that area. Would it be the new Israel in the Middle East as someone has affirmed?

AV: Well, that is really a very serious issue. I have worked in the Kurdish autonomous region of Iraq already twice, even on the ‘border’ with Mosul, and what I saw there I did not like at all!

It is clearly a ‘client’ state of the West, of Turkey and to some extent, Israel. It is shamelessly capitalist, taking land from its own people, cheating them, just in order to pump and refine huge quantities of oil. It treats Syrian refugees like animals, forcing them to make anti-Assad statements. It is turning ancient Erbil into some bizarre shopping mall with nothing public in sight. Its military top brass is mainly US/UK-trained and indoctrinated. And it provokes Baghdad, day and night.

I really strongly disliked what I saw there. If Iraqi Kurds were allowed to have their ‘independence’, the impact on the region would be huge and certainly negative. Baghdad should not allow it, even at the cost of an armed confrontation.

3) AB: Coming to the question of the moment: the nuclear escalation in North Korean and a possible escalation of war on the Korean peninsula. What is your opinion about Kim’s strategy and what are the real risks?

AV: There is only one real ‘risk’ and danger: that the world is quickly accepting as inevitable the fact that the Western thuggish regimes can get away with absolutely anything. I see no other serious problem that the world today is facing.

What is Kim’s strategy? To defend his people by all means, against the brutal force that has already murdered millions of men, women and children of Korea. That brutal force is the West and its allies. It is all very simple, but only if one is willing to turn off the BBC and to use his or her own brain, it becomes ‘obvious’.

4) AB: According to many, for Pyongyang the nuclear bomb is becoming more and more vital because it is increasingly feared that the country will end up like Iraq and Libya. Do you not believe that the sanctions of the United Nations are therefore totally ineffective and counterproductive because they fuel this escalation?

AV: Of course, but they [sanctions] are still imposed on the victim! It is because almost no one dares to laugh straight in the faces of Western demagogues and dictators. The world resembles the areas occupied by the Nazi Germany and Italy and Japan during the WWII. There, nobody would dare to vote independently, defending victims of fascism.

5) AB: The US Federation of Science (FAS) estimates that in 2017 North Korea has “fissile material to potentially produce 10 to 20 nuclear warheads” even if it is strongly suspected that none can be considered ready for launch. The US possesses 6,800 nuclearheads. The French and British (respectively 300 and 215 respectively)included, NATO’s nuclear forces have 7,315 nuclear warheads, of which 2,200 are ready to launch, compared to 7,000 held by the Russians, of which 1,950 are ready to launch. With Chinese (270), Pakistani (120-130), Indian (110-120) and Israeli (80), the total number of nuclear warheads is estimated to be around 15,000 by default. The West is a nuclear oligopoly that can only create an escalation with those who feel threatened, and so the threatened search to procure them. Is North Korea the only source of nuclear threat to the world, as it seems in the mainstream media?

AV: Of course, North Korea is no threat at all. I have already spoken about it during countless televised interviews. I visited North Korea and mingled with its people. There, nobody wants war. The North Korean people paid a terrible price for their independence. Its civilians were murdered mercilessly in tunnels by Western forces; its women were brutally raped, entire villages and towns leveled to the ground, or burned to ashes. All this is never discussed in the West, but is remembered in North Korea.

Now, absolutely shameless British propaganda is ‘preparing’ the world public for the ‘inevitability’ of the war. You know, if someone in this day and age still believes that the United States is the only culprit, he or she is perhaps living in some deep isolated trench or a cave. Indoctrination and brainwashing is mainly designed,‘Made in Europe’, most evidently in the UK, where most of the people have already lost all their ability to think rationally. The British colonialist propaganda apparatus is terribly sinister, but strategically it is simply brilliant! It was utilized for centuries, and it even succeeded in ‘programming’ the brains of the victims in the sub-Continent, Africa and elsewhere.

Of course, your numbers are correct and all that is happening is thoroughly absurd! But day and night people are told that North Korea represents a true danger to the world. The same was said about the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries. Most of these countries havealready been destroyed.

North Korea’s sin is that it refuses to surrender, to fall on its knees, to sacrifice its people. It refuses to become a slave. For centuries, European and later US colonialism punished such defiance in the most brutal ways. Western culture is, after all, based and built on slavery. It demands absolute compliance, unconditional submission.

If North Korea is attacked, it should fight back! And it will.

6) AB: The United Nations adopted the important Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in July. The United Nations is often used (in alternate ways and countries): this Treaty is ignored by all nuclear powers, including by members of NATO with US nuclear weapons (including Italy). NATO has banned member states from ratifying it. Can the West have a moralist attitude to those who pursue a deterrent in order not to not end up like Saddam and Gaddafi?

AV: The West is like an army of brigands that has managed to overrun some city, to rape everything that moves, burn the center, loot houses and shops and then execute all leading thinkers and defenders. A few days later they see someone stealing a bunch of bananas from a fruit stall. And they catch him, and judge him, and feel totally morally righteous. It is all so comical! But that is not how you are supposed to see it!

7) AB: Russia and China (with Iran, Venezuela and many other countries) are intensifying de-dollarization in their mutual exchanges. Does it envisage a gradual weakening of the dollar capable of affecting international finance and what geopolitical repercussions?

AV: Yes, definitely! And you should talk about it to my friend, Peter Koenig, a true dissident, a former economist at the World Bank, who is now actually advising many countries on de-dollarization.

US dollars should not be used anymore. Western institutions should be ignored. Totally new structures should be, and are being erected. China and Russia are, of course, in the lead. All this is extremely important and can change the world, in the near future.

8) AB: Venezuela, with the convening of the Constituent Assembly, turned off the coup attempts of the opposition. In Brazil Lula is favored in polls, while in Argentina the former President Cristina Fernandez is back in the Senate with strong popular support. So it was not the end of the progressive cycle, as the mainstream has for years stated?

AV: Of course it was not the end! The desire of Lain Americans to live in just and egalitarian societies is too strong; it cannot be destroyed overnight.

There were some serious setbacks – in Argentina and Brazil. And Venezuela is suffering immensely, battered by its own shameless elites sponsored from abroad. But the country is still standing.

In Brazil, Temer is immensely unpopular. His ‘constitutional coup’ will soon backfire. PT will be back, in its old form or in a new one. And it will be much stronger than before. The same goes for Argentina. You see, despite all the media manipulation, propaganda and shameless lies, people are already realizing that they were fooled. They want some decency back, they want socialism and pride and hope! They want true independence.

In two weeks from now I’m going back to South America. My book of essays is being published by LOM, soon, and LOM is a very important left-wing publishing house in Chile. These days I go back to South America often. It is one of the frontlines, battlegrounds, where people struggle against Western imperialism and its lackeys!

These are very important, fascinating times! I have just published my latest book, about “The Great October Socialist Revolution” of 1917, in Russia. Its legacy is now relevant, more than ever before in history. It gave birth to internationalism, and internationalism is the only movement, which can still save the world, and which can defeat Western nihilism and its barefaced, cynical pillage of the planet!

*

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

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which spearheaded a landmark nuclear disarmament treaty, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The significance of this award cannot be underestimated.

Donald Trump‘s bombastic and frightening threats against North Korea and Iran may portend a catastrophic attack that could impact the entire world.

The US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, killing 210,000 people. During the week following the bombings, thousands of survivors experienced a unique combination of symptoms, Susan Southard wrote in the Los Angeles Times:

Their hair fell out in large clumps, their wounds secreted extreme amounts of pus, and their gums swelled and bled. Purple spots appeared on their bodies, signs of hemorrhaging beneath the skin. Infections ravaged their internal organs. Within a few days of the onset of symptoms, many people lost consciousness, mumbled deliriously and died in extreme pain; others languished for weeks before either dying or slowly recovering.

In the face of Trump’s nuclear threats, the danger the world faces is immeasurable.

Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons

On July 7, more than 120 countries approved the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which requires ratifying countries “never under any circumstances to develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” The treaty also prohibits the transfer of, use of, or threat to use nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices.

Fifty-three countries officially signed the treaty, and three have already ratified it, which makes them parties to the accord. Ninety days after 50 countries ratify it, the treaty will enter into force.

However, the five original nuclear-armed countries — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China — boycotted the treaty negotiations and the voting. North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India, which also have nuclear weapons, refrained from participating in the final vote as well. In October 2016, during negotiations, North Korea had voted for the treaty.

The State Department issued a statement saying,

“The United States does not support and will not sign the [treaty].”

Trump Threatens to Blow Up the Iran Deal

Meanwhile, Trump is moving the world closer to nuclear war, threatening North Korea with destruction and attempting to blow up the nuclear deal with Iran. The day before the new treaty was concluded, Trump threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea if it attacked; that amounted to a threat to commit genocide.

Peace prize historian Oeivind Stenersen said the Nobel committee intended “to send a signal to North Korea and the US that they need to go into negotiations. The prize is also coded to support the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.”

The Iran deal is embodied in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It rescinded the punishing US and international sanctions on Iran, amounting to billions of dollars of relief. In return, Iran agreed to curtail its nuclear program.

Under the US Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, the president must determine every 90 days whether Iran remains in compliance with the JCPOA and whether it still serves US interests. The next 90-day period ends on October 15. Trump will reportedly refuse to certify that Iran is compliant with the agreement on October 12, in spite of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency’s finding that Iran is in compliance.

If Trump refuses to certify that Iran is compliant with the JCPOA or determines the agreement is not in the national interest, Congress will then have 60 days to act. If Congress reimposes sanctions, it would likely cause the JCPOA to unravel. Iran would then proceed with a program to develop nuclear weapons.

The White House has signaled that Trump will urge Congress not to reimpose sanctions, but rather hopes Congress will pass new legislation beyond the scope of the original deal.

“If Congress complies, such unilateral action to change a multilateral agreement will effective kill it,” Wendy Sherman, former under secretary of state for political affairs and US lead negotiator for the JCPOA, wrote in The New York Times.

Moreover, if Trump’s actions scuttle the Iran deal, it will send a dangerous message to North Korea that the United States cannot be trusted to abide by its multilateral agreements.

Both Trump’s threats against North Korea and his undermining of the JCPOA could lead to nuclear war.

US Violates Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires nuclear states to eliminate their nuclear weapons and non-nuclear states to refrain from acquiring them. In 2005, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told the Institute for Public Accuracy,

“The US government is not adhering to Article VI of the NPT and we show no signs of planning to adhere to its requirements to move forward with the elimination — not reduction, but elimination — of nuclear weapons.”

In 1996, the International Court of Justice stated in an advisory opinion,

“There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

But the nuclear powers have ignored that decision.

And in spite of UN Security Council Resolution 687, which established a weapons-of mass-destruction-free zone in the Middle East, Israel maintains a formidable nuclear arsenal.

“The nuclear weapons states, governed by political realists, basically have no trust in law or morality when it comes to national security,” international law expert Richard Falk wrote, “but base their faith in the hyper-rationality of destructive military power, which in the nuclear age is expressed in the arcane idiom of deterrence, an idea more transparently known in the Cold War Era as Mutually Assured Destruction (or MAD!!).”

Indeed, Trump is planning a $1 trillion rebuilding of the US nuclear weapons program.

Only the US Has Used Nuclear Weapons

The United States is the only country ever to use nuclear weapons. On the day of the Hiroshima bombing, 19-year-old Shinji Mikamo was on the roof of his house helping his father prepare it for demolition when he saw a huge fireball coming at him. He heard a deafening explosion and felt a searing pain throughout his body. It felt as if boiling water had been poured over him. His chest and right arm were totally burned. Pieces of his flesh fell from his body like ragged clothing. The pain was unbearable. Shinji was three-quarters of a mile from the epicenter of the bomb. He survived, but most of his family perished.

Shinji’s daughter, Dr. Akiko Mikamo, author of Rising From the Ashes: A True Story of Survival and Forgiveness, told a Veterans for Peace Convention that 99 percent of those who were outdoors at the time of the blast died immediately or within 48 hours.

This should serve as a cautionary note to Trump — and Congress — that there is no trifling with nuclear weapons.

“The Calm Before the Storm”

Yet during a photo opportunity he staged with military leaders after meeting with them to discuss North Korea and Iran, Trump issued an ominous warning:

“You guys know what this represents? … Maybe it’s the calm before the storm.”

What storm?

“You’ll find out.”

Trita Parsi, founder and president of the National Iranian American Council, told The Hill that Trump’s decertification of the Iran deal “will trigger a process that very likely will lead to the collapse of the deal.”

Parsi said on Democracy Now!,

“The buzz here is that there’s going to be a very significant ramping up, an escalation, in the region against Iran, potentially including shooting down Iranian airplanes, sinking Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf, targeting Iranian troops or Iranian-allied troops in Iraq and in Syria.”

Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are reportedly counseling Trump to certify that Iran is complying with the JCPOA.

But Trump has consistently criticized the Iran deal, probably because it was concluded on Barack Obama‘s watch and Israel is dead set against it.

In any event, Trump is playing with fire — nuclear fire — in both North Korea and Iran. We must pressure the White House and Congress members alike, and hope that cooler heads prevail. The stakes are unbearably high.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the national advisory board of Veterans for Peace. The second, updated edition of her book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues, will be published in November. Visit her website: MarjorieCohn.com. Follow her on Twitter: @MarjorieCohn.

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

In the event that North Korea tests another Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) or potentially launches an attack on the United States, the Pentagon could try to intercept those missiles with the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. However, as many analysts have pointed out, the interceptors that miss their target could reenter the Earth’s atmosphere inside Russian airspace. Such an eventuality could prove to be a serious problem unless steps are taken to address the issue now.

“You should also be aware of the concern that those interceptors fired from Alaska that miss or don’t engage an incoming North Korean ICBM(s) will continue on and reenter the Earth’s atmosphere over Russia,” Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association told The National Interest.

“This carries a nontrivial risk of unintended escalation.”

Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, told The National Interest that the United States should open a dialogue with Russia on the issue immediately.

“Good god, yes,” Lewis said emphatically.

Olya Oliker, director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies agreed.

“We have time now to consult with Moscow, talk about plans, discuss how notification would work,” Oliker told The National Interest.

“This isn’t the rocket science part of all this.”

Indeed, in a recent op-ed, Lewis argues that an American interceptor launch could accidentally trigger a nuclear exchange if the Russians mistook such a weapon for an incoming ICBM.

“We can’t assume that Russia would realize the launch from Alaska was a missile defense interceptor rather than an ICBM. From Russia, the trajectories might appear quite similar, especially if the radar operator was under a great deal of stress or pressure,” Lewis wrote for The Daily Beast.

“It doesn’t matter how Russia’s early warning system ought to work on paper, the reality of the Russian system in practice has been a lot less impressive.”

Joshua H. Pollack, editor of the The Nonproliferation Review and a senior research associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, said that the danger is real.

“Whether they actually would enter Russian airspace is probably less important than whether they break the line of sight of Russia’s early-warning radars,” Pollack said.

“They do appear to plan in terms of launch-on-warning. That’s why I call this scenario ‘Russian Roulette.’”

But how exactly the United States might attempt to shoot down a North Korean missile is scenario dependent.

“In an attack on Hawaii, it seems to me that they might not do so, and ought to be clearly identifiable as being aimed well south of Russian territory if they are detected,” Pollack said.

“In an attack on North America, they almost certainly would be detected by Russian radars.”

While defending against an attack on Hawaii should not cause major issues, shooting down an ICBM that is targeted against the U.S. mainland would be problematic. Indeed, to defend against an attack on Washington D.C.—for example—the intercept might take place over Russia.

“In fact, depending on the target of the attack, the actual engagement could take place above Russia,” Pollack said.

“If interceptors in Alaska are going to try to catch the attack more or less head-on, they’ll have to fly out in the direction of Russia. Someone else might be able to model the geometry of the engagement, but just eyeballing it, I could easily envision it happening over Russia’s Far East. If the interceptors had to launch later and attempt a crossing shot, they could even end up flying out in the direction of European Russia.”

Pavel Podvig, an independent analyst based in Geneva who runs the Russian Nuclear Forces research project disagreed with Lewis and Pollack. Podvig noted that the Russian early warning system is in far better shape today than it was during the 1990s. While a GMD launch from Alaska might cause alarm, the Russian philosophy has been to essentially absorb the first initial blows before launching a retaliatory counterstrike.

“The Russian system is built to ‘absorb’ events like this,” Podvig told The National Interest.

“We don’t have hard data, of course, but my understanding is that even at the height of the Cold War the Soviet Union would have chosen to get a single hit—or maybe even a few—rather than launch its missiles in response, especially in a ‘bolt out of the blue’ situation. Having said that, things do happen and a real-world situation may introduce factors that nobody can predict or control. Coincidences of various kind are possible and the command and control system may react in unpredictable ways. So, the real answer is, we don’t know.”

The Russians, however, are not too worried by the prospect of discarded American interceptors landing on their soil. However, Moscow would likely want to be consulted because the interceptors might set off Russia’s ballistic missile early warning system (BMEWS).

“Basically, we would be happy to see them on our soil for study,” Vasily Kashin, a senior fellow at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, told The National Interest.

“Anyway, the chance of them hitting in a populated area in the Russian Far East is extremely small. But of course there is a BMEWS issue, so it is better to hold consultations and establish info exchange mechanism.”

What is surprising to the Russians is that the United States did not install a self-destruct system on the GMD interceptors to prevent the missiles from landing where they should not.

“The fact that it does not have self destruct is surprising,” Kashin said.

“And I am not sure anyone here knew about that.”

Indeed, Lewis flatly stated that the GMD interceptor does not have a self-destruct mechanism while Pollack explained that the weapon is a kinetic kill vehicle with no warhead.

“I’ve never heard of any self-destruct mechanism on GMD’s interceptors,” Pollack said.

“They’re lightweight, hit-to-kill systems that don’t involve any explosives.”

The question that remains, of course, is even if there was a consultative body set up between the United States and Russia, would there be enough time to use such a mechanism?

According to Lewis, the answer is probably not.

“The timeline for a missile defense intercept is so tight—just a few minutes—that the president probably won’t even know about an intercept until after it happens,” Lewis wrote.

Thus, at the end of the day, the United States should probably consult with Russia about the possibility of intercepting North Korean ICBMs over Moscow’s territory and set up an agreement ahead of time. But even then, during a real intercept attempt, the United States will likely have to count on Russia’s early warning system operating correctly and the Kremlin’s restraint to avoid an unintended nuclear war.

Catalonia’s separatist campaign has dominated European headlines for the past couple of weeks, but it’s really the northern Belgian region of Flanders which will serve as a barometer over whether large chunks of the EU will fall apart into a collection of identity-centric statelets prior to the bloc’s reconstitution into a “federation of regions”.

What’s going on in Catalonia is of paramount importance to the geopolitical future of Europe, since it could very well serve as the catalyst for fracturing the EU if copycat movements elsewhere are emboldened by the Spanish region’s possible separatist success. This was explained in detail in the author’s recent analysis about “The Catalan Chain Reaction”, which readers should familiarize themselves with if they’re not already acquainted with the thesis put forth in that work. To concisely summarize, there’s a very distinct possibility that the EU’s liberal-globalist elite have been planning to divide and rule the continent along identity-based lines in order to further their ultimate goal of creating a “federation of regions”.

Catalonia is the spark that could set off this entire process, but it could also just be a flash in the pan that might end up being contained no matter what its final result may be. Flanders, however, is much different because of the heightened symbolism that Belgium holds in terms of EU identity, and the dissolution of this somewhat artificially created state would be the clearest sign yet that the EU’s ruling elite intend to take the bloc down the direction of manufactured fragmentation. Bearing this in mind, the spread of the “Catalan Chain Reaction” to Belgium and the inspiration that this could give to Flanders to break off from the rest of the country should be seen as the true barometer over whether or not the EU’s “nation-states” will disintegrate into a constellation of “Balkanized” ones.

“The First Bosnia”

In order to properly understand the state of affairs at play, it’s necessary to briefly review the history of what could in some sense be described as “The First Bosnia”, or in other words, Europe’s “first artificially created state”. Most of the territory of what is nowadays referred to as Belgium was unified with the modern-day Netherlands from 1482-1581 when the political entity was referred to as the Habsburg Netherlands. The southern part (Belgium) came under Spanish control from 1581-1714 when it was called the Spanish Netherlands. Afterwards, it passed under Austrian administration from 1714-1797 when it became the Austrian Netherlands prior to its brief incorporation into the First French Republic and later Empire from 1797-1815. It was during the Spanish and Austrian eras that Belgium began to consider Catholicism as an inseparable part of its national identity in opposition to the Netherland’s Protestantism. Finally, Belgium was part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands from 1815-1839 until the Belgian Revolution made it an independent state for the first time in its history.

In essence, what ended up happening is that a majority-Catholic but ethno-linguistically divided population got caught up in the 19^th century’s wave of nationalism and created a hybrid Franco-Dutch state that would eventually federalize in the late-20^th century, in a structural sense serving as a precursor to the dysfunctional Balkan creation of Bosnia almost a century and a half later.

It’s important to mention that the territory of what would eventually become Belgium had regularly been a battleground between the competing European powers of the Netherlands, the pre-unification German states, France, the UK, and even Spain and Austria during their control of this region, and this new country’s creation was widely considered by some to be nothing more than a buffer state. The 1830 London Conference between the UK, France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia saw the Great Power of the time recognize the fledgling entity as an independent actor, with Paris even militarily intervening to protecting it during Amsterdam’s failed “Ten Day’s Campaign” to reclaim its lost southern province in summer 1831. For as artificial of a political construction as Belgium was, it fared comparatively well during the 19^th century as it leveraged its copious coal supplies and geostrategic position to rapidly industrialize and eventually become a genocidal African colonizer in the Congo. Although it was devastated in both World Wars, Belgium was able to bounce back in a relatively short period of time, partly because it could rely on its Congolese prison state.

In The Belly Of The Beast

Flash forward to the present, and the only thing that modern-day Belgium has in common with its past self is its internal divisions. The post-colonial aftermath of “losing the Congo” and shortly beforehand agreeing to host the capital of the European Union opened up previously nationalistic Belgium to liberal-globalist influence, which contributed to what would eventually become its utter domestic dysfunction in recent years. It wasn’t by chance that Brussels was chosen as the EU’s headquarters either, since its inherent weakness was thought to make it an ideal “compromise country” for establishing the bloc’s headquarters, as it would never become as powerful as France, for example, in potentially monopolizing the international organization’s agenda. Again, Belgium’s history as a buffer state/region came into relevant play in positioning it “in the belly of the beast” that’s nowadays reviled by all sorts of individuals across the continent.

The administrative disconnect between its northern region of Flanders and the southern one of Wallonia, as well as what would eventually become its multi-tiered federal, regional, and community structure, was exploited by the EU’s ideologically extreme elite to make the country the centerpiece of their “multicultural experiment”. After decades of facilitating mass migration from civilizationally dissimilar societies of the “Global South”, 5.9% of the country is Muslim while at least an astonishing 20% of Brussels follows Islam. Almost all of the capital’s Muslims are immigrants, mostly from Morocco and Turkey, which isn’t surprising considering that 70% of Brussels’ inhabitants are foreign-born. Unfortunately for the native locals, the “multicultural experiment” has failed miserably, and Belgium is now Europe’s jihadist leader in terms of the per capita number of fighters who have travelled abroad to join Daesh. All things considered, the “utopia” that the Belgians were promised by joining the EU and hosting its headquarters has turned into a dystopia, and the country now finds itself in the belly of the liberal-globalist beast.

It’s little wonder than that some of Belgium’s population wants to escape from the organization which is responsible for their socio-cultural and security challenges, ergo the Flemish independence movement which aims to see the country’s northern region become an independent state because of the lopsided demographic-economic advantage that it has over Wallonia. Flanders contributes four times as much to Belgium’s national economy as Catalonia does to Spain’s, being responsible for a whopping 80% of the country’s GDP as estimated by the European Commission, and it also accounts for roughly two-thirds of Belgium’s total population unlike Catalonia’s one-sixth or so. This means that Flemish independence would be absolutely disastrous for the people living in the remaining 55% of the “Belgian” rump state, which would for all intents and purposes constitute a de-facto, though unwillingly, independent Wallonia. Therefore, it’s important to forecast what could happen if Belgium ultimately implodes with Flanders’ possible secession.

Breaking The Buffer State

This section should appropriately be prefaced by emphasizing that there’s no guarantee that Flanders will actually secede from Belgium, or that it would be successful in holding an unconstitutional referendum such as the one that Catalonia did in attempting to “legitimize” its anti-state ambitions. Furthermore, the Belgian state or its EU superstate overseer might resort to force just as Madrid did in trying to prevent this region’s secession, so the reader shouldn’t take it for granted that Flanders will inevitably become an independent state. Having gotten the “disclaimer” out of the way, however, there’s a very real chance that the “Catalan Chain Reaction” will spread to the “belly of the beast” in catalyzing a similar separatist process in Flanders, hence why the author argued in the introduction that the outcome of such a reenergized post-Catalan movement in this region will be the best barometer in gauging whether the EU’s liberal-globalist elite do indeed plan to “Balkanize” the bloc into an array of regionally “federalized” identity-centric statelets.

Given the domestic and historical particularities of the Belgian case study, it appears likely that Flanders’ successful secession (however it ends up coming about) would lead to a narrow range of geopolitical outcomes for the Western European country. The first one is that Wallonia would be unable to function as a stand-alone “rump”/”independent” state given its measly 20% of unified Belgium’s GDP, its one-third of the previous population, and presumed dependency on Flanders’ port of Antwerp for most economic contact with the “outside world’ aside from France and Germany. For these reasons, it’s conceivable that the French-speaking region could be taken over by France just like how the famous French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord originally envisioned in his unfulfilled eponymous “Talleyrand partition plan” that was first unveiled during the 1830 London Conference. As for Flanders itself, it could either attempt to remain an “independent” state or possibly confederate with the Netherlands, if there was any desire from both parties for this latter option.

Where things get tricky, however, is when it comes to the German-speaking community in eastern Wallonia, which might not want to become part of France. Also, for reasons of sensitive political-historical optics, they probably wouldn’t be able to join Germany because it would carry uncomfortably strong shadows of Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland during the pre-World World II dissolution of Czechoslovakia. Therefore, it’s likely that this sub-region would remain within Wallonia, which itself would probably become part of France, albeit with possible autonomy guaranteed to the German speakers that Paris would be “inheriting”. That said, this isn’t the trickiest part of any Belgian breakup, as the status of Brussels would definitely occupy center stage in this scenario. The EU would be inclined to see to it that its capital becomes an “independent” city-state on par with similarly sized Liechtenstein, though with a much higher and more dangerous Salafist demographic to contend with, one which could make it the “rightful” capital of “Eurabia” if civilizational-geopolitical trends continue in that direction.

Concluding Thoughts

The future of Flanders will be more of a harbinger of the EU’s administrative-political future than Catalonia’s will be, though the latter is indeed the trigger for sparking what might become the former’s emboldened separatist push. If the host country of the EU’s headquarters falls victim to the secessionist trend that might be poised to sweep across the bloc due to the “Catalan Chain Reaction”, then it would confidently indicate that the EU’s ruling liberal-globalist elite are determined to initiate the “controlled Balkanization” of the continent into a constellation of identity-centric statelets so as to ultimately satisfy their long-held goal of implementing a “federation of regions. There is no place in Europe more symbolically significant than Belgium, and especially its jihadist dystopian capital of Brussels, so if the European power structures “allow” Flanders to separate from “the First Bosnia”, then it’s all but certain that the rest of the bloc will feel the geopolitical reverberations within their own borders sooner than later.

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 global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

All images in this article are from the author.

The US-led coalition and the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are negotiating a deal with ISIS terrorists in the city of Raqqah, according to multiple local and opposition sources. According to reports, ISIS units would be allowed to withdraw to Deir Ezzor province where they help their counterparts fighting Syrian government forces.

However, the sides allegedly have some differences over the number of vehicles and arms that ISIS members could take from Raqqah city. By Wednesday, the deal has not been finalized yet.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the US-led coalition released a statement saying that the SDF-linked Raqqah Civil Council and some “Arab tribal elders” work to protect and evacuate civilians from the ISIS-held area. It is not clear how this could be done in a big way without a contact with ISIS.

Some pro-government experts speculated that the evacuation of civilians will be a cover operation for the withdrawal of ISIS members.

On Tuesday, the Russian Defense Ministry accused the US-led coalition of imitating efforts against ISIS in western Iraq. According to the ministry, a low number of the coalition’s airstrikes allow ISIS members to cross the border and join the battle against the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) near the city of al-Mayadin in the province of Deir Ezzor.

The ministry added that 59 ISIS members, 4 battle tanks, 3 armored personnel carriers, 14 vehicles equipped with weapons and 2 rocket launchers were destroyed by Russian airstrikes near al-Mayadin.

Clashes for the city are ongoing.

The SAA and its allies have liberated an area of 8,000km2 and taken control over the entire Jordanian border with Rif Dimashq province, according to pro-government sources. Government forces reportedly cleared the entire area from terrorists.

If it is true, this will allow the army and its allies to free a significant force that can be used against ISIS across Syria. The ISIS-held city of Mayadin and the T-2 Pumping Station are obvious targets for this.

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: Raila Odinga (Source: @RailaOdinga / Twitter)

Kenyan opposition leader of the National Super Alliance (NASA), Raila Odinga, 72, announced on October 10 that he would not participate in the Supreme Court ordered rerun of the national presidential elections initially held on August 8.

Raila Odingda cited the purported lack of reforms within the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) as his reason for sitting out the upcoming poll slated for October 26.

The revote was mandated by a 4-2 Supreme Court decision based upon unsubstantiated claims made by NASA that the internationally-supervised elections held in August were marred by massive fraud leading to a ten point victory by incumbent President Uhuru Kenyatta representing the Jubilee Party. Odinga, a perennial presidential candidate, in all likelihood realized that he had no real chance of scoring a victory in the revote.

Efforts by Odinga to sabotage the second term of President Kenyatta were revealed in the immediate wake of the election where the opposition figure lost by a margin of approximately 54-44 percent. At first Odinga said he would not seek an injunction to overturn the results as he had done in 2013.

However, he would soon change his mind and filed his objections with the Kenyan Supreme Court. In an unprecedented move never before witnessed in Africa, and only three other times around the world, a majority of justices granted the NASA request in September.

New elections were ordered by the court within two months. Both candidates set out once again on the campaign trail.

Opposition Leader Seeks to Generate Civil Unrest

Attempts to mobilize large demonstrations after the declaration of Kenyatta as the winner in the August 8 election–protests which would deliberately target the official Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IBEC)–failed amid charges by the NASA leader that the panel which oversees the voting process was corrupt and rigged in favor of the incumbent and his party. After Odinga said he would not stand again for office on October 26, the Kenyan parliament, dominated by the Jubilee Party of Kenyatta, passed a bill mandating that if the second leading candidate withdraws from an election, the first one would automatically be declared the winner.

Nonetheless, violent clashes did erupt just one day after the announcement of non-participation by Odinga. The NASA coalition called for renewed demonstrations beginning on October 11 and continuing throughout the remaining days of the week.

According to Al Jazeera:

“In Odinga’s western stronghold of Kisumu, thousands of protesters took to the street, blocking roads, setting heaps of tires alight and engaging in running battles with police. In Nairobi, police briefly used tear gas to disperse protesters who threw stones at passing cars. However, the crowd later dispersed peacefully after speeches from opposition leaders, helped along by the first heavy rainfall of the season.” (Oct. 11)

Although some staff changes were made within the IBEC structures, there was no attempt to unseat the Chairperson Wafula Chebukati who had been cited for removal by Odinga. The decision by Odinga has raised even more questions about the necessity of continuing with the second election.

Kenyan hit by armored vehicle on October 11, 2017 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Several other candidates garnered less than one percent of the total votes. However, the Supreme Court ruled on October 10 that Ekuru Aukot, who received 27,000 votes in the August 8 elections, should as well appear on the ballots for the October 26 vote. The IBEC has said that the names of eight candidates will appear on the ballot unless they file an official withdrawal Form 24A.

Odinga notified the IBEC of his withdrawal in writing on October 10. The electoral commission noted that the Form 24A had still not been submitted by the NASA coalition.

Political Uncertainty Impacts National Economy

The cost of organizing another election and the obvious weariness of the international community is partly to blame for the resulting decline in economic indicators. Subsequent to these developments there has been an atmosphere of social uncertainty for the future.

Various monitoring missions were deployed to Kenya for the August 8 election from the United Nations, European Union (EU), African Union (AU), the Carter Center in the U.S., the Common Market of Southern and Eastern Africa (COMESA), among others. The NASA rejection of the outcome and the majority Supreme Court ruling overturning the results, which had been endorsed by leading international delegations, has left these bodies in bewilderment.

Kenya being the largest economy in the East Africa region has been considered a secure destination for foreign investment. Despite the strain in relations with the United States since the ascendancy of President Kenyatta in 2013, the country maintained a growth level of five percent over the last several years (2016).

In an article published by the French Press Agency (AFP) on October 11, the plight of small business people was revealed. These operations have experienced a loss of revenue emanating from the ongoing political controversies involving the August 8 national elections.

George Ochienga and Onyango Owino run a blacksmith shop in the Kibera section of the capital city of Nairobi. Their interviews with the AFP indicated that:

“Election seasons stifle the economy in the country, but this year’s protracted crisis, with many weeks of court disputes and street protests, has been particularly bad for business. Mr. Onyango appears hard at work, hammering a glowing shaft of metal fresh from the forge, but his industry is an illusion. ‘There aren’t many orders so I’m repairing some of my tools,’ he said. In recent weeks Mr. Onyango has been forced to fire two of his five employees.”

This AFP report also points out that the annual growth rates do not completely reflect the reality of the majority of the Kenyan people, many of whom are involved in the manufacturing and service sectors. A negative outlook for the coming months dampens confidence and consequently hampers consumer spending.

The series of interviews and analysis then notes that:

“The thousands of minibus taxis, known as matatus, that ply Nairobi providing transport to the masses reported a 30 percent decline in turnover during September, said Simon Kimutai, president of the Matatu Owners Association. ’People move less, that is very representative,’ he said. Meanwhile, in the upmarket business district of Kilimani, Judy Njogu, an assistant manager at a car dealer, says she is selling fewer than five cars a week, compared with at least 10 in normal times. ‘We have a lot of corporate clients and they are a bit skeptical about spending money right now,’ she said.”

Additional internal and regional problems require the immediate attention of the government which is being plagued by ongoing allegations by opposition forces. There have been additional clashes with suspected members of the Somalia-based Al-Shabaab rebel organization.

Kenya President Uhuru Kenyatta addresses crowd on Sept. 1, 2017 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Gunmen thought to be from neighboring Somalia opened fire on a vehicle carrying staff near the campus of the Technical University of Mombasa. The regional chief of police chief reported that the attack was launched in Ukunda, which is 31 kilometers (19 miles) southwest of Mombasa, the second largest city in the country and a coastal tourist attraction.

Two women staff members at the University died in the attack. Mwangi Kahiro, the acting county commissioner for Kwale County, reported on the ambush in an interview with the Associated Press on October 10. Students in response to the deaths protested against the apparent lack of security in the area.

Somalia is still being occupied by 22,000 troops from the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM). Kenya contributes several thousands of its military personnel to AMISOM which had made it susceptible to repeated armed attacks by the Islamist guerrilla group.

Featured image: President of Togo Faure Gnassignbe

Togolese officials have reportedly issued restrictions on planned demonstrations scheduled to begin October 18. These actions, which have spread broadly across the West African state in recent months, have been a source of concern by the current government.

Fourteen opposition parties and coalitions are united in an effort to force the removal of the regime of Faure Gnassignbe, the president whose father took complete control of the country as a result of a military coup engineered by France during 1967. Togo has a population of 7.8 million people with a tumultuous history of colonization by Germany, France and Britain.

Anti-government forces were mobilizing for marches the following week when the Minister of Territorial administration, Payadowa Boukpessi, announced at a press conference in the capital of Lome that street demonstrations would not be allowed between Monday and Friday. The spokesperson for the government emphasized that people would be allowed to gather at fixed spots instead of taking to the streets in marches.

Providing a rationale for the restrictions, Boukpessi, who stressed on behalf of the administration that:

“There have been calls for civil disobedience, calls for economic sabotage, even calls for murder issued by protesters targeting the authorities and members of their families as well as security services.” (AFP, Oct. 10)

Since the beginning of anti-government demonstrations in August, the country’s internet services have been periodically shutdown by the administration in Lome.

Despite the government claims of violent tendencies of the opposition groups, the Togolese authorities are responsible for several deaths, the wounding and injuring of scores of people along with the arrests, prosecution and imprisonment of leading political activists. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets in the last two months calling attention to the machinations of the government aimed at extending its dominance of political power.

The opposition forces are determined to move forward on the actions slated for October 18 with the intended purpose of bringing large crowds into the streets. Brigitte Kafui Adjamagbo-Johnson, a political leader of one of the anti-regime coalitions, said of the announced restrictions by the government that:

“The fight continues. To this end, we are already announcing, for Wednesday October 18, a big march towards the offices of (the West African regional group) ECOWAS in Lome.”

Adjamagbo-Johnson is a longtime political activist who was the first woman to run for president of Togo in 2010. She has worked on various projects designed to enhance the status of women inside the country.

During the largest anti-government demonstrations on October 4-5, Adjamagbo-Johnson emphasized the willingness to negotiate on the part of the opposition saying:

“We can never say no to dialogue. The president himself has not called for any dialogue despite seeing what is going on in this country. We all know that he has heard our messages that we are sending.” (Africa News, Oct. 5)

Eric Dupuy, the spokesperson for the National Alliance for Change (ANC), reiterated that the demonstrations planned for October 18-19 will proceed as originally announced. Dupuy said that the proper legal requirements for notification were met and consequently there is no basis for the announcement by Boukpessi.

“If the government decides to break the law, the people will not respect it,” the ANC spokesperson said. “Wednesday’s march will end on the esplanade outside the National Assembly. The one on the 19th (Thursday), will finish outside the ECOWAS offices,” the West African regional organization.

In response to the demonstrations, the Togo parliament has quickly passed a draft bill calling for term limits on September 15. The legislation would ostensibly mandate a maximum of two terms of office for the presidency, not retroactively, instead moving forward. Opposition parties have criticized the parliamentary actions noting that it would still allow Gnassingbe to run for an additional two terms office extending his tenure potentially to 2025.

Togo opposition on the march for removal of neo-colonial regime in Lome (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Members and supporters of the ruling Union of the Republic (UNIR) party held its own series of demonstrations in support of President Gnassingbe on September 20-21. UNIR has rejected the claims by the Pan-African National Party (PNP), National Alliance for Change (ANC) and the Group of Six, who are all demanding sweeping political reforms.

Nonetheless, opposition members of parliament refused to support the measures saying they did not go far enough in guaranteeing genuine democratic practice. They are calling for the restoration of the 1992 constitution which grew out of a nationwide process of negotiations, debates and discussions.

In the aftermath of the death of former President Eyadema Gnassingbe in 2005, his son Faure, was installed in contravention to wishes of opposition forces. The present leader is currently serving his third consecutive term in the presidency.

Regional and International Implications of the Togo Crisis

The government of Ghana has realized the potential for the conflict in neighboring Togo to spill over into its territory. Togolese refugees have fled across the border fearing an intensification of the political violence. Ghana has strengthened its security on the border with Togo since the eruption of demonstrations nearly two months ago.

In a joint statement on the situation in Togo, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the African Union (AU), and the United Nations Office for West Africa and the Sahel (UNOWAS) acknowledged that the political tensions in the country requires constant monitoring by regional and international groupings. The unrest in Togo is taking place alongside other developments in West Africa including the secessionist movements in South Cameroon and Southeast Nigeria, along with the killings of several United States Special Forces troops in Niger.

According to an ECOWAS, AU and UNOWAS press release dated October 4:

“The three organizations take note in particular of the passage of the draft constitutional bill to amend relevant articles of the Togolese constitution. They observe that it is an important step in bringing Togo in conformity with democratic norms reflecting best practices in West Africa. ECOWAS, AU and UNOWAS call on the Government to set a date for the organization of the referendum on the draft bill. They encourage the opposition to take this opportunity to further advance the constitutional reforms.”

This same media advisory goes on to say:

“ECOWAS, AU and UNOWAS appeals to all Togolese political stakeholders to pursue dialogue on this important matter in a peaceful manner, in line with the legitimate aspirations of the Togolese people. They call on all actors to show restraint in order to preserve peace and cohesion in the country because Togo is their common heritage.”

On October 10, the opposition refused offers to meet with a delegation from International Organization of La Francophonie (OIF) which arrived in the country in an attempt to mediate the conflict between anti-Gnassingbe parties and the government. OIF is a relic of the Parisian imperialist system from the late 19th century consisting of representatives of 57 member-states who have French as their national language. The organization was relaunched in 1970 to promote joint projects between France and its current as well as former colonies.

The situation in Togo requires drastic moves on the part of the government. Until a more representative system is established unrest will continue.

Growth prospects for the country remain uncertain due to the agrarian nature of the economy where most people work within the agricultural sector. Cocoa and coffee production represents the major exports while phosphate deposits have played an increasing role since 1970s.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Columbus Day was commemorated on Monday. The US federal holiday should have been abandoned long ago. It never should have been established in the first place.

The arrival of Columbus in what’s now the Bahamas and Hispaniola was followed by the mass slaughter of around 100 million native people – the most horrific genocide in human history, continuing for 500 years, before and after what’s now America became a nation.

Columbus sought gold, other riches and slaves for Spain. A second voyage followed the first. Native people were slaughtered throughout the Caribbean.

No gold was found, just hundreds of human beings taken captive, those surviving the journey to Spain sold like sheep or goats, treated like vermin.

Arawak people in the Caribbean deserved better. They were friendly and receptive to new arrivals, greeting them with gifts, food and water, making them feel welcome, much like Native Americans, leaving them vulnerable to the viciousness of conquerors – their first exposure to the scourge of Western civilization.

Swords and daggers later were guns, cannons and other weapons against their peaceful way of life, crude weapons used for hunting, not warfare.

Beginning over 500 years ago, horrors never stopped. A serial killer became an American hero.

In Chapter 1 of his People’s History of the United States, the late historian Howard Zinn explained Arawaks “were much like Indians on the mainland, who were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing.”

They “swam out to greet” their arrival. Columbus took “some of them aboard ship as prisoners because he insisted that they guide him to the source of the gold.”

There was none. He hadn’t reached Asia, as he claimed, marveled at the generosity of native people, willing to share anything they had.

His bounty consisted of hundreds of slaves. Others “were hunted down with dogs and killed,” said Zinn.

“Trying to put together an army of resistance, the Arawaks faced Spaniards who had armor, muskets, swords (and) horses.”

“When the Spaniards took prisoners they hanged them or burned them to death. Among the Arawaks, mass suicides began, with cassava poison.”

“Infants were killed to save them from the Spaniards. In two years, through murder, mutilation, or suicide, half of the 250,000 Indians on Haiti were dead.”

Slaves taken to Spain “were worked at a ferocious pace, and died by the thousands.” Columbus arrived in 1492. “By 1550, there were five hundred (left).”

“A report of the year 1650 shows none of the original Arawaks or their descendants” remained – all exterminated or enslaved, those surviving the rigorous voyage. Many perished.

“Total control led to total cruelty. The Spaniards ‘thought nothing of knifing Indians by tens and twenties and of cutting slices off them to test the sharpness of their blades.’ “ Zinn quoted Bartolome de las Las Casas, a priest participating in the conquest of Cuba.

By 1508, “over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines,” he wrote. “Who in future generations will believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness can hardly believe it…”

Zinn said “(t)hus (was) the history, five hundred years ago, of the European invasion of the Indian settlements in the Americas.”

By some estimates, eight million human beings perished. “When we read the history books given to children in the United States, it all starts with heroic adventure-there is no bloodshed-and Columbus Day is a celebration.”

High school and higher education provide some hints of the horrors officials in America tried suppressing throughout the country’s history.

Columbus historians providing a glimpse into what happened glossed over the horrors, “bur(ied) them in a mass of other information” considered more important, Zinn explained – telling readers:

“(Y)es, mass murder took place, but it’s not that important. It should weigh very little in our final judgments; it should affect very little what we do in the world.”

This distortion of history tries justifying the unjustifiable. It’s too late to undo what happened. It’s easy to say unspeakable atrocities were a “necessary price to pay for progress,” said Zinn.

History is told “from the point of view of governments, conquerors, diplomats (and) leaders.” No one speaks for victims.

“(W)e must not accept the memory of states as our own,” Zinn stressed.

Albert Camus once said thinking people should not be on the side of executioners.

Long ago, belligerents had swords, then rifles and cannons. Today nations have vast armies, supersonic warplanes, ICBMs and thermonuclear bombs able to annihilate millions with a single detonation over a large metropolitan area.

It took 500 years to slaughter 100 million native people in what’s now the Americas. Today it could be done in days with enough WMD detonations.

Humanity has come a long way in honing its killing skills, surviving them given scant attention.

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

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Featured image is from WinCalendar.

Featured image: British colonial forces in Myanmar, known at the time as Burma.

Demonstrations, protests and online petitions have appeared worldwide to defend the struggle of the Rohingya people who have been driven from Myanmar into exile. What is of concern is that political forces with no history of or interest in defending the rights of these oppressed people, including the U.S. and Saudi regimes, have joined this effort.

While he was threatening People’s Korea, Iran and Venezuela in his United Nations speech, U.S. President Donald Trump also demanded that the U.N. Security Council take “strong and swift action” to end violence against Myanmar’s Rohingya population.

U.S. government officials, including U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Vice President Mike Pence, have called for immediate action and delivery of humanitarian aid to the Rohingya.

Since Washington and Riyadh are inflicting a murderous war on millions of people in Yemen, not to mention in other parts of the world, working-class movements and anti-imperialist forces around the globe are asking what is behind their sudden concern for a small ethnic group in Southeast Asia. Could it have something to do with geopolitical maneuvering in Myanmar between China and the U.S.?

As a huge developing economy with central planning, significant state ownership and cash reserves, China is in a position to offer extensive infrastructure development. China’s One Belt One Road project and other economic plans are attracting great interest.

U.S. policy is increasingly geared toward disrupting these development plans with vastly expanded militarization and regional wars. This is the strategy behind the Pentagon’s “Pivot to Asia.” A Western network of nongovernmental organizations and Saudi-backed extremists are part of the disruption.

Myanmar and the Rohingya

Myanmar, earlier called Burma, is a formerly colonized, underdeveloped and extremely diverse nation of 51 million people. It has 135 distinct ethnic groups among its eight nationalities.

Myanmar is a resource-rich, strategically important country bordering China, Bangladesh, India, Thailand and Laos. It’s important to Wall Street banks and U.S. policy makers as a major exporter of natural gas, and there are plans to make it a conduit for oil.

Within Myanmar, the Rohingya people are an oppressed ethnic group of approximately 1 million people. A majority of Rohingya are Muslim, though they make up less than half of Myanmar’s Muslim population, which is scattered throughout the mostly Buddhist country.

The Rohingya are considered stateless. They live in the state of Rakhine, on the Bay of Bengal, and share a long border with Bangladesh.

In articles on Myanmar and the Rohingya, Reuters News (Dec. 16, 2016), Chicago Tribune (Aug. 31), Wall Street Journal (Sept. 13) and the think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (Sept. 7), all reported Saudi support for the Rohingya struggle.

The group carrying out armed resistance in Myanmar, known as Harakah al-Yaqin (HaY, Faith Movement in Arabic) and now called the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, is headquartered in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Ataullah abu Ammar Junjuni, a Pakistani national who lived in Saudi Arabia, is the leader of ARSA. This group led a coordinated attack on 30 Myanmar military posts on Aug. 25.

The Myanmar military responded with a wave of repressive attacks on the Rohingya that drove tens of thousands of people over the border.

U.S./Saudi crimes in Yemen

Meanwhile, the Saudi kingdom is carrying out a genocidal war on Yemen, enforcing a blockade of food and aid against the poorest country in Southwest Asia. This war is only possible using U.S.-made jet aircraft and bombs. The Saudi military cannot fly its own jet aircraft or carry out bombing runs without direct U.S. assistance and in-air refueling. In addition, the Pentagon is now carrying out at least one covert strike every two days in Yemen.

Yemen is caught in “the world’s largest hunger crisis,” which is “man-made” and is starving “an entire generation.” (Washington Post, May 19)  According to U.N. figures, more than 7 million Yemenis are close to famine.

The World Health Organization has warned of “the worst cholera outbreak in the world” in Yemen. (CNN, Oct. 4) The U.N. counted 777,229 cholera cases as of Oct. 2, many of them in children.

Saudi bombing of sanitation and sewage infrastructure in this impoverished country is a major cause of the deadly epidemic. Yet this desperate crisis was not on the U.N.’s agenda, and is barely mentioned in the media as world leaders met in New York in September. The media focus was on Trump’s talk of aiding the Rohingya.

The U.S. State Department has pledged to provide “emergency shelter, food security, nutritional assistance, health assistance, psychosocial support, water, sanitation and hygiene, livelihoods, social inclusion, non-food items, disaster and crisis risk reduction, restoring family links, and protection to over 400,000 displaced persons in Burma and in Bangladesh.”

Remember that the U.S. military is engaged in bombing, drone attacks, targeted assassinations and starvation sanctions against at least eight Muslim countries on any given day: Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provides no rights for any of the peoples living within its borders. Minority religious communities and millions of immigrant workers, even after living there for generations, are not counted as citizens. Its vast oil wealth is owned by one family: the House of Saud.

Saudi Arabia has played its reactionary role by funding extremist groups, often with the quiet support of the U.S., in Afghanistan, Syria and across the Middle East. Increasingly in South Asia, Saudi-influenced political and religious extremism is having an impact.

Saudi Arabia spends over $1 billion to fund 560 Wahhabi mosques and Islamic centers in Bangladesh, which borders  Myanmar. This means a new center of reaction in almost every village and town in Bangladesh. Similar funding has been long underway in India and Pakistan.

U.S. pivot to Asia

U.S. and Saudi support for the Muslim Rohingya is based on the U.S. declared “pivot to Asia.” For U.S. strategists, it is a way to block Chinese influence in a strategic region.

Eighty percent of China’s needed oil and much of its trade passes through the Malacca Straits — a narrow choke-point between Indonesia and Singapore — and into the increasingly tense South China Sea. U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups stationed there could easily blockade this movement of needed resources.

To counter U.S. aggressive moves, China’s development programs are aimed at diversifying and finding ways around a direct confrontation with U.S. military power.

China is building a deep-sea port, industrial park, and gas and oil pipelines at Kyauk Pyu in Myanmar on the Bay of Bengal. This would provide China with an alternative route for energy imports from the Middle East that avoids the Malacca Straits. The multibillion-dollar construction project is also enormously beneficial to Myanmar’s economy, aiding development of its gas fields. U.S. and Saudi intervention in the escalating Rahingya struggle threatens this development project.

There is no region in the developing world, whether in Asia, Africa or Latin America, where U.S. imperialism, in its present stage of decay, plans to assist desperately needed economic development. The U.S. economy is geared to super-profits through war, weapons sales and onerous debt. U.S. imperialism can only continue its domination by disrupting the development of any potential competitors or economic bloc of competitors.

Divide-and-rule tactics

By consciously supporting and inflaming both sides of a national struggle, the cynical Western imperialist powers are employing a longtime divide-and-rule tactic meant to dominate a whole region by becoming the outside arbiter.

U.S. imperialists have done this in many international crises. In Iraq, the U.S. built bases in the Kurdish region while claiming to support the unity of the Iraqi state. Playing on this division has strengthened the ruinous involvement of the Pentagon in the region.

In the Philippines a sudden insurgency of a minority Muslim population on the island of Mindanao has become the latest excuse for the U.S. to offer joint training and stationing of its troops there.

Myanmar refugee camps in Bangladesh may become recruitment areas for the Islamic State group (ISIS) and staging grounds for future interventions, said Forbes, a magazine about corporate finance, last July 11.

Pentagon plans for expanded intervention, coordinated with Saudi organization and funding, can be seen in this warning by the Center for Strategic and International Studies:

“There is legitimate concern that the violence will attract outside forces. Now that thousands of battle-hardened, ISIS-affiliated foreign fighters are seeking new missions beyond a shrinking Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, new opportunities to defend Muslims will inevitably appeal to them.” (Sept. 7)

All the countries of the region, including Bangladesh, Myanmar and China, have every interest in a peaceful reconciliation for the Rohingya people. The region needs coordinated development, not the enormous disruption of war.

This article was originally published by Workers World.

Featured image: British colonial forces in Myanmar, known at the time as Burma.

Demonstrations, protests and online petitions have appeared worldwide to defend the struggle of the Rohingya people who have been driven from Myanmar into exile. What is of concern is that political forces with no history of or interest in defending the rights of these oppressed people, including the U.S. and Saudi regimes, have joined this effort.

While he was threatening People’s Korea, Iran and Venezuela in his United Nations speech, U.S. President Donald Trump also demanded that the U.N. Security Council take “strong and swift action” to end violence against Myanmar’s Rohingya population.

U.S. government officials, including U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Vice President Mike Pence, have called for immediate action and delivery of humanitarian aid to the Rohingya.

Since Washington and Riyadh are inflicting a murderous war on millions of people in Yemen, not to mention in other parts of the world, working-class movements and anti-imperialist forces around the globe are asking what is behind their sudden concern for a small ethnic group in Southeast Asia. Could it have something to do with geopolitical maneuvering in Myanmar between China and the U.S.?

As a huge developing economy with central planning, significant state ownership and cash reserves, China is in a position to offer extensive infrastructure development. China’s One Belt One Road project and other economic plans are attracting great interest.

U.S. policy is increasingly geared toward disrupting these development plans with vastly expanded militarization and regional wars. This is the strategy behind the Pentagon’s “Pivot to Asia.” A Western network of nongovernmental organizations and Saudi-backed extremists are part of the disruption.

Myanmar and the Rohingya

Myanmar, earlier called Burma, is a formerly colonized, underdeveloped and extremely diverse nation of 51 million people. It has 135 distinct ethnic groups among its eight nationalities.

Myanmar is a resource-rich, strategically important country bordering China, Bangladesh, India, Thailand and Laos. It’s important to Wall Street banks and U.S. policy makers as a major exporter of natural gas, and there are plans to make it a conduit for oil.

Within Myanmar, the Rohingya people are an oppressed ethnic group of approximately 1 million people. A majority of Rohingya are Muslim, though they make up less than half of Myanmar’s Muslim population, which is scattered throughout the mostly Buddhist country.

The Rohingya are considered stateless. They live in the state of Rakhine, on the Bay of Bengal, and share a long border with Bangladesh.

In articles on Myanmar and the Rohingya, Reuters News (Dec. 16, 2016), Chicago Tribune (Aug. 31), Wall Street Journal (Sept. 13) and the think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (Sept. 7), all reported Saudi support for the Rohingya struggle.

The group carrying out armed resistance in Myanmar, known as Harakah al-Yaqin (HaY, Faith Movement in Arabic) and now called the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, is headquartered in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Ataullah abu Ammar Junjuni, a Pakistani national who lived in Saudi Arabia, is the leader of ARSA. This group led a coordinated attack on 30 Myanmar military posts on Aug. 25.

The Myanmar military responded with a wave of repressive attacks on the Rohingya that drove tens of thousands of people over the border.

U.S./Saudi crimes in Yemen

Meanwhile, the Saudi kingdom is carrying out a genocidal war on Yemen, enforcing a blockade of food and aid against the poorest country in Southwest Asia. This war is only possible using U.S.-made jet aircraft and bombs. The Saudi military cannot fly its own jet aircraft or carry out bombing runs without direct U.S. assistance and in-air refueling. In addition, the Pentagon is now carrying out at least one covert strike every two days in Yemen.

Yemen is caught in “the world’s largest hunger crisis,” which is “man-made” and is starving “an entire generation.” (Washington Post, May 19)  According to U.N. figures, more than 7 million Yemenis are close to famine.

The World Health Organization has warned of “the worst cholera outbreak in the world” in Yemen. (CNN, Oct. 4) The U.N. counted 777,229 cholera cases as of Oct. 2, many of them in children.

Saudi bombing of sanitation and sewage infrastructure in this impoverished country is a major cause of the deadly epidemic. Yet this desperate crisis was not on the U.N.’s agenda, and is barely mentioned in the media as world leaders met in New York in September. The media focus was on Trump’s talk of aiding the Rohingya.

The U.S. State Department has pledged to provide “emergency shelter, food security, nutritional assistance, health assistance, psychosocial support, water, sanitation and hygiene, livelihoods, social inclusion, non-food items, disaster and crisis risk reduction, restoring family links, and protection to over 400,000 displaced persons in Burma and in Bangladesh.”

Remember that the U.S. military is engaged in bombing, drone attacks, targeted assassinations and starvation sanctions against at least eight Muslim countries on any given day: Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provides no rights for any of the peoples living within its borders. Minority religious communities and millions of immigrant workers, even after living there for generations, are not counted as citizens. Its vast oil wealth is owned by one family: the House of Saud.

Saudi Arabia has played its reactionary role by funding extremist groups, often with the quiet support of the U.S., in Afghanistan, Syria and across the Middle East. Increasingly in South Asia, Saudi-influenced political and religious extremism is having an impact.

Saudi Arabia spends over $1 billion to fund 560 Wahhabi mosques and Islamic centers in Bangladesh, which borders  Myanmar. This means a new center of reaction in almost every village and town in Bangladesh. Similar funding has been long underway in India and Pakistan.

U.S. pivot to Asia

U.S. and Saudi support for the Muslim Rohingya is based on the U.S. declared “pivot to Asia.” For U.S. strategists, it is a way to block Chinese influence in a strategic region.

Eighty percent of China’s needed oil and much of its trade passes through the Malacca Straits — a narrow choke-point between Indonesia and Singapore — and into the increasingly tense South China Sea. U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups stationed there could easily blockade this movement of needed resources.

To counter U.S. aggressive moves, China’s development programs are aimed at diversifying and finding ways around a direct confrontation with U.S. military power.

China is building a deep-sea port, industrial park, and gas and oil pipelines at Kyauk Pyu in Myanmar on the Bay of Bengal. This would provide China with an alternative route for energy imports from the Middle East that avoids the Malacca Straits. The multibillion-dollar construction project is also enormously beneficial to Myanmar’s economy, aiding development of its gas fields. U.S. and Saudi intervention in the escalating Rahingya struggle threatens this development project.

There is no region in the developing world, whether in Asia, Africa or Latin America, where U.S. imperialism, in its present stage of decay, plans to assist desperately needed economic development. The U.S. economy is geared to super-profits through war, weapons sales and onerous debt. U.S. imperialism can only continue its domination by disrupting the development of any potential competitors or economic bloc of competitors.

Divide-and-rule tactics

By consciously supporting and inflaming both sides of a national struggle, the cynical Western imperialist powers are employing a longtime divide-and-rule tactic meant to dominate a whole region by becoming the outside arbiter.

U.S. imperialists have done this in many international crises. In Iraq, the U.S. built bases in the Kurdish region while claiming to support the unity of the Iraqi state. Playing on this division has strengthened the ruinous involvement of the Pentagon in the region.

In the Philippines a sudden insurgency of a minority Muslim population on the island of Mindanao has become the latest excuse for the U.S. to offer joint training and stationing of its troops there.

Myanmar refugee camps in Bangladesh may become recruitment areas for the Islamic State group (ISIS) and staging grounds for future interventions, said Forbes, a magazine about corporate finance, last July 11.

Pentagon plans for expanded intervention, coordinated with Saudi organization and funding, can be seen in this warning by the Center for Strategic and International Studies:

“There is legitimate concern that the violence will attract outside forces. Now that thousands of battle-hardened, ISIS-affiliated foreign fighters are seeking new missions beyond a shrinking Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, new opportunities to defend Muslims will inevitably appeal to them.” (Sept. 7)

All the countries of the region, including Bangladesh, Myanmar and China, have every interest in a peaceful reconciliation for the Rohingya people. The region needs coordinated development, not the enormous disruption of war.

This article was originally published by Workers World.

Featured image: OPCW Director-General Ahmet Üzümcü (Source: OPCW)

In the margins of the 86th Session of the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), a ceremony to mark the completion of the destruction of the Russian Federation’s chemical weapons took place today at the residence of Ambassador Alexander Shulgin, the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW. The Permanent Representatives and delegates from States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and OPCW Technical Secretariat staff attended the ceremony.

The Head of the Russian National Authority, Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade, Mr Georgy Kalamanov, delivered a statement expressing his thanks to the OPCW and States Parties for supporting the destruction programme.

OPCW Director-General, Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü, acknowledged the remarkable achievement by the Russian Federation and presented a memorable certificate to Deputy Minister Kalamanov marking the full destruction of the 39,967 metric tons of Russian chemical weapons. He also gave a commemorative plate to General Viktor Kholstov to recognise his personal commitment to and efforts in achieving this milestone.

The OPCW’s inspection teams have verified the destruction at seven chemical weapons destruction facilities in the Russian Federation. On 27 September 2017, the last of these facilities, located in Kizner, officially concluded its operations.

With the total elimination of Russia’s declared chemical weapons programme, 96.3 per cent of all chemical weapon stockpiles declared by possessor States have been destroyed under OPCW verification.

Background

As the implementing body for the Chemical Weapons Convention, the OPCW oversees the global endeavour to permanently eliminate chemical weapons. Since the Convention’s entry into force in 1997 – with its 192 States Parties – it is the most successful disarmament treaty eliminating an entire class of weapons of mass destruction.

For its extensive efforts in eliminating chemical weapons, the OPCW received the 2013 Nobel Prize for Peace.

Featured image: Catalan premier Carles Puigdemont (Source: Government of Catalonia)

Speaking Tuesday evening before the Catalan parliament in Barcelona, regional premier Carles Puigdemont announced that Catalonia would secede from Spain, in line with the result of the October 1 Catalan independence referendum. However, he put off a formal declaration of independence for now and requested negotiations with the central government in Madrid. The Popular Party (PP) government of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has declared the referendum illegal and treasonous and ruled out talks with Puigdemont.

The contradictory announcement, coming after Puigdemont reportedly took calls from politicians from across Europe, left the European political situation in a highly unstable and explosive state, with Spain teetering on the verge of military rule and civil war.

Puigdemont delivered his speech amid an unfolding Spanish military and police intervention into Catalonia and the looming threat of a crackdown even bloodier than that carried out on October 1, the day of the referendum. At that time, 16,000 Guardia Civil assaulted peaceful voters and smashed polling places in a failed attempt to halt the referendum, shocking the world as videos emerged of police beating civil servants and voters, including elderly women. Since then, however, the Spanish military-police presence has been considerably reinforced.

European Union officials and heads of government are continuing to make clear their support for Rajoy’s repression. French President Emmanuel Macron yesterday denounced the “economic egotism” of the Catalan independence movement, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman announced on Monday that she had contacted Rajoy to give her support.

Spanish army logistics units and at least 6,000 more national police have deployed to the region since October 1, taking over Catalonia’s ports and Barcelona’s El Prat Airport. Amid reports that the Spanish Interior Ministry is planning to arrest Puigdemont, several Special Forces units, including the Special Operations Group (GEO) of the police and the Guardia Civil ’s Rapid Action Group (GAR) and Special Intervention Unit (UEI), have made preparations to intervene.

On Monday, a spokesman for Rajoy’s PP government said that Puigdemont could end up like Lluís Companys, who was jailed in 1934 after proclaiming a Catalan state within Spain. In 1940, Companys was captured by the Gestapo in Nazi-occupied Paris and handed over to the Spanish fascist regime of Francisco Franco, which executed him by firing squad.

On Tuesday, Catalan regional police, the Mossos d’Esquadra, closed down the grounds surrounding the parliament before Puigdemont spoke. They are now carrying out round-the-clock protection of Catalan cabinet members, including Puigdemont. These Catalan government officials are traveling in unmarked cars, El Confidencial reported, to prevent Spanish police from grabbing and arresting them.

Puigdemont spoke at 7 pm, arguing that relations between Catalonia and the rest of Spain had irretrievably broken down. He thanked those who organized or voted in the October 1 referendum, recalled the police assault that day, which wounded over 800 people, and declared that the Catalan issue was no longer an internal Spanish matter, but a European issue. He then said that the Spanish political order that emerged from the 1978 Transition from the Francoite regime to parliamentary democracy had failed the Catalan population.

Citing Catalonia’s role as an “economic motor” of Spain, which, he claimed, helped consolidate democracy, he indicated that Catalans had believed the 1978 Constitution would provide them with a framework for progress. Laying out the Catalan government’s attempts to rewrite its autonomy statutes over the last decade, which were repeatedly vetoed by Spanish courts, he argued that Catalonia was now moving backward from 1978.

Puigdemont cited the October 1 referendum—which produced an 89 percent vote for independence, but on the basis of a voter turnout of just 42 percent—as a binding vote, requiring him to declare an independent Catalan republic. However, he said that he would suspend Catalan independence “several weeks” in response to international demands that he accept mediation with Madrid.

The Spanish government responded to Puigdemont on Tuesday through Vice-Premier Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría, who flatly rejected all calls for mediation. She reiterated the PP’s insistence that the referendum and the Catalan law on which it was based were illegal, and that there could be no negotiations with the Catalan separatists.

“Neither Mr. Puigdemont nor anyone else can draw conclusions from a law that does not exist, a referendum that did not occur, and from a will of the Catalan people that, yet again, they are trying to seize and make their own,” she said. Adding that there could be no mediation, she announced, “Tomorrow, the leader of the government will bring together the council of ministers to discuss our next steps.”

Rajoy is due to make a statement on the Catalan crisis today after the council of ministers meeting, at 4 pm.

The only force that can provide a progressive resolution of this crisis is the working class. The brutal policy of the Spanish state and the national bourgeoisie of using violence and repression to forcibly hold Catalonia within Spain is reactionary and must be opposed by workers across the Iberian Peninsula, Spanish and Catalan alike, together with workers throughout Europe and internationally. The demand must be raised for the immediate withdrawal of all national police and military forces from Catalonia.

With the support of the Spanish Socialist Party, the PSOE, the right-wing Rajoy regime is seeking to whip up nationalist sentiment and encourage Francoite fascistic forces in order to prepare a military crackdown not only against the Catalan masses, but also the working class in the rest of the country. This is its solution to the desperate and worsening crisis of Spanish and European capitalism.

But the Catalan separatist bourgeoisie and its middle-class allies offer no democratic or progressive alternative. They seek a separate capitalist state in order to establish more lucrative relations with the imperialist powers on the basis of more intense austerity, using Catalan workers as cheap labor to attract foreign investment. They whip up Catalan nationalism the better to divide the working class and exploit their “own” workers.

Only the independent mobilization of the working class in Spain and across Europe, in struggle against capitalism and the danger of dictatorship, on a socialist and internationalist perspective, offers a way forward.

The basic problems facing the broad mass of the Catalan and Spanish populations are rooted not in national, but class oppression. The majority of the Catalan population that did not participate in the October 1 referendum includes large sections of the working class that oppose secession.

What is unfolding is not a crisis simply of the 1978 Spanish Constitution, but of European and world capitalism. The budget battles and fights over regional autonomy between the ruling elites in Madrid and Barcelona unfolded over a decade, as the EU reacted to the global financial collapse with massive bank bailouts financed by devastating austerity measures against the working class across Europe. The formation of a Catalan capitalist republic, led by politicians who have long supported austerity and imperialist war, will do nothing to resolve this international crisis.

There is every indication that Madrid, working with Washington and the major EU powers, is now preparing its political strategy to justify a new crackdown. There is extensive discussion in the Spanish media of applying either Article 155 or 116 of the Spanish Constitution to suspend Catalan regional self-government and basic democratic rights. This would pave the way for a rapid extension of military rule not only in Catalonia, but across all of Spain.

A major element of this crackdown would be the closing down of Internet and social media accounts to censor information and block protests. Yesterday, Madrid suspended the Twitter accounts used by two Catalan nationalist organizations, the Catalan National Assembly and Omnium, to communicate with their supporters.

Madrid is preparing a bitter clash with the Catalan nationalists and their supporters, many of whom sharply criticized Puigdemont for not immediately declaring independence. Puigdemont delayed his appearance yesterday for one hour as he negotiated with the petty-bourgeois nationalist Candidatures of Popular Unity (CUP), which has supported Puigdemont’s austerity budgets in the Catalan parliament. The CUP ultimately boycotted his speech, however.

CUP deputy Anna Gabriel took the floor later to criticize Puigdemont, declaring,

“We believe that today was the opportunity to solemnly proclaim the Catalan republic and that we perhaps missed an opportunity.”

Issuing a hollow pledge to continue with a Catalan separatist program until it produces “class and gender liberation,” she concluded:

“We came to make a republic.”

Spain’s Podemos party is again playing the central role in blocking an independent mobilization of the working class against the danger of a crackdown and military rule, instead adopting an impotent policy of issuing moral appeals to Rajoy and the PP to negotiate with Barcelona.

Podemos General Secretary Pablo Iglesias applauded Puigdemont’s decision to suspend independence. He asked Rajoy to negotiate based on the recognition that “Spain is pluri-national and the Catalan people deserve to be listened to.”

A elite brasileira sempre foi antissocial, antinacional e antide­mocrática. Florestan Fernandes (1920-95)

A luta política é também uma batalha por impor uma narrativa sobre o passado, o presente e o porvir, uma vez que é uma narrativa sobre o tempo que virá. Silvia Adoue, professora da UNESP e da Escola Nacional Florestan Fernandes

Quem controla o passado, controla o futuro. George Orwell, político inglês.

Povo que esquece seu passado, está condenado a vivê-lo novamente. Nicolás Avellaneda, jurista argentino (1837-85)

Subitamente, sua casa foi invadida por mais de uma dezena de homens, armados com fuzis, metralhadoras e pistolas. Afinal, tratava-se de subversivos de alta periculosidade. O resultado: mãe e casal de filhos são sequestrados por agentes do Estado.

Seria possível qualificar esses agentes do Estado, em pleno exercício da função, como sequestradores? Não havia acusação formal contra a mãe, e os filhos não tinham mais do que sete anos de idade. A ação poderia ser considerada ilícita? De forma alguma: eles agiam em nome da Segurança Nacional, eram arautos da democracia contra a agitação comunista.

A mulher subversiva e seus filhos são levados a um espaço estatal de custódia. Os pequenos são imediatamente separados da mãe, que é conduzida à sala de interrogatório – este era o nome “técnico-jurídico” do recinto. Os agentes querem saber o paradeiro de seu marido, tido como um perigoso perturbador da ordem.

Ele havia fugido de casa sem dizer para onde ia nem quando voltava. Depois disso, não se falaram mais.

Mesmo sem ter ideia da localização do marido, essa mulher foi, durante três dias, submetida a espancamento, afogamento, choques elétricos na língua, mamilos e genitálias, teve o corpo queimado com pontas de cigarro e colocado no pau-de-arara. Todos expedientes legítimos. Afinal de contas, eram métodos de interrogatório, utilizados para viabilizar a prisão do criminoso. Como ela não “abria o bico”, ameaçaram torturar seus filhos. Tinham de obter informações, e rápido.

Os filhos foram conduzidos até a porta de uma sala. Quando aberta, depararam-se com uma mulher nua, sentada na Cadeira do Dragão – cadeira de metal para choques elétricos em sessões de interrogatório -, desacordada, o rosto disforme. Diante da cena, começaram a chorar; ficaram com medo, queriam ir embora. A “massa de carne” desertou com o choro das crianças. Quando abriu os olhos viu que eram seus filhos. Desesperada com o que poderia ser feito contra eles, chamou-os. As crianças reconheceram a voz e perceberam que o monstro disforme era sua mãe.

Tempos depois, já adultas, procuraram o Estado brasileiro em busca da “Bolsa Ditadura”.

(Revista Le Monde Diplomatique – Brasil, artigo Julgar os Crimes da Ditadura, de Rodrigo Gonçalves, pgs. 24 e 25 / Novembro de 2008)

Na invasão da Universidade de Brasília, militares confiscaram como indícios de subversão comunista: O Vermelho e o Negro, romance do escritor francês Stendhal (1783 – 1842); a revista de arquitetura Comunitas; e maior prova de comunização apresentada à imprensa, uma bandeira da China que encontraram hasteada na Faculdade de Educação – só que era do Japão, em homenagem a crianças japonesas que ali expunham gravuras.

Poucas cidades registraram violências como a capital pernambucana – civis agredidos e até mortos em passeata. O líder camponês Gregório Bezerra, septuagenário, levou coronhadas e lhe queimaram os pés com soda. O coronel Vilocq amarrou-o com cordas e obrigou soldados a puxá-lo pelas ruas, enquanto o xingava e espancava com uma vareta de ferro, chamando o povo para ver “o enforcamento do comunista”. Religiosos, horrorizados, ligaram para o general Justino Alves Bastos, que impediu o suplício final.

“O golpe sai vencedor. Autoridades organizam em Porto Alegre uma exposição com material dito subversivo, apreendido em casas de esquerdistas e militantes em geral. Lá está um livro, bem antigo, e ao lado a legenda: ‘Livro Subversivo’, em chinês.” Era uma Bíblia, em hebraico.

(Revista Caros Amigos – A Ditadura Militar no Brasil, nº 1)

Às vésperas do golpe militar de 1964 no Brasil, o mundo vivia o auge da Guerra Fria entre os Estados Unidos e a ex-União Soviética: os gastos militares nesses países atingiam seus maiores números, e a Revolução Cubana de 1959 causara grande impacto na política norte-americana na América Latina, onde a oposição ao sistema norte-americano intensificava-se. Anos mais tarde, o presidente norte-americano Richard Nixon (1969-1974) diria: “Para o lado que pendesse o Brasil, para lá seguiria toda a América Latina”.

Dentro do Brasil, Getúlio Vargas (1950-1954) iniciou o mandato buscando manter contato cordial com os EUA. Em 1951, quando a Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU) solicitou ao Brasil o envio de tropas para combater os comunistas na Coréia, o governo brasileiro, que dentro do país combatia duramente o comunismo, negou-se a participar do conflito. Isso começou a gerar mal-estar nos norte-americanos. Somado a isso a política nacionalista, restrição drástica do capita estrangeiro, que deveria estar associado a capitais nacionais para entrar no país, e a limitação da remessa de lucros das multinacionais para o exterior, as elites, os militares e o governo dos EUA passaram a criar ambiente propício a um golpe de Estado. Em 1953, criou a Petrobras, empresa estatal que monopolizou a extração e a refinaria de petróleo. A partir de então, o clima no Brasil tornou-se mais hostil.

Em 1954, após tentativa de assassinato de um opositor de Vargas e acusação de que o presidente seria o mandante do crime, houve o Manifesto dos Coronéis:

“O povo está na rua reclamando a punição dos criminosos, exigindo justiça. Temos agora, mais do que nunca, que exigir do presidente a renúncia do cargo que ele não soube honrar (…). A conclusão já é certa e obrigatória: não é necessário maior apuração dos fatos. A responsabilidade moral do presidente da república! Esta é definitiva (…). [Ele] está moralmente incapacitado de presidir este inquérito, dadas as suspeitas [grifo nosso] que recaem sobre sua excelência e pessoas de sua família (…). A renúncia é a solução que afastará a possibilidade de subversão, anarquia e golpe”.

Na manhã de 24 de agosto do mesmo ano, Getúlio Vargas suicidou-se no Palácio do Catete, no Rio de Janeiro. Grandes manifestações populares garantiram, de certa maneira, que a transição do poder se desse dentro da legalidade, e João Café Filho assumiu a presidência, adiando o golpe militar por dez anos.

Em 1960 Jânio Quadros presidente, pelo PTN (Partido Trabalhista Nacional) e João Goulart vice, pelo PTB (Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro). Naquela época, elegia-se presidente e vice separada e diretamente pelo voto popular. Jânio e Goulart receberam de Juscelino Kubitschek (1956-1960) grande e crescente dívida externa, alto índice de inflação e, consequentemente, grande instabilidade social.

A modernização tecnológica implantada por Kubitschek, através da construção de hidrelétricas, da instalação da indústria automobilística e da inauguração da Brasília, criou grandes concentrações urbanas, que passavam a se organizar em sindicatos para exigir seus direitos. O Plano de Metas de Kubitshek deixou totalmente de lado a educação e a agricultura, abriu a economia ao capital estrangeiro e acentuou a concentração de renda.

Jânio ficou apenas sete meses no cargo de presidente. Havia sido vereador, prefeito e governador de São Paulo. Mantendo sua peculiar personalidade moralizante austera e cheio de carisma, assumiu o posto criticando duramente a situação por que atravessava o país. No plano econômico, impôs medidas de combate à inflação através de reforma cambial, restrição ao crédito, redução dos subsídios ao trigo e ao petróleo, o que atraiu o FMI, facilitando a negociação da dívida externa e a obtenção de novos empréstimos. Tais medidas de Jânio acabaram levando à recessão e maior descontentamento popular, mais inflamado ainda com a proibição de biquíni nas praias e de uso do lança-perfume no Carnaval.

Ao mesmo tempo que houve aproximação do FMI, Jânio buscava maior independência dos EUA, considerando a possibilidade de formar bloco autônomo com a Argentina.

Somado a tudo isso a condecoração do presidente a Che Guevara, uma ofensa à elite brasileira já que o guerrilheiro argentino foi um dos principais heróis da Revolução Cubana, gerando mais instabilidade ao governo e, alegando “pressão de forças terríveis”, Jânio surpreendeu toda a nação com pedido de renúncia, em 24 de agosto de 1961.

Além de toda a agitação social e sérios problemas econômicos, ao novo governo foram acrescidos os gastos militares com a crise provocada pela renúncia: os militares tentaram impedir que João Goulart, popularmente conhecido como Jango, assumisse a presidência, apoiados em incandescente discurso anti-comunista já que o novo governante possuía ideologia progressista, com tendências bem distintas às de Jânio. Jango trazia na bagagem histórico de apoio à causa popular: como Ministro do Trabalho de Getúlio Vargas (1950-1954), aprovou aumento de 100 por cento no salário mínimo, apostando na inserção da massa ao mercado como motor do desenvolvimento – nunca mais, até hoje, a participação dos trabalhadores na renda nacional voltaria a ser tão grande, percentualmente.

Perante a crise instaurada pelos militares quanto à posse de Jango, o Congresso Nacional propôs solução conciliatória: a mudança do regime político do país, do presidencialismo ao parlamentarismo. Deste modo, Jango, apoiado amplamente pela população, assume a presidência a 7 de setembro de 1961, em um momento dos mais delicados da história do Brasil, dividindo os poderes com Tancredo Neves do PSD (Partido Social-Democrático), primeiro-ministro por lei até 1965, quando haveria plebiscito para decidir pela continuidade do sistema ou retorno ao presidencialismo. Aceitando a medida de mudança do regime, Jango acabou facilitando a penetração de conspiradores do golpe militar para dentro de seu governo. “Viajo à capital sem marcar com o sangue generoso das famílias brasileiras as escadas que conduzem a Brasília”, disse o novo presidente.

Enquanto a inflação seguia subindo e o crescimento do PIB caía ainda mais, Jango segue de imediato as orientações do FMI, de combate à inflação, pagamento das dívidas, reequilíbrio das contas públicas, aumento da arrecadação de impostos e corte de despesas, um programa de estabilização impopular chamado de Plano Trienal, abandonado poucos meses depois sem apresentar resultados significativos.

Em janeiro de 1962, com amplo apoio popular, é antecipado o plebiscito relativo à manutenção ou não do parlamentarismo, e o presidencialismo vence com 10 dos 12 milhões de votos, o que significou mais de 90%. Logo, Jango recorreu a medidas nacionalistas e progressistas: reforma da Constituição, criação do Comando Geral dos Trabalhadores (CGT), reforma agrária, criação do 13º salário mínimo e da aposentadoria dos trabalhadores rurais (os quais viviam em situação de total abandono no campo). Tudo isso desafiava as recomendações da diplomacia dos EUA onde o Congresso, dominado por republicanos, e a classe empresarial pressionavam o presidente John Kennedy para ser mais rigoroso em sua política para com o Brasil. E a elite brasileira temia as reformas de base, apoiadas pela sociedade brasileira.

Enquanto no Brasil a oposição conservadora – a UDN (União Democrática Nacional), setores militares, e a Igreja Católica – isola-se, fora do país seguia o descontentamento norte-americano: em fevereiro, irritou-os mais ainda a encampação da International Telephone and Telegraph(IT&T) por parte de Leonel Brizola, governador do Rio Grande do Sul. O espectro do golpe estava vivo aqui, nos quartéis, nos gabinetes do Congresso, na imprensa, nas entidades empresariais e latifundiárias, e também na embaixada norte-americana, que olhava com total desconfiança o governo local. Desde 1961, houve multiplicação fora do comum de pedido de visto de cidadãos norte-americanos no Departamento de Estado daquele país para o Brasil, que entravam aqui como religiosos, jornalistas, comerciantes, etc. Há registros do IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística) de que apenas em 1963 chegaram ao país 5 mil norte-americanos, somente dentre os que entraram legalmente. O embaixador dos EUA no Brasil, Lincoln Gordon, afirmou que à época do golpe de 64 havia “dezenas de milhares” de norte-americanos no Brasil. No início dos anos 1960, chegou ao Brasil Daniel Mitrioni, que houvera chefiado a Polícia de Richmond, Indiana, EUA. Tendo sido treinado pelo FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), a Polícia secreta norte-americana, Mitrioni era especialista em técnicas de tortura – encerraria sua missão no Brasil em 1964.

Sucederam-se restrições econômico-financeiras por parte dos EUA. Empréstimos aprovados antes da posse de João Goulart só foram liberados parcialmente – de uma remessa de US$ 338 milhões aprovada em 1961, apenas US$ 40 milhões foram entregues. Quando Jango aprovou no Congresso em setembro do ano seguinte a Lei de Remessa de Lucros, sancionada em 1964, que restringia a 10% a remessa de lucros para o exterior do capital registrado, cresceu o furor do empresariado contra o presidente da República. O embaixador Gordon protestou com o presidente Jango por causa dessa medida – grande absurdo um cônsul discutir com um presidente qual lei deve vigorar dentro do país.

Em outubro de 1962, quando houve a crise entre EUA e Cuba devido às instalações de mísseis soviéticos na ilha latino-americana, o governo norte-americano cobrou de Jango uma atitude através de uma carta:

“Vamos trabalhar juntos pela segurança do continente”. Jango enviou em retorno amistosa mas direta carta a Kennedy recusando o pedido, alegando que a diplomacia brasileira partia do princípio de não-intervenção a outros países, respeitando sua soberania mas colocando-se à disposição para mediação entre os dois países. Entre outras coisas, a carta também dizia: “Acreditamos que o conflito ideológico entre o Ocidente e o Oriente não poderá e não deverá ser resolvido militarmente, pois de uma guerra nuclear, se salvássemos a nossa vida, não lograríamos salvar, quer vencêssemos, quer fôssemos vencidos, a nossa razão de viver.

“(…) É pois, compreensível que desagrade profundamente à consciência do povo brasileiro, qualquer forma de intervenção em um Estado americano, inspirada na alegação de incompatibilidade com o seu regime político, para lhe impor a prática do sistema representativo por meios coercitivos externos.

“(…). O Brasil é um país democrático, em que o povo e governo condenam e repelem o comunismo internacional, mas onde se fazem sentir ainda perigosas pressões reacionárias, que procuram, sob o disfarce de anticomunismo, defender posições sociais e privilégios econômicos, contrariando, desse modo, o próprio processo democrático de nossa evolução.

“(…) E nada seria mais perigoso do que vera OEA ser transformada em sua índole e no papel que até aqui desempenhou, para passar a servir a fins ao mesmo tempo anticomunistas e antidemocráticos, divorciando-se da opinião latino-americana.

“(…) Isso acabou irritando mais ainda os norte-americanos.”

Na embaixada dos EUA era frequente a visita de militares e empresários brasileiros pedindo ajuda econômica nos anos de Jango. E o jornalista Paulo Pereira Leite obteve em 2000 a transcrição, publicada no mesmo ano no jornal Gazeta Mercantil, de uma fita instalada no Salão Oval da Casa Branca em 30 de junho de 1962, onde o presidente norte-americano John Kennedy, seu assessor Richard Goodwin e o embaixador Lincoln Gordon, comentaram a preocupação com o governo Goulart. Na conversa, eles comentam a possibilidade de intervir economicamente nas eleições de outubro no Brasil, propondo uma quantia de US$ 8 milhões em favor dos candidatos alinhados às diretrizes de Washington. Kennedy achou alto demais o valor, que acabou sendo de US$ 5 milhões. No ano seguinte, houve uma CPI desmascarando a operação ilegal, descobrindo que os dólares entravam no país através do Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Boston e First National City Bank, com colaboração de empresas como Shell, Coca-Cola, IBM e Texaco. O dinheiro que deveria ser entregue ao governo de Goulart acabou sendo repassado aos cofres de seus adversários. Quanto ao resultado das eleições, o envio de dinheiro não adiantou muita coisa: a bancada “da esquerda” aumentou.

A CIA elaborou até um plano para assassinar Jango, afirma o professor Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira em seu prefácio ao livro 1964: A CIA e a Técnica do Golpe de Estado, de Túlio Velho Barreto e Laurindo Ferreira (Ed. Massangana):

“Em 10 de outubro de 1963, à mesma época em que o Grupo Especial do Conselho de Segurança Nacional dos Estados Unidos autorizara novas operações de sabotagem em Cuba, os soldados do 1º Batalhão da Polícia do Exército brasileiro, sob o comando do major Ary Abrahão Ellis, vasculharam um sítio em Jacarepaguá (Rio de Janeiro), perto de uma propriedade de Goulart, e descobriram 10 metralhadorasThompson, calibre 45, 20 carregadores, 72 caixas de cartuchos Remington Kleanbore 45, 10 granadas Federal Blast Dispersion Tear Gas(CN) e um radiotransmissor Motorola, marcado com o símbolo do programa Ponto IV, da embaixada dos EUA. O ministro da Justiça, Abelardo Jurema, declarou que as metralhadoras Thompson entraram clandestinamente no Brasil, pois nenhuma daquele tipo existia nas suas organizações de polícia nem no seu Exército, cujos oficiais desconheciam todos aqueles modelos de armamentos, tão modernos que eram. E as investigações evidenciaram a existência de uma trama para a eliminação de Goulart e de seus filhos, bem como de muitos políticos e generais favoráveis ao governo. Não hã dúvidas de que a CIA estava por trás do complot.”

As forças de esquerda e as de oposição no Brasil polarizavam-se cada vez mais. A esquerda fragmentava-se e afrouxava seu apoio a Jango, acusando-o de demasiadamente brando, esperando dele medidas radicais. Havia na época crescimento das reivindicações trabalhistas, dos conflitos no campo sobre reforma agrária, de movimentos de estudantes e da classe média, sendo o socialismo grande esperança em vários países do mundo inclusive no Brasil, entusiasmado com o que ocorrera sobretudo em Cuba em 1959. A ala conservadora atingia seu ponto mais agressivo em seu alarme anti-comunista, tendo como um de seus grandes porta-vozes o governador do estado da Guanabara, Carlos Lacerda da UDN, proprietário do jornal Tribuna da Imprensa.

Lacerda conspirou contra Getúlio, Kubitschek e Jânio, aspirando a presidência da República assim que os militares, conforme prometiam, promovessem novas eleições após a “limpeza ideológica”, devolvendo o Brasil aos civis de bem. A Polícia sob seu governo na Guanabara prendia presos e os matava afogados no rio da Guarda. Outros fortes opositores de Jango, e que trabalharam decisivamente para derrubá-lo foram o governador de São Paulo Adhemar de Barros, do PSP (Partido Social Progressista), político precursor do lema “Rouba mas faz”, com sua famosa “caixinha abençoada” que se tornou até marchinha de Carnaval, e o de Minas Gerais Magalhães Pinto (UDN), influente banqueiro que quebraria anos mais tarde, em 1966, tendo sido coberto com dinheiro público do Proer.

Em 13 de março de 1964 Jango fez um discurso moderado na Central do Brasil, no Rio de Janeiro, mantendo seu velho estilo pacifista mas direto, propondo reformas na estrutura econômica e social, progresso, melhores condições de vida e de trabalho, revisão das contradições que havia no Brasil, comentou sua Supra (Superintendência para a Reforma Agrária) que desapropriaria terras para a reforma agrária, enfatizando que para tudo isso haveria sempre “caminho reformista, pacífico e democrático””. Anunciou também o decreto da encampação das refinarias particulares de petróleo que, segundo ele, a partir daquele momento passavam a pertencer ao povo, e comentou ainda a reforma universitária, para a qual, ressaltou, havia encaminhado ao Congresso um decreto.

A 19 de março, aconteceu em São Paulo a Marcha da Família com Deus, pela Liberdade, com a participação de 300 mil pessoas e teve como seus grandes arquitetos a Igreja Católica, os militares e o governador paulista, Adhemar de Barros, que arrecadou dinheiro do empresariado do Estado.

“Família que reza unida permanece unida”, era o lema da marcha, uma das 49 que ocorreriam em todo o país entre março e junho de 64, em “luta pela manutenção da democracia” e para livrar o país dos “perigos comunistas”. Para a marcha em São Paulo veio dos EUA, acompanhado de um agente da CIA, o padre norte-americano Peyton, que rezou uma missa pela TV. Nela, pessoas levavam faixas com inscrições do tipo, “Vermelho bom, só no batom”, Verde, amarelo, sem foice nem martelo”, “Viva a democracia, abaixo o comunismo”. Enquanto a imprensa apavorava a todos: “O comunismo vem aí!” Sobre a Marcha da Família com Deus, pela Liberdade, Lacerda disse: São Paulo começa a salvar o Brasil”. Tal marcha foi iniciada com o Hino Nacional e com uma Oração pela Salvação da Democracia, e então vieram os discursos. Auro Soares de Moura Andrade (PTN), presidente do Senado, falou por último, cujo discurso foi reproduzido exaustivamente por rádios, TVs e jornais: “Que sejam feitas reformas, mas pela liberdade. Senão, não! Pela Constituição. Senão, não! Pela consciência cristão do nosso povo. Senão, não!”. A mídia apoiou completamente o evento, classificando-o de defesa pela manutenção do regime.

A imprensa brasileira atingia o auge da manipulação das informações. Em São Paulo, as pesquisas do Ibope mostraram em 26 de março que metade dos eleitores da capital paulista reelegeriam Jango. A 30 de março, uma outra pesquisa do mesmo instituto apontou considerável aprovação do povo paulistano ao governo Jango, com 7% considerando-o ótimo, 29% bom, 30% regular, 7% mau, 12% péssimo e 9% não sabiam. , mas não há notícia de que tais pesquisas tenham sido publicadas pelos meios de comunicação à época. Brizola, deputado federal pelo Rio Grande do Sul e um dos aliados de Jango, em uma de suas viagens pelo país apoiando as reformas de base presidenciais, em março, foi impedido de discursar em Belo Horizonte por um grupo de senhoras religiosas e anticomunistas que carregavam o terço nas mãos.

A chamada Revolta dos Marinheiros, em 26 de março, pedindo a demissão do ministro da Marinha, Silvio Mota, agravou mais ainda a situação. Poucos dias antes, mais de mil marinheiros e fuzileiros navais realizaram uma assembléia no Sindicato dos Bancários, onde foram discutidas as reformas de base do governo Jango. Esse ato foi considerado pelos oficiais uma quebra de hierarquia – ironicamente, a Marinha puniu os subordinados por discutir medidas defendidas por seu próprio chefe e superior hierárquico, o presidente da República. Mota determinou no dia 24 a prisão de doze diretores, e posteriormente, dia 25, de mais 40 marinheiros. Estes sublevaram-se.

Perante todo esse quadro, já não faltava mais nada para o golpe militar.

II. O Golpe de 64

“Se os sargentos me perguntassem – estas são minhas últimas palavras – de onde surgiram tantos recursos para campanha tão poderosa, para mobilização tão violenta contra o governo, eu diria, simplesmente, sargentos brasileiros, que tudo isso vem dos profissionais da remessa ilegal de lucros que recentemente regulamentei através de uma lei. É do dinheiro maculado pelo interesse enorme do petróleo internacional.” (Presidente João Goulart, 30 de março de 1964, em discurso aos suboficiais e sargentos das Forças Armadas, proferida na sede do Automóvel Clube do Rio de Janeiro).

O golpe militar de 31 de março de 1964 pegou tanto Jango quanto os 80 milhões de brasileiros de surpresa. Esse golpe, que envolveu traição generalizada de militares ao governo inclusive por corrupção de chefes, foi dado sem nenhuma resistência por parte do povo, dos movimentos populares e dos partidos políticos.

Na madrugada de 31 de março, o general Olympio Mourão Filho, comandante da IV Região Militar em Minas Gerais, sublevou suas tropas rumo ao Rio de Janeiro com apoio do governo mineiro a fim de depor o presidente da República. Mourão Filho houvera sido o capitão em 1957 quem, sob o governo de Getúlio Vargas, forjara conspirações comunistas para justificar o golpe que implantou o Estado Novo de Vargas. Em 1964, antecipou o golpe militar previsto por governistas para 1º de maio daquele mesmo ano.

Com a invasão das tropas ao Rio, Jango saiu de lá imediatamente, onde houvera tentativa de assassiná-lo, partindo a Brasília e depois ao Rio Grande do Sul com o intuito de buscar apoio. Mas constatou que havia uma cumplicidade surpreendente dentre os militares, não havendo possibilidade de resistência tampouco no Rio Grande. A Jango ainda foi sugerido que resistisse, em encontro com seus ministros, o general Ladário e Brizola, em sua terra natal. O general Ladário disse ao presidente: “Autorize-me a mim e a meus companheiros que enfrentemos isso, que possamos lavar com sangue a honra da nossa farda”. Observando claramente a total inércia de todo o país perante o golpe, convicto de que não haveria chance de sucesso, Jango recusou-se a permitir que seus companheiros fossem mortos, optando pelo exílio no Uruguai, dias depois.

Em 1º de abril, mesmo estando Jango ainda no Brasil, o Congresso Nacional declara ilegalmente a vacância do cargo presidencial. No dia seguinte, Ranieri Mazzili, presidente da Câmara, tomou posse como presidente da República. Assim, chegaram ao fim os 30 meses do governo João Goulart. E como nem poderia ser diferente, os grandes jornais comemoraram o golpe com um show ufanista: “Desde ontem se instalou no país a verdadeira legalidade. Legalidade que o caudilho não quis preservar (…). A legalidade está conosco e não com o caudilho aliado dos comunistas” (Jornal do Brasil / 1º de abril de 1964), “A Revolução Democrática Antecedeu em 1 Mês a Revolução Comunista” (O Globo, 1º de abril), “Democratas Dominam Toda a Nação” (O Estado de S. Paulo / 2 de abril), “Lacerda Anuncia Volta do País à Democracia” (Correio da Manhã, 2 de abril), “Feliz a Nação que Pode Contar com Corporações Militares de Tão Altos Índices Cívicos (O Estado de Minas, 5 de abril). Apenas o jornal Última Hora foi fiel até o último dia a Jango, sendo extinto pouco depois pelos militares, através de depredação de sua sede e exílio de seu proprietário, após o golpe.

Na noite de março para 1º de abril, a sede da União Nacional dos Estudantes (UNE), no Rio de Janeiro, havia sido totalmente incendiada e metralhada por militares, e o presidente da UNE, José Serra, exilou-se no Chile enquanto a entidade seria substituída, em novembro daquele mesmo ano, por um diretório nacional subordinado ao Ministério da Educação. Maior prova de que a teste de “conspiração comunista” era absolutamente falsa, apenas pretexto para derrubar um governo democraticamente eleito, sem nada do que pudesse ser acusado e com amplo apoio popular, foi sua enorme fragilidade ao resistir ao golpe, uma completa passividade perante ele.

Na biblioteca Lyndon Johnson, no Texas, EUA, estão disponíveis ao público alguns telegramas trocados entre a embaixada brasileira e a Casa Branca na véspera do golpe, em 30 de março – há ainda documentos sigilosos com trechos “vetados” -. Um deles mostra que Vernon Walters, ex-militar que atuava no Brasil em aliança com militares antes do próprio golpe, mantendo relacionamento muito próximo com os golpistas, já sabia que o golpe seria dado a 1º de maio, assim como todos os detalhes do plano. O conteúdo desse plano acabou não sendo colocado em prática já que Mourão Filho antecipou o golpe, colocando tropas nas ruas antes do tempo determinado. Nas últimas horas do dia 30 de março nos EUA, o secretário de Estado Dean Rusk enviou telegrama à embaixada brasileira deixando claro que o governo norte-americano estava disposto a intervir em auxílio às “forças amigas” no Brasil.

Mais adiante na mesma mensagem, Gordon mostrou-se animado, “As coisas estão evoluindo muito rápido, com relatos aparentemente confiáveis de movimentos militares de Minas Gerais, plenamente apoiados pelo governador Magalhães Pinto e pela política estadual (…). Providenciei o envio de mensagem aos principais governadores sobre a importância do vital aspecto de legitimidade, dando ênfase ao desejável apoio político pela maioria do Congresso, se isso for humanamente possível (…). Estamos preparando recomendações sobre a possível necessidade de armas de munição (…).

“É muito importante que se presuma a posição de legitimidade daqueles que se oponham à influência comunista e a outros extremistas. É altamente desejável, portanto, se as Forças Armadas embarcarem em uma ação, que ela seja precedida ou acompanhada por uma clara demonstração de atitudes inconstitucionais por parte de Goulart ou de seus companheiros, ou que tal legitimidade seja confirmada por atos do Congresso (se este tiver liberdade para agir), por manifestações dos principais governadores ou por sinais que lhe confiram uma substancial característica de legitimidade. A respeito da assistência militar [norte-americana], os fatores logísticos são importantes.

“(…) Nesse momento é importante que o governo dos EUA não se coloque em uma posição que seria profundamente embaraçosa se Goulart, Mazzili, os líderes do Congresso e a liderança das Forças Armadas chegarem a um acordo nas próximas horas, o que nos deixaria marcados por uma tentativa canhestra de intervenção. (…)”

Minutos depois dessa mensagem, a Marinha norte-americana enviava ao porto de Santos no Brasil uma frota de navios, engajado em uma operação sugerida pelo próprio Gordon para atender aos pedidos de ajuda da embaixada brasileira. No dia 3 de abril, após desmobilização da operação naval dos EUA, desnecessária devido ao “sucesso” do golpe, o presidente Johnson manifestou no Salão Oval da Casa Branca sua alegria com o que ocorria no Brasil, em conversa com Thomas Mann, seu assessor:

Mann: – Espero que o senhor esteja tão feliz quanto eu com o Brasil.
Johnson: – Estou.
Mann: – Creio que é a coisa mais importante que aconteceu no hemisfério sul nos últimos três anos.
Johnson: – Espero que nos dêem créditos, em vez de nos infernizarem.

De imediato, o governo norte-americano reconheceu a queda de Jango – mesmo estando ele ainda em território brasileiro, e declarou a legitimidade do novo governo no país.

Enquanto isso, os meios de comunicação nos EUA manipularam “eficientemente” as notícias, apoiando imediatamente o reconhecimento do governo Johnson ao novo governo militar brasilerio, publicando apenas alegações dos militares sobre a questão, e ignoraram as prisões e a violência em massa que ocorria, abordando o que acontecia como “golpe sem sangue”, que evitou uma guerra civil. A revista Reader’s Digestpublicou um artigo intitulado de “O País que se Salvou”. Em seu conteúdo, colocou o golpe como uma “cidadania rebelada pode livrar-se da ameaça comunista”.

Nos 21 anos sob regime militar que se seguiriam, o Brasil seria subjugado por centenas de injustificáveis prisões, demissões, perseguições das formas mais sujas, mortes violentas e dezenas de milhares de torturas, e a liberdade de expressão e de informação seria implacavelmente cassada com várias alterações na Constituição para legalizar tanta arbitrariedade e crueldade contra todo e qualquer opositor ao regime. O sangue que Jango negou-se a derramar, os militares e a elite brasileira, títeres do governo dos EUA, não hesitariam em escorrer das maneiras mais frias e ferozes, manchando com o sangue inocente a história do nosso país.

Auto-declarada uma “revolução democrática”, o poder reacionário brasileiro precisava de dispositivos legais para a manutenção do regime a fim de não devolver mais o poder aos civis, como haviam prometido, e sufocar de vez a democracia. Deste modo, o Comando Supremo da Revolução (que se auto-definiu assim). editou já em 9 de abril o Ato Institucional nº 1 (AI-1), que mantinha a base da Constituição de 1946 mas aumentava o poder do presidente, que podia suspender direitos constitucionais pelo período de seis meses, cassar mandatos de parlamentares e suspender os direitos políticos por dez anos, além de determinar que as eleições seriam indiretas, ou seja, o presidente não seria mais eleito pelo voto do povo mas sim por maioria absoluta do Congresso Nacional. Vale salientar que o Congresso se comporia apenas de figuras “agradáveis” ao novo regime que se instalava, até porque os congressistas que ousassem fazer oposição poderiam ser cassados já no dia seguinte ao AI-1, que limitava os poderes do Legislativo e do Judiciário, e também atingiu duramente os movimentos populares – estudantil, camponês e operário -. À imprensa grande reacionária e apoiadora do regime (assim como uma parcela considerável da população), ainda era concedida alguma “liberdade” de expressão (na prática, ela era porta-voz do novo regime e supervisionada por ele).

Freedom of expression includes not saying what you don’t want to. So these updates which may give some insight to ‘truth management’ in Canada start out with the journalist’s right to protect his/her sources. Refusing to reveal a source to the court in both the U.S. and Canada can place a journalist in jail. The extremes of countering an individual’s wishes not to reveal information have become the state’s domain due to current policies on torture. U.S. officials who have approved torture are allowed to enter Canada although torture is clearly against Canadian law. And the law is further compromised by government agencies accepting from other countries information which is obtained by torture.

1. The House of Commons has unanimously passed Bill S-231, allowing journalists to not reveal confidential sources unless required by a Superior Court judge. Superior Court judge approval will also be required for the police investigation of a journalist or search of his/her premises. While this seems to protect the journalist’s rights by taking such decisions out of the hands of lesser court judges, it still officially grants the state the right to criminalize a journalist for protecting his/her sources. Decency and professional standards stand in contradiction.

2. The Supreme Court has decided unanimously, that the records concerned with the abuse of native Americans at Canada’s residential schools, 38,000- accounts, will be destroyed. Individuals will have fifteen years to retrieve the records of their abuse. The destruction of records deprives the future of the truth. Without history the lessons may have to be learned all over again. Canada’s government wanted to archive the documents for historical record: analysis of church and government’s roles in the abuse of First Peoples remains incomplete.

3. In Ottawa a plaque at Canada’s new Holocaust Memorial Monument has been removed in response to protests that the text didn’t specifically deal with Jews. The text read:

“The National Holocaust Monument commemorates the millions of men, women and children murdered during the Holocaust and honours the survivors who persevered and were able to make their way to Canada after one of the darkest chapters in history. The monument recognizes the contribution these survivors have made to Canada and serves as a reminder that we must be vigilant in standing guard against hate, intolerance and discrimination.”

However the monument is shaped as a Star of David, during the Holocaust an emblem which applied only to the Jewish people. The monument also specifies the experience of Europe’s Jewish communities on the interior walls. Text of the replacement plaque has not been released. In addition to Jewish peoples and depending on the region of Europe, millions of people who weren’t Jews were rounded up and killed, Roma, Poles, Russians, Serbs, Non-Aryans, communists, nationalists, dissidents, homosexuals, handicapped, old people, sick people, prisoners, prisoners of war, resistance fighters died in labour camps, concentration camps, by injection, gas chanbers, on scaffolds, in the fields of resistance, at mass graves or through starvation and disease. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau inaugurated the monument on Sept. 27th, 2017, but was publicly chided for not specifying Jews in his speech, and for the lack of specific reference in this particular plaque.

Historical note: Edwin Black in his War against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s attempt to create a master race, (New York/London: Four walls Eight Windows, 2003), relies less on the concept of the Holocaust as a war against the Jews, than on the Nazi’s attempt to create a genetically ‘superior’ race. Since the early 1920’s German eugenics research and resulting programs were heavily funded by the U.S.’s Rockefeller Foundation. Nazi programs of “racial hygiene” paralleled the rising anti-Semitism of the laws. In 1933 Reich Statute Part I, No 86, the Law for the Prevention of Defective Progeny was a mass sterilization law for those considered feebleminded, schizophrenic, manic depressive, and those with chorea, epilepsy, physical deformities, deafness, inherited blindness (War against the Weak, p.299). While the Rockefeller Foundation didn’t officially approve of the Reich’s policies in eugenics it continued to fund German eugenics mightily. If one considers the Holocaust a war on the Jews rather than a war of racial hygiene for the purity of a Nordic master race, then one needn’t investigate the wealthy and powerful sources of the crime or reject the human sacrifices of eugenics.

4. As an alternative to re-writing history the perception managers have the option of not letting history occur – if it counters business interests. And Canadian courts have the option of placing publication bans or gag orders on what the public is allowed to know about what happens in legal proceedings. In Vancouver under the Conservative Harper government, environmental groups mobilizing to understand and counter the claims of large corporations to place pipelines across native lands were infiltrated by government/police agencies. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is taking the government to court for allegedly spying on environmentalists of Lead Now, Stand Earth, the Dogwood Initiative and Sierra Club of B.C.; government spying criminalizes groups and people attempting to contribute to National Energy Board hearings on pipeline approval. Objections were initially raised before the Security Intelligence Review Committee (the watchdog committee for the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency) which rejected the case and forbid the environmentalists from publicly revealing evidence about the review. The environmentalists’ lawyer sees the gag order as a violation of freedom of expression. The Review Committee has used its authority as a tool of oppression. The gag order doesn’t benefit the people but CSIS protected corporate interests, and currently these are under some pressure. In what the Mayor of Montreal Denis Coderre finds a victory for the people, TransCanada has cancelled the 15.7 billion dollar Energy East pipeline. Its destruction of the environment will simply not occur. An estimated 236 million tons of carbon will not pollute the atmosphere. TransCanada also cancelled its Eastern Mainline pipeline. Reliant on freedom of expression and information sharing, grassroots mobilization across Canada has won an initial victory.

5. Information on the case of Alexandre Bissonnette remains tightly controlled and slightly…awry (“At the suspect’s court appearance on February 21, 2017, the judge ordered a publication ban”). There’s restricted release of any police evidence or the results and extent of any investigations into Quebec City’s Mosque murder of six Muslim worshippers this past January 29th. On October 2nd another charge was laid against the single suspect, Alexandre Bissonnette, for an additional attempted murder so there are now six charges of “attempted murder with a restricted weapon” and the six charges of first-degree murder remain. To avoid time limits before the case is nullified, with the judge’s warning the CBC assures us the Crown is passing over holding a preliminary inquiry, to simply proceed with the indictment. The CBC reports that the Mosque’s Muslim community still wants to know why Alexandre Bissonnette hasn’t, logically, incurred terrorism charges. The Crown Prosecutor has replied that murder is the most serious crime in Canadian law. This doesn’t really address a public understanding that charges of terrorism increase the terms of prison time at sentencing. So Canadians are denied the privilege of understanding the prosecutor’s compassion for this only suspect in a rather complicated and thorough murder of six Muslims at worship. The case goes to trial in court, Dec. 11th.

6. The Huffington Post notes that Canada leads the United States in the number of corrupt companies blacklisted by the World Bank. We remember that this is the same World Bank which forced “austerity” on Greece in an attempt to sway the country to a more profitable fascism. The World Bank is not considered morally or ethically “fussy.” But #1 in the world Canada has 117 companies (mostly SNC-Lavalin related) which the World Bank considers too corrupt for even them to do business with, while 2nd in the world U.S. has only 46 companies which are actually named. A difficulty with economic corruption is that it translates into the infrastructures of entire populations. For instance, one of Canada’s SNC-Lavalin companies is Candu Energy, famous for designing nuclear reactors.

7. An article by Tony Seed reveals that Canada’s Defence Cooperation Agreement with the Ukraine, not only allows expanded arms sales to a fascist government of the Ukraine but allows increased sales to Saudi Arabia by Canadian companies, ie. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Esterline GMC Electronics. Saudi Arabia is currently bombing a poverty stricken Yemen where a million cases of cholera are expected before November. According to Democracy Now! (“Yemen: ICRC Warns of New Outbreaks as Cholera Cases Near 1 Million,” October 03, 2017): “The ongoing U.S.-backed, Saudi-led bombing campaign has destroyed Yemen’s health, water and sanitation systems…”. An ongoing but ignored genocide warning continues for the people of Yemen. See 2015, 2016, 2017, 2017, 2017. Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and former International Minister of Trade, Chrystia Freeland, currently negotiating the NAFTA agreement for Canada, has found it difficult to resist Canada’s anti-Russian, pro-U.S. policy in the Ukraine which blends easily with her own beginnings as a journalist for a Canadian Ukrainian nationalist newspaper (See “The Tactical Use of the Ukraine”). Supplying Saudi Arabia with weapons at this point should be considered a crime against humanity of major proportions and not concern simply the Canadian weapons suppliers but their government facilitators. Which leads us to the purpose of lies, of perception management, of suppressing news, of hiding the truth from the people. If capable of perceiving the damages they cause, surely the people would object.

Sources

 “Ottawa passes legislation to protect journalists’ anonymous sources from police,” Gloria Galloway, Oct. 4, 2017 The Globe and Mail;

“Indigenous residential school records can be destroyed, Supreme Court rules,” Kathleen Harris, Oct 06, 2017, CBC News;

“National Holocaust Monument plaque pulled after panel omits mention of Jews,” Bruce Campion-Smith, Oct. 5, 2017, The Toronto Star;

“Holocaust Memorial plaque that didn’t mention Jews to be replaced,” The Canadian Press, Oct. 6, 2017, CBC News;

” Trudeau government taken to court over alleged spying during Harper years,” Mike De Souza & Carl Meyer, October 4th 2017, National Observer;

“Crown charges Quebec City mosque shooter with attempted murder of attack witnesses,” Catou MacKinnon, Oct. 2, 2017, CBC News;

“Families of mosque shooting victims ‘sick and tired’ of waiting for trial of Alexandre Bissonnette,” Sept. 8, 2017, CBC News;

“Huge ‘People Over Pipeline’ Victory as TransCanada Forced to Kill Energy East,” Jake Johnson, Oct. 5, 2017, Common Dreams;

“TransCanada cancels $15.7B Energy East pipeline project,” The Canadian Press, Oct. 5, 2017, Calgary Herald;

“World Bank’s Corrupt Companies Blacklist Dominated By Canada,” Sept. 18, 2013, The Huffington Post;

“Background on Canada-Ukraine defence agreement: A ‘rich, mutually beneficial’ arms trade,” Tony Seed, June 11, 2017, Tony Seed’s Weblog.

This article was originally published by nightslantern.ca.

Featured image is from Julie Maas.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Catalan President Carles Puigdemont and majority parliamentarians declared Catalonia’s right to be a sovereign independent state.

A 92% referendum “yes” vote demanded it. For democracy to have meaning, it’s essential to enforce the will of the people.

“It is not a personal decision,” Puigdemont explained, adding “(t)his is a special and historic moment having a long outreach.”

Catalans long awaited independence from fascist Spain. Puigdement and parliamentarians seek dialogue with Madrid.

PM Mariano Rajoy earlier ruled it out, saying

“(w)e are going to prevent independence from occurring. That is why I can tell you with absolute frankness that it will not happen.”

It remains to be seen what’s coming. Rajoy may invoke Article 155 of Spain’s constitution, suspending Catalonia’s autonomous status, contravening international law, along with likely sending in thousands of national police, civil guards and soldiers.

Blood in the streets may follow. Puigdemont and pro-independence parliamentarians risk arrest. Perhaps Rajoy intends installing puppet regional rule, replacing Catalonia’s democratically elected government.

Fascist regimes operate this way, trashing democratic values, breaching international law, enforcing police state rule.

For long denied Catalans, declaring independence is one thing, keeping it another.

Puigdemont extended outreach to Madrid, urging dialogue and mediation – at the same time, stressing the only way forward is by respecting the democratic process peacefully.

He proposed suspending independence to pursue it in good faith. Rajoy failed to respond positively.

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

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Featured image:  A view from inside the venue which hosted the 2017 Route 91 Harvest Music Festival where 57 people lost their lives on Oct. 1. (Joe Ward/Street View)

The proof is in the pudding or so they say.

The following timeline documents real and actual events which occurred on the night of Oct. 1, 2017, and the early morning of Oct. 2, and how they all unfolded contradicting the official narrative that only one shooter, a 64-year-old man by the name of Stephen Paddock, shot and killed 58 people during the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival.

***

A timeline of the events as they occurred

(Key elements only)

[Beginning of Transcript #1]

The view from alleged shooter Stephen Paddock’s room showing his vantage point over the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival. (Screenshot via Google Maps)

09:59 pm

• Security guard Jesus Campos was reportedly struck in leg by a bullet after the suspect, Stephen Paddock, fired a 200-round volley of bullets through the door of room 135.

10:07 pm

• Unreported potshots were taken into the crowd before fully-automatic gunfire erupted.

10:08 pm

• Officer reports a 415A (Assualt/Battery with a Gun). “We got shots fired at Route 91 […] sounded like an automatic firearm.“
• Officer reports that he sees the shots coming from ‘Mandalay Bay halfway up.’

10:10 pm

• CP reports: ‘[…] many people down, stage left. Just be advised’

10:11 pm

• Officer reports that the gunfire ‘sounds like its coming from an elevated position.’
• Officer reports ‘multiple casualties.’
• “Control be advised: shots are coming from Gate 7” (This report verifies that a second active shooter may be firing from Gate 7)

10:13 pm

• Officer requests that Las Vegas Blvd. be ‘shut down between Russel Rd. and Flamingo.’
• Officer “159” reports that gunfire is coming from a window on the north side of the Mandalay, ’50 or 60th floor.’
• Officer “179SE” reports that ‘muzzle flashes are coming from the middle of the Mandalay Bay on the north side of the west tower by the casino on one of the middle floors.’

10:14 pm

• Officer reports that he is in the 31st-floor of Mandalay Bay and that he hears automatic gunfire one floor above him.’
• CP: All units be advised: Fully automatic fire from an elevated position, take cover.
• Officer reports a flashing about one-third to halfway up the tower of the Mandalay Bay.
• Units on Las Vegas Blvd. were taking fire and were subsequently directed to not proceed northbound.

Screenshot via Joe Ward/Google Street View

10:15 pm

• Officer “166” reports a gunshot victim at ‘Gate 8.’
• Officer reports ‘one down with a gunshot wound to the leg on Reno and Giles, another female shot in the mouth.’

10:16 pm

• Officer reports 50-60 civilians are pinned down behind a wall at Mandalay Bay Rd. and Las Vegas Blvd. (Debris and bullet going over their heads.)
• Control reports ‘a gunshot victim at Gate 4.’ 

10:17 pm

• Officer reports that the shooter is ‘on about the 15th-floor of the Mandalay Bay facing the lot.’
• Report that an officer has been shot.
• “067SE” reports ‘multiple victims, shots fired right outside the medical tent.’

10:18 pm

• Control 224: ‘New CP location will be South Central Area Command.’
• Officer “169” reports his team has reached the 32nd-floor.

10:20 pm

• Gunshot wound reported on officer “15820.”
• Officer “751” reports ‘it’s been a while since he heard any shots.’

10:21 pm

• Control: ‘I got to gunshot victims at Gate 6 with gunshot wounds to the chest and head.’
• Officer “769” reports that he’s ‘taking fire from a very high floor and we think that it is possibly coming from the Mandalay Bay on the boulevard side.’

10:22 pm

• Officer reports a ‘strobe light‘ coming from the ‘eastside’ of Mandalay Bay.
• Officer “361” requests that a lieutenant set up another Command post on Las Vagas Blvd. and Tropicana.

10:23 pm

• Officer 235: “Control? We are getting from civilians that there are three shooters.”
• Officer reports that multiple eyewitnesses saw multiple people being shot and multiple shooters inside the concert venue.’
• Police start to set up a perimeter at Tropicana and Russell and lockdown the outer perimeter.
• 656 sets up a CP at ‘Tropicana and the boulevard.’

10:24 pm

• Report of a male victim with a gunshot wound to the shoulder ‘going into terminal shock.’
• Officer reports a ‘white car going the wrong way down Las Vegas Blvd. toward the Mandalay Bay.’

10:25 pm

• Officer confirms active shooter in room ’32-135 in the Mandalay Bay.’ (Paddock’s Room)
• “644D” reports multiple victims with gunshot wounds on the east side of the building at Reno just east of the boulevard on the east side of the church.’ Says that he has a “5-man team” with him to ‘provide cover for medical.’

10:26 pm

• Control reports that Mandalay Bay security confirms shots fired on floors 29and 32.
• Officer reports his team is emerging on the 32nd floor by the “dead officer.”
• Officer reports that a security guard on the 32nd-floor has also been shot by the suspect.

10:27 pm

• An officer on the 32nd-floor: “We will need the 29th-floor [cleared as well]. It sounds like it’s confirmed there are at least two shooters.”
• “715Z” requests that someone go to the “camera room to keep an eye on that 32nd-floor.”

10:28 pm

• CP: “All units make sure that your vehicles are locked citizens are trying to go into them and grab shotguns.”

10:29 pm

• CP: “We have units staging at the boulevard and Tropicana.”

10:30 pm

• A report of multiple casualties “stage right on the concert floor.”
• Traffic spotted headed northbound on Las Vegas Blvd.

10:31 pm

• Temporary medical triage set up on the southwest corner of Tropicana and the boulevard.

10:32 pm

•  A report that an officer just north of “the event” suffered a “gunshot wound to the head.”
• Reports of “multiple people running across runways” at McCarran International Airport. 

McCarran International Airport (Screenshot via Google Maps)

10:34 pm

• Officer reports a ‘black Chevy dually pickup truck headed the wrong way on the boulevard. “Ripped out of the parking lot,” as witnessed by another officer.

10:36 pm

• A “4-man element” works to clear the 29th-floor of the Mandalay Bay.

10:38 pm

• An “8-man element” clears the casino floor of Mandalay Bay.

10:43 pm

• Pedestrian reports ‘older white male with black fatigues and a black bag went into a white motorhome by the Motel 6 (Corner of Cobalt and Tropicana on the south side.) Witnesses say he came from the area of the shooting.
• East side of the lower roof cleared. Employees still on the upper roof.

10:45 pm

• A civilian stole a patrol car.
• Officer reports that he’s being ‘overtaken by citizens who are trying to take patrol cars.’

10:46 pm

• Multiple casualties reported at Giles and Alibaba.

10:48 pm

• Around 20 dead bodies reported in the venue.
• Casualties reported inside the Mandalay Bay.

11:02 pm

• Officer reports that a man in a maroon shirt and black short did not listen to his orders. He was headed to the Delano.

11:03 pm

• Report of active shooters headed down the escalator from New York New York to the Excalibur.

[End of Transcript #1]

11:06 pm

• Report: ‘Many subjects were down […] shooter at front desk of New York New York.’

Leaving the strip listening to live police scanner. 911 “Many subjects are down” / “Shooter at the front desk of NY NY” #LasVegasShooting pic.twitter.com/jcp96yTOcv

— Deep State Intel (@DeepStvte) October 11, 2017

11:07 pm

• Officer reports that a male suspect got out of a white Ford super-duty dually truck and ran north with a rifle and hid in the bushes. 20-30 years of age. (Transcript #3)

11:08 pm

• Control: ‘Please be advised there is a woman with a gunshot wound to the head at the Tropicana.’ (Transcript #3)

[Beginning of Transcript #2]

11:13 pm

• Harrah’s is ‘Code 4.’

11:15 pm

• Excalibur is clear.

11:18 pm

• ‘Suspect armed with a rifle.’

11:19 pm

• [What sounds like fully-automatic gunfire can be heard over an open mic with a fast cycle rate, possibly an MP5 9mm]
• ‘Bellagio is hearing a lot of shots being fired. A suspect is inside.’

11:20 pm

• (Officers reportedly breach suspect’s room)

11:21 pm

• Officer: ‘Bellagio is going to be negative for a 415A and that’s per security.’

11:22 pm

• The third floor of the Mandalay Bay is clear.

11:24 pm

• Officer: ‘Female wearing camo, Air Force related dress uniform, she has short blonde hair with a cover on braid — with another female wearing a black top and blue jeans — they took off running after they passed me.’

11:26 pm

• Officer: ‘Newer model black Monte Carlo arrived at 22:13 (10:13 pm) at the valet in front of the Luxor. Four males got out.’ (Possible suspects)

11:29 pm

• Officer: ‘Possible suspect in a trash can. An officer is pulling him out.’

11:31 pm

• Officer: ‘Taking 3 into custody’
• Officer: ‘2 females, possibly armed with weapons, they threw something to the ground.’
• Person spotted ‘laying down by a power box.’

11:32 pm

[Transcript #3 starts here]

11:37 pm

• Control: ‘Woman is calling in saying that a shooter is on the 7th-floor of the garage at the Mirage.’

11:43 pm

• Medics report that they are taking fire at the Tropicana. (Transcript #3)
• ‘Zebro-Twenty has one suspect down.’

11:44 pm

• Officer reports 1000-1200 people sheltered in place inside the Michael Jackson Theatre at Mandalay Bay
• Officer reports ‘negative shots fired at the Tropicana.’ (Transcript #3)

11:46 pm

• Officer reports 30 citizens sheltering in place at the southwest corner of the fairgrounds.

11:48 pm

• Control requests update on ‘possible device at the Luxor.’ (Transcript #3)

11:49 pm

• Report of shots fired at the Ceasar’s Palace and the Bellagio. (Transcript #3)

11:50 pm 

• Floors 1-5 have been cleared at Mandalay Bay.

11:51 pm

• Report of ‘a guy with a gun at the Paris. Security is trying to point him out but we can’t find him.’ (Transcript #3)

11:52 pm

• Bellagio security confirms ‘negative shots fired. No one is going in and out and they are locking it down.’ (Transcript #3)

11:53 pm

• Pavilion inside the Tropicana secured.

11:54 pm

• Strike Team of 6 arrives at the Tropicana. (Transcript #3)

A 6-man Strike Team enters the casino floor at the Tropicana. (Screenshot via KPCCRadio/YouTube)

11:56 pm

• Officer reports that a ‘WFA grabbed a silver extinguisher and placed it behind a slot machine at 23:55 (10:55 pm).’
• Officer: ‘We have intel — shots fired at Harrah’s. Need confirmation.’
• Reports of shots fired at Planet Hollywood. (Transcript #3)

11:57 pm

• Officers request that the Luxor be checked for ‘shots fired.’
• Report: ‘Subject ran across the roof at the front of the Tropicana.’ (Transcript #3)
• Strike Team 13 arrives at the Paris. (Transcript #3)

11:58 pm

• Report: ‘Negative shots fired at New York New York.’ (Transcript #3)

11:59 pm

• Zebra-Twenty finds a credit card in the shooter’s room which bears the name “Marilou Danley” on it. (Transcript #3)

12:01 am (Oct. 2, 2017)

• Strike Team deployed to Harrah’s
• Zebra-Twenty finds an address associated with the credit card and the suspect. “1372 Babbling Brook Court

12:02 am

• Report of a male walking into the Bellagio employee entrance with a rifle. (Transcript #3)
• 4th-floor of Mandalay Bay is clear. (Transcript #3)

12:12 am

• Officer gets a report of a ‘white male wearing a black t-shirt who is going into clubs armed with and clearing them out.’ Last seen at Chateau. 

12:14 am

• Officer reports ‘no casualties at Tropicana.’
• Possible suspect on 4th-floor Mandalay Bay

12:20 am

• Reports of gunshot victims at Reno and Giles
• Officer: ‘One in custody at the Motel 6.’

12:21 am

• Officer: ‘Shots fired at the Aria. A bunch of people are running but nobody actually heard the shots’ (Transcript #3)

12:23 am

• Report of Active Shooter on 4th-floor of Mandalay.

12:24 am

• Strike Team enters casino floor to sweep it (Mandalay Bay).

12:25 am

• Report of a “413” (Person with a Gun) by the Motel 6 trailer unit

12:32 am

• Officer requests a Strike Team to Gate 4 of the venue.
• Officer: ‘We have a suspect who we are not yet able to take into custody.’
• Strike Team 22: ‘We are in route.’

12:35 am

• Report: Bally’s security saying they have one detained — saying that he was involved in this. Negative weapons were found on him.

12:36 am

• Officer: ‘White male in custody at Bally’s, no weapon.’

12:39 am

• Report: Encore and Winn on lockdown. No more areas of concern.

12:43 am

• Zebra 50 requests that ‘6 EMTs meet Zebra units in the Mandalay Bay lower valet and team up with them to clear floors and assist with medical.’

12:46 am

• ‘Reports of shots fired at New York New York’
• Force Pro 6: ‘We don’t have any shots fired.’

01:04 am

• Officer: ‘Vehicle at Luxor has been cleared. It is not a bomb.’

01:08 am

• Officer reports that ‘most of the Tropicana is secure.’

01:09 am

• More people found inside concert venue after it was cleared.

01:18 am

• Officer: ‘People are still getting into the venue crime scene — lockdown the inner perimeter.’

01:32 am

• Report: Woman claims to have video of a shooter.

01:44 am

• Report: ‘2 WMA running northbound from Four Seasons’

01:45 am

• Unit making contact with the 2 WMAs

02:26 am

• The airport is open.

***

Shepard Ambellas is an opinion journalist, analyst, and the founder and editor-in-chief of Intellihub News & Politics (Intellihub.com). Shepard is also known for producing Shade: The Motion Picture (2013) and appearing on Travel Channel’s America Declassified (2013). Shepard is a regular contributor to Infowars. Read more from Shep’s World. Follow Shep on Facebook. Subscribe to Shep’s YouTube channel.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Earlier he banned travel to America from targeted countries, majority Muslim ones plus North Korea and Venezuelan officials.

He absurdly claims America is the only country, putting “the needs of other nations ahead of our own” when it comes to immigration.

He named three core principles of “immigration reform” as follows:

“1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.”

“2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our constitutional system of government must be enforced.”

“3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.”

Fact: Fortress Israel revealed the delusion of great wall protection. Trump’s proposed wall along America’s southern border won’t stem the immigration tide.

It’ll be breached, tunneled under, or gone around by water or air to reach America. The only conceivable way to keep out unwanted immigrants is by walling-in the entire country and putting an impenetrable roof over it. Even that wouldn’t likely work. Trump’s scheme is hugely ill-conceived.

Fact: America is a nation of men and women in high places, not laws, routinely ignored and disobeyed.

Fact: Washington serves its privileged class exclusively, no matter which right-wing branch of government controls things, acting unacceptably harshly against its most disadvantaged.

Fact: Immigration is unrelated to jobs and security, related to wages for failing to enact a minimum livable one, undocumented immigrants a rich source of near-slave labor.

Fact: Trump’s immigration plan has nothing to do with putting US workers first. Helping them requires halting the free-flow of good, high-paying jobs to low-wage countries and re-industrializing America. No plans for either.

Fact: His immigration plan is more about further militarizing America than enacting responsible policies. Polar opposite what he proposed is needed, stressing fairness.

Besides his oppressive border wall, he wants an additional 370 immigration judges, a thousand more Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys, 10,000 more ICE officers (an immigration Gestapo), and 300 more federal prosecutors exclusively for immigration cases.

He wants more including:

• deporting undocumented children and relatives;
• stricter standards for individuals requesting asylum or refugee status;
• expediting the deportation process;
• making sanctuary cities ineligible for federal funding;
• ending visa overstays;
• ending catch and release;
• deporting so-called “gang members,” targeting refugees, asylum seekers and other unwanted immigrants – wanting them removed even for minor offenses too insignificant to matter, responsibility to prove innocence on them;
• stiffening E-Verify vetting;
• limiting green cards for spouses and minor children of legal immigrants;
• establishing a point-based system for awarding green cards;
• eliminating the “Diversity Visa” lottery, awarding 50,000 green cards randomly to foreign nationals; and
• limiting the number of refugees and asylum seekers to an undefined “appropriate level.”

Trump is open to deal-making with undemocratic Dems on so-called Dreamers – undocumented immigrants entering America before age-16 prior to June 2007.

Constitutional due process and equal protection under the law apply to every individual in America, regardless of immigration status.

Bush/Cheney changed the rules, breaking the law. Obama worsened things, earning himself the dubious nickname of “Deporter-in-Chief.”

Trump aims to outdo the deplorable agenda of his predecessors, circumventing constitutional law, treating undocumented immigrants like criminal aliens – his scheme unrelated to job creation and economic growth, targeting immigrants of color, no wall or harsh policies planned along the Canadian border.

In early October, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Dreamers and the Inland Empire – Immigrant Youth Collective, a grassroots southern California immigrant youth organization.

According to the ACLU,

its “lawsuit seeks to hold the administration to the promises it made and ensure that DACA provides protection from deportation for however long the program exists.”

In April, Trump said Dreamers “should rest easy…We are not after (them). We are after the criminals.”

Asked if he’ll let Dreamers stay, he said:

“Yes. Yes. That’s our policy. I am not saying…longterm. We are going to have to fix the problem.”

Trump lied. In September, he said he’d end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in six months, affecting nearly a million immigrant children and youths.

Many face deportation back the the home country of their parents even though America is the only nation they know.

The ACLU stressed no one should “be stripped of a benefit as important as DACA without basic due process protections.”

“The Trump administration’s arbitrary decision to end the program makes it clear that we cannot leave these young people’s fate to whoever happens to be sitting in the White House.”

Congressional action is needed to protect them, not likely with hardliners dominating both houses.

The ACLU called Trump’s immigration plan a “Dreamer deportation outline.” On Tuesday, he tweeted:

“The problem with agreeing to a policy on immigration is that the Democrats don’t want secure borders, they don’t care about safety for USA.”

The “problem” with Trump’s immigration plan is it discriminates against unwanted people of color, including children, largely Latinos from Mexico and Central America – coming to the US for jobs NAFTA and CAFTA-DR destroyed in their home countries.

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

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Featured image: The foundation of the United States is embedded in gun violence. (Photo: Joe Loong)

It happens after every mass shooting. Corporate media outlets have a formula for coverage. They publish stories for a week or so ascertaining a “motive” for the shooter, talking about the details of high-tech — usually military-style firearms — used in the massacres and speculating on what gun control would have stopped the specific shooting of the moment. Of course, we can’t forget the pro forma, with rare exception, neighbor or relative who can attest that the shooter “was a wonderful guy and always helped when you needed him.”

According to the Guardian, there have been 1,516 mass killing sprees in the US in the last 1,735 days. That’s a lot of fodder for the templated coverage of the mainstream media.

Generally, after a week or two, coverage fizzles out until the next mass shooting. Newspapers and other media generally accept the conventional wisdom that there is no one way the latest hideous outbreak of violence could have been prevented. Then, the business of protecting the manufacture and sales of any gun that the National Rifle Association (NRA) designates not only continues; it expands.

Right now, for instance, there is a bill before Congress that would allow the easy purchase of silencers without a special license. Yes, those are the mechanisms that muffle a gunshot so a person can be shot without making a loud noise. It was expected to pass Congress, but the GOP leadership has now “shelved [it] indefinitely” from consideration, fearing backlash after the Las Vegas massacre. However, it will be back, along with some other NRA wish list laws, when the Republican leadership believes massacres are crowded out by other news for a period, and they can slip it through.

The NRA must be held responsible for militarizing individual gun owners and creating the possibility for someone like the Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, to amass the arsenal found in his room. Paddock owned over 40 high-tech guns, many (23) of which he had with him at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. He also had his sniper rifle equipped with a legal device, called a “bumper,” which effectively turned his firearm into an automatic weapon.

Demilitarizing the weapons that are for sale in this country would be a positive step. Yet beyond this, the frequent mainstream efforts to figure out what is behind the US’s gun massacre spree are highly flawed. This violence is often erroneously attributed to “mental illness,” exacerbating the stigmatization of people diagnosed with mental illness. Meanwhile, there is an overarching issue that is rarely raised in the media: the fact that gun violence is built into this country’s very foundation.

The United States is a country founded upon and sustained by gun violence. It was guns that were the primary weapon that nearly annihilated the Indigenous population of what is now the continental United States. It was guns that were used by Southern militias — slave patrols — that tracked down and terrorized fleeing slaves. Indeed, Thom Hartmann made the argument on Truthout that the Second Amendment was intended to help preserve slavery:

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the framers knew the difference — see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason and James Madison were totally clear on that… and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

The US army was primarily responsible for massacring Indigenous tribes and nations, and meanwhile, a group of Southern militias were armed to ensure slaves didn’t escape from their “owners.” This is a nation in which the lofty words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution serve as a thin veneer covering a violent fury of conquest. This is the mirror held up to our history, which analyses of contemporary massacres and gun violence generally fail to see or acknowledge.

In Salon, journalist Chauncey DeVega correctly identifies gun massacres as “America’s white man problem.” He writes,

Whenever a white man commits an act of mass gun violence in America — politically motivated or otherwise — there is a cultural script that is closely followed by the mainstream news media, politicians and too many members of the public. This narrative is obvious and predictable. Alas, it provides some small measure of comfort to many, even if that familiarity is rooted in gross hypocrisy and flagrant contradictions.

Unlike the impulsiveness he has shown when Muslims are accused of committing a terrorist act, either in the United States or abroad, Donald Trump will be reserved and careful in his statements. The American news media will respond by observing that Trump has now magically become “presidential,” as if his sins could be washed away by a chattering class desperate to make the abnormal into something palatable and routine.

The National Rifle Association and the Republican politicians whom they own will default to irrational talking points: “Now is not the time to politicize a tragedy” or “It’s too early to talk about gun laws.” Gun manufacturers will see their stocks rise in value. America’s addiction to guns will continue unabated even as it kills tens of thousands of people a year. Somehow the gun fetishists like Bill O’Reilly will mouth such absurdities as “guns are the price of freedom” without soiling themselves from uncontrollable laughter.

White male gun violence in the United States cannot be disentangled from the history of a nation that established “freedom” by using firearms to murder and control Indigenous peoples and slaves. Massacres are in this country’s DNA. Donald Trump, with his grievance politics and sanctioning of violence at his rallies, has freed up many white men to feel a bolstered sense entitlement to their inner rage. With his scornful and incendiary comments, Trump has tapped into the vein of a long, deeply embedded violent tradition in US culture.

It would be wrong to say that none of the measures that aim to control gun manufacture and distribution would work. Some of them would, no doubt, be ameliorative (although we must be cautious, and ensure that these measures do not further criminalize and incarcerate marginalized people, particularly people of color). Nevertheless, until the US comes to terms with its historical embrace of state violence as the key to so-called “American exceptionalism,” the horrifying nightmare of gun violence will continue in this country, as the result of white masculine rage and domination.

This article was originally published by BuzzFlash / Truthout.

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

October 1 has passed, closing a period of the shared history between Catalonia and the Spanish state and beginning an uncertain future. It was a day when all the tension building over the five-year independence process came to a head.

The numbers speak volumes. 2,262,424 votes cast. With an electoral roll of approximately 5.3 million people, that represents 42.5 per cent turnout. We would have to include the votes seized by the police and from citizens who could not vote to calculate a final number. Of those votes counted, 2,020,144 (90 per cent) were in favor of independence, 176,566 (7.8 per cent) against, and 45,586 (2 per cent) left their ballots blank.

Next to these tallies, we must list another figure: the 890 officially registered injuries. The images say even more than the numbers – unprecedented police violence met historic popular mobilization.

The independence movement has emerged victorious, and, while the vote doesn’t mean that pro-independence forces will reach their goals immediately, they did gain momentum by demonstrating their determination and capacity for mobilization despite state repression and their opponent’s decision to boycott. The post-Franco Spanish state is more discredited than ever in Catalonia.

The immediate consequences are clear. The Law of Transiency, which Catalonia’s parliament passed on September 8, stipulates that, if the referendum results in a “yes” victory, the Catalan government would move to proclaim an independent republic.

Getting Ready for the Second Act

However, it is not clear how the government will proceed. Its decisions will determine the fate of the independence movement as well as the broader democratic bloc that supported the vote. How to keep that democratic bloc – which goes beyond the pro-independence forces – united is a decisive strategic question in this context. Catalonia’s independence hangs in the balance, and in the short term, the institutional and political struggle between the Catalan and Spanish states will only intensify the current crisis. Though the official independentist narrative claims that the main work for achieving independence is already done, October 1 marked the start of the most critical phase.

We should therefore see the October 3 general strike as October 1’s second act. Initially driven by small unions, the planned work stoppage eventually won partial support from the Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) and Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT), Catalonia’s two major unions. These organizations did not call for a full strike but for partial work stoppages, to which both workers and employers agreed. Eventually the Catalan National Assembly (ANC) and Òmnium Cultural – the mainstream independence movement’s leading organs – as well as the Catalan government threw their support behind the protest, though the ANC did so only reluctantly.

This “official” bloc rebranded the event as a cross-class “nation stoppage” that mixed a traditional strike with mass demonstrations and the voluntary closure of enterprises and public administration. Overall, the day turned into another impressive collective action in the midst of an exceptional political situation.

What will happen now in Catalonia depends not only on local actions but also on the impact that the independence movement, referendum, and mass protests have on Spanish politics in general. The situation’s complexity makes it dangerous to draw any hasty conclusions.

On the one hand, the People’s Party (PP), which rules Spain, will continue to use Catalan independence to mobilize its conservative base. On the other hand, a section of the Spanish public, including Podemos and its base, has rejected the state’s repression and now favors a legal referendum.

Further, in those parts of Spain that, like Catalonia, have longstanding national – or regional – conflicts, the independence process may polarize pro-Spanish centralists and the respective nationalist movements.

All these factors create a complicated scenario for the Left, which will lose more ground in the long term if it gives up the defense of democracy in the short term. Behind these rapidly unfolding events sits an important paradox: Catalan independence poses the greatest threat to the continuity of the political and institutional scaffolding created in 1978, but it may also temporarily strengthen some of the state’s pillars, producing a framework that pushes Spanish politics to the right.

Madrid’s Strategy

The PP, working hand in hand with the state apparatus and most of the media, has taken an inflexible stance toward independence since the movement began in 2012. It will continue this approach because it believes that opposing Catalan sovereignty benefits the party in a number of ways: it boosts support in key regions of the Spanish state, unites its base, recovers ground from Ciudadanos, puts Pedro Sánchez’s “new” Socialist Party (PSOE) under pressure, and moves political debate away from the issues that help Podemos, such as state corruption and the ongoing economic crisis.

But for the umpteenth time since political turmoil began in 2011 with the rise of 15M, narrow partisan logic has prevailed over long-term thinking. The PP’s failures show the Spanish elite’s strategic limitations when confronted with the crisis of the 1978 regime. Resist and endure before all challengers – from Catalan independentists to 15M and its electoral offshoots. This has become the ruling class’s mantra.

The PP’s scorched earth policy has an important precedent, one that coincides with the rise of pro-independence forces in Catalonia: the aggressive Spanish nationalism of José María Aznar‘s second government (2000-4). While Aznar’s centralism was useful for the Right at the time, it actually triggered the current crisis, producing irreversible disaffection among the Catalan people.

The government in Madrid likely calculates that it should intensify its confrontation with the independentists until it can defeat their hopes for a quick independence process. Having used the stick, it will later try the carrot, offering some room to more moderate forces.

But the more the Spanish state’s policy entrenches the conflict, the more difficult it will be to change direction. When legitimacy fails, only force remains, but the use of the latter only further erodes the former. Today, the crisis of legitimacy of the Spanish state in Catalonia has reached its peak.

September 20 to October 1

Before the state intensified its repressive policies on September 20, the independence movement, led by the ANC and Òmnium, lacked self-organization from below. Only the Candidatura d’Unitat Popular (CUP) represented an anticapitalist and unofficial pro-independence current, but it did so at the cost of serious internal contradictions and enormous external pressures.

But the state’s repressive barrage and the imminence of the vote spurred popular self-organization, and neighborhood and municipal Committees of Defense of the Referendum (CDRs) joined the Escoles Obertes (Open Schools) in organizing volunteers to protect polling stations on October 1.

Neither the ANC nor Òmnium were overtaken by the push from below, but they may force these organizations’ militants to engage in more consistent civil disobedience. Up to this point, their approach remained quite timid, concentrating on setting up polling stations, and they had not planned any real system of defense to confront police harassment.

Large-scale self-organization emerged late. Without a doubt, if Catalonia en Comú had actively engaged more around the referendum, the process could have gone much further (though we should recognize that many of its militants played an active role beyond what the party officially did). What was achieved on Sunday was spectacular, but the absence of a unitary movement was felt in the months leading up to the referendum. The ANC did not want to promote a broader alliance, and the forces outside the mainstream could not initiate their own dynamic to align with the ANC. Only the events of the last few days changed the situation, launching a process of organization from below that had not existed before.

Phase Two

In the coming confrontation, the movement has four fundamental challenges.

First, it must expand its social base. It is difficult to evaluate the results of October 1 in detail thanks to the repressive conditions under which voting took place. No doubt, over two million “yes” votes constitutes an important social bloc. While not strictly a numerical majority, no organized or active counter-bloc has emerged to oppose it.

The independence movement exploded between 2012 and 2014 but has remained more or less stagnant, albeit at high levels of support, since then.

Some got tired of the eternal process that seemed to go nowhere, but, in recent days, new support developed, mainly because of the Spanish state’s repression. Some “yes” votes may have been cast in favor of democracy rather than independence. Further, we cannot know how many people who would have voted “yes” could not do so because of all the complications of the day.

In terms of its social composition, the independence movement’s base pivots around the middle class and young people, though older voters were very visible in the polling lines on Sunday. The mainstream movement never captured an important part of the left-wing social base and, in fact, it did not try to do so: it simply expected they would eventually become convinced.

Catalunya en Comú’s hesitant policy reflects not only its leadership’s views, but the social reality of its political and electoral base. This is worth noting explicitly, as it’s a key factor. Having a specific policy towards left-wing political and social organizations and their social base is necessary, which undoubtedly clashes with the project of the neoliberal right in power, the Partit Demòcrata Europeu Català (PDeCAT), whose weakness should be exploited to impose a left turn. We should roughly sketch the path to radicalizing the mainstream independentist movement: implementing urgent political and social measures as an anti-crisis package, prioritizing the start of a constituent process, and creating a framework that can include those who do not necessarily want independence but support some sort of constitutional rupture with the state.

Indeed, the absence of any alliance between independentists and those who support Catalonia’s right to decide has been one of the process’s biggest strategic weakness. This has one immediate implication: the Catalan Parliament must carry through the referendum’s popular mandate in a way that ensures the pro-democracy-but-anti-independence sectors who participated in the organization on October 1 feel included. That is, it must avoid fracturing the democratic-disobedient front that contributed to the vote’s success and thereby reducing its supporters to an alliance of independentist forces only, without distorting the meaning of what was approved on Sunday.

Second, the independence movement must maintain the strength shown after September 20, in the days leading up to October 1, and on the day itself. Democratic grassroots efforts such as CDRs should continue in one form or another. Beyond the ANC and Òmnium, the people should build broad committees that are not subordinate to those two organizations while still having a policy of unity toward them.

Until September 20, pro-independence action was limited to the impressive September 11 annual mobilization, but it had little capacity to respond in important moments or to go beyond the ANC or Òmnium when they opted to react to events passively. The answer is not to return to normal but to sustain the dynamics of self-organization that began on the eve of October 1.

Third, pro-independence forces must develop a more complex perspective regarding the struggle, confrontation, and victory. The movement regularly uses the term “disconnection” to describe independence, a word that, while conveying a seductive image of quiet change, greatly simplifies what breaking with the state actually entails.

The official discourse has insisted that independence represents a transition from one legality to another, ignoring the fact that, if the former does not accept that change, what begins is a struggle in which brute force is decisive (recall Marx’s remark in Capital: “between equal rights, force decides”). Force nevertheless is conditioned by the context and legitimacy of the one who wields it. Keeping all this in mind is important for the looming sustained conflict.

Fourth, pro-independence forces must look for and weave alliances across the entire Spanish state. The movement has welcomed the solidarity it received from outside Catalonia in response to the intensified repression, but it based its strategy on unilateral action, never seeking out support in other parts of Spain beyond the nationalism of the Basques or Galicians. In reality, unilateralism and the search for allies are compatible.

That support is more necessary than ever now. As long as the PP believes that the iron fist benefits it the most in the short term, it will maintain its policy of repression. Independentism must articulate its struggle, without dissolving it, within the context of the broader battle against the 1978 regime.

Democracy, both by standing against repression and by being able to decide the future, should be the starting point. The recognition of a common adversary will be the second step.

The Internal Frontline

The independence movement confronts the Spanish state, but the movement has also faced an internal struggle. The most visible disagreement is between the two government parties, the right-wing, neoliberal PDeCAT and the center-left Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC). But, beyond their competition, the most decisive battle will take place over whether the radical forces within the movement can surpass the bloc formed by the Catalan government, ANC, and Òmnium Cultural.

Events since September 20, especially the self-organization from below and the movement’s radicalization, may favor more left-wing forces, both politically (primarily the CUP) and socially. Finally, the role that Catalonia en Comú plays in this struggle will be decisive in determining whether this situation shifts left.

Until September 20, Ada Calou’s party remained passive. When the government called the referendum last year, Catalonia en Comú expected the plans to collapse, hoping that every step toward the vote would be the last and that the government would push a unilateral referendum into the indefinite future. The party only explained its position when pushed, and then it opted to defend the referendum process as a mobilization without committing to its success or calling for a massive turnout.

After the state’s repressive turn, however, Catalonia en Comú modified its position and joined the mobilization, but it did not fundamentally transform its strategic orientation. Ada Colau’s blank vote – neither “yes” nor “no” – summed up the party’s discomfort with the independence debate.

Now Catalonia en Comú must choose: either it watches the fight from a distance, or it joins the confrontation with the state and supports a constituent process. It can take this active role with twin objectives: overcoming the centralized state and breaking the Right and center-left’s hegemony over the independence movement.

To do so would not necessarily mean supporting full independence. Instead, it might prove that a rupture with the state has become the necessary condition for a federal solution. That is, without betraying its own programmatic positions, Catalonia en Comú can support the proclamation of the Catalan Republic and the opening of a constituent process.

If it stays on the margins, this could push it to the periphery of Catalan politics or, if independence is defeated, it may enjoy a rebound effect that gives them it a new medium-term success. But either way, if the party resumes the passive orientation it held prior to October 1 in the new stage that opens, it will severely affect the nature of its political project. It is not only Catalonia en Comú’s position on the independence debate that is at stake, but its own constituent and rupturist drive. The discomfort of the independence movement with the Comu’s position is understandable, but this should not make the party forget the need to have a unitary policy towards them, particularly on democratic and constituent issues.

Podem has had a more proactive and committed position toward the referendum. It denied the vote’s binding nature and even called on its base to vote “no,” but these positions contradict the party’s proposal to open a constituent process.

Now Podem must decide if it will stay outside the next phase of confrontation with the state, or if it will have an active policy towards the sovereigntist bloc and help to try to overcome that bloc’s right wing.

Thus, the Left must complete three interrelated tasks: maintain the independence movement’s unified action against the Spanish state, articulate a democratic and anti-repressive bloc that moves beyond independence, and fight to re-balance Catalonia’s political forces to favor the Left.

This last point gets at a more fundamental question: what does the term independence mean, and how does it relate to the concept of sovereignty? The mainstream movement has presented independence as the solution to all of Catalonia’s problems while leaving the concept empty of concrete content. In fact, official independentism, both in its neoliberal and center-left forms, could produce independence without real sovereignty in a state that is formally independent but remains subaltern to the European Union, favorable to international trade agreements like the TTIP and to policies that serve multinationals.

The Catalan left must insist on sovereignty with all its national, social, economic, and health dimensions, not to mention its relationship to notions of democracy and solidarity against reactionary nationalism. Put another way, the Left must figure out how to link a proposal for political change with a proposal for another social, economic, and institutional model, to go beyond the change without change that mainstream independence embodies.

Contradictions

Those on the Left, both in Catalonia and the Spanish state, who have remained opposed to or outside the independence movement have often pointed out, with more or less authority, the process’s innumerable contradictions. The most notorious of all, of course, remains the presence of a neoliberal party at the head of the Catalan government, a defender of a strict policy of social cuts that never used to support independence. I have already pointed out some limits of the Catalan political process – in terms of the social base and the contending forces.

But the constant insistence on the process’s contradictions reflects an excessively scholastic attitude toward social reality itself and unfortunately often appears in many Left analyses of phenomena that fall outside their authors’ predetermined schemas.

All social processes produce contradictions to a greater or lesser extent. This comes from the very complexity of human societies and how they express conflict. A movement not only contains contradictions and limitations, but its evolution will always produce contradictory and limited results. This observation brings us back to what social theorists call the unintended consequences of social action.

Any anticapitalist strategy needs to learn how to work in the context of contradictions and limits to try and resolve the former in an emancipatory direction while widening the confines of the latter. The purest strategy is precisely the one that knows how to handle itself in an impure, contradictory, and complex world.

“Whoever expects a ‘pure’ social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is,” wrote Lenin in 1916 about the Easter Rising.

Today, we are not facing a revolution, but his words nevertheless apply to the Catalan reality.

Faced with the imperfections of the Catalan independence movement, the Left has two options: opt for a passive policy that will involuntarily exacerbate the movement’s deficiencies, or follow an active policy that intervenes in reality and pushes the process in a more progressive direction. The first option leads, depending on the case, toward abstract radicalism, propagandism, or institutionalist routinism. None of these outcomes have anything to do with a serious attempt to change the world.

The contradictions and limits of the five-year independence process have prompted the abrupt emergence of striking paradoxes, a term that can take on both comic and tragic valences. Certainly, the days leading up to October 1 were days of paradox. Disobedient parties called for order and calm, while leftists turned to the Catalan police. Right-wing forces appealed for institutional disobedience, disguised as complying with the new Catalan legality, while activists and anarchists lined up to vote. A reactionary government accused its citizens who wanted to organize a referendum of plotting a coup.

When social processes accelerate, as they have in Spain, all strategic thinking that does not want to be fossilized must plunge headfirst into these paradoxes, where things are not what they seem and where the consequences of actions may not always be clear.

Josep Maria Antentas is a professor of sociology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona. This article first published on the Jacobin website.

On October 9, ISIS terrorists attacked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) terrorists in northern Hama.

ISIS seized the villages of Jub Al Tabqalia, Abu Lafa, Nafila, Murjajib, Al Jumlan, Shakushiya, Wadi Zarub, Um Al Fawr, Hasrat, Rasm Al Ahmar, Sarha, Sarha Shamaliya and Al Mostariha.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) launched a counter-attack and reportedly retook a few villages. Clashes in the area continued into the next day.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) will likely exploit this situation in order to clear the entire eastern Salamiyah countryside of the remaining ISIS units.

Last weekend, HTS seized Abu Dali village and al-Maqta’a Hill from the SAA in northern Hama. The terrorist group claimed that 97 SAA fighters were killed and that 20 vehicles, 6 battle tanks and an artillery gun were destroyed in the clashes.

Abu Dali village had been an important trafficking hub between the government-held and HTS-held areas.

The SAA and its allies took full control over Hatla al-Sharqiyah village and pushed towards Siyasiyah Bridge on the eastern bank of the Euphrates.

If government forces secure the bridge area, they will be able to further tighten the siege on ISIS units in the northern part of Deir Ezzor city.

Separately, clashes between the SAA and ISIS continued in the area of Mayadin City.

Reports appeared that ISIS is redeploying vehicles and fighters from the frontline against the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) near al Suwar and al Khajjah northeast of Deir Ezzor city to the frontline against government troops on the eastern and western banks of the Euphrates.

The SDF has seized as-Sawah, Zughayr, Hawayij Bu Musah, Huwayj Duyab, Muhaymidah and reached the Deir Ezzor Industrial Zone from the northwestern direction.

Voiceover by Harold Hoover

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.

In May, 2017 the Prime Minister of India refused to participate in the founding meeting in Beijing of the ambitious Belt-Road Initiative (BRI), the network of high-speed rail and deep water port linkages across the Eurasia land mass. The official reason given was that China had gone ahead with her neighbor state and long-term ally, Pakistan, to begin construction of a China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) without first consulting India. To read the statement of Modi and the Indian government it would seem CPEC was tantamount to a China declaration of intent to invade India. It is worthwhile to look at what the China-Pakistan project actually entails.

In 2015 Chinese President Xi Jinping announced a bilateral agreement with the government of Pakistan to construct a network originating from Kashgar in China’s Xinjiang Province in the far northwest of the country that borders Mongolia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and of course, Pakistan. The 3200 kilometers of the CPEC go finally through Pakistan via several infrastructure arteries to Gwadar in Balochistan Province on the Arabian Sea near the border to Iran.

As part of the overall BRI project, CPEC is a strategic corridor—one of six main corridors at present—of China’s grand infrastructure enterprise, an enterprise on a scale never undertaken by any nation until now. Across Pakistan a grid of electric power plants, highways and new ports is being built. A sum of $18 billion investment mainly in coal plants in Pakistan, $10 billion in construction of new modern highways and the rest in port and rail construction was mentioned originally when President Xi Jinping first announced the CPEC in 2015. A new Chinese-built modern deep-water port at Gwadar on the Arabian Sea is a keystone of the project. Since initially proposed, the CPEC has grown now to an estimated $62 billion in scope, a huge infrastructure investment for one of the poorest economies in Asia.

A closer look into the various projects of CPEC reveals the most comprehensive investments in Pakistan’s turbulent history since Lord Mountbatten in 1947 carved the British India into two states—predominately Muslim Pakistan and dominantly Hindu India—as the last Viceroy of India, then promptly retired, leaving behind a calculated tinderbox of geopolitical tensions and conflict.

Energy in center

The major component of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is dealing with the severe electric power shortfalls across Pakistan. The CPEC calls for creation of 17 priority energy projects. One such project is Sahiwal Coal Power Plant, a$1.7 billion state of the art supercritical coal-fired power project–high-efficiency low-emissions. The plant is environmentally compliant with high thermal efficiency to ensure low fuel consumption, also known as “clean coal.”It began electricity generation in July with a total capacity of 1,320 megawatts (MW), from two units of 660MW each. It was constructed by China’s state-owned Huaneng Shandong and the Shandong Ruyi Science and Technology Group and was finished six months ahead of schedule.

The two Sahiwal power units in Punjab province have already reduced Pakistan’s power deficit by 25%, a major economic boost to the nation’s economic capacity.

The CPEC  design is to complete a total of over 12,134 MWor megawatts of electricity-generating capacity by 2019, a major boon to Pakistan’s economy. At present the total electric generation capacity of all Pakistan is 20,000 MW according to Pakistan’s Secretary Water and Power, Mohammad YounisDagha, meaning that in less than two years the Pakistani economy will add more than 60% of new electric generation. This is no minor improvement, it is a qualitative leap forward.

The new plants will be a mix of low-emission coal plants and mainly hydroelectric plants, with an added small contribution from solar and wind generation. Most of the new electric generation capacity will be in Pakistan’s Sindh Province which borders Balochistan province to the west, Punjab province to the north, the Indian states of Gujarat and Rajasthan to the east, and the Arabian Sea to the south. Sindh, which will get 5,580 MW of new power plants, is where Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city and financial hub is situated. Sindh is location of a large portion of Pakistan’s industry and contains two commercial seaports–Port Bin Qasim and the Karachi Port.

For the rest of the CPEC energy grid up-build, Punjab will get 2,940 MW, Balochistan will be given 1,620 MW, Azad Jammu and Kashmir will be given 1,124 MW and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa will be given 870 MW.

Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan

 In Azad Jammu and Kashmir, commonly referred to as Azad Kashmir, a new hydroelectric power station, the Neelum-Jhelum hydro power plant, a “run-of-the-river” power plant,will divert water from the Neelum River to a power station on the Jhelum River. The power station will add a significant 968 MW of electric power. The power station part is 96% complete as of this writing and due to begin operation in January 2018. It’s been funded by a combination of the Neelum Jhelum Hydropower Company, by taxes, bond offerings, and secured loans from a consortium of Chinese banks and from banks from the Middle East. Construction was awarded by the Pakistani government to a Chinese consortium CGGC-CMEC (Gezhouba Group and China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation) for both the power station and a later dam with “pondage” storage reservoir. When completed it will add much needed electric power to the region as well as water storage and land irrigation for agriculture.

Azad Kashmir together with the contiguous Gilgit-Baltistan is referred to by the UN and other international bodies as “Pakistan-administered Kashmir.” The British deliberately left Kashmir borders undefined as a convenient raw sore, keeping friction between India and Pakistan. De facto since decades, Pakistan-administered Kashmir including Gilgit-Baltistan is part of Pakistan. However, this dispute and the fact that China’s China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, of geographic necessity, flows through Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan is the formal reason Modi’s India decided to stay out of the China Belt Road Initiative, much to India’s future economic loss to be sure.

The enormous hydroelectric power potentials of the beautiful mountainous Gilgit-Baltistan, a region given limited self-governing autonomy by Pakistan in 2009, is impressive. With a population of 1,800,000, it is home to five of the fourteen independent mountains over 8,000 metres (26,247 ft) above sea level.

In September 2009, four years before official announcement of the China New Economic Silk Road as it was initially called, Pakistan signed an agreement with the People’s Republic of China for construction of a 7,000-megawatt dam at Bunji in Gilgit-Baltistan. With growing water supply problems across Pakistan, the once-isolated Gilgit-Baltistan is becoming strategic for the future of Pakistan and for South, West and Central Asia as a trade, water and oil corridor Between Pakistan’s Gwadar Port and China’s Xinjiang.

Clearly one reason Beijing voted to accept both Pakistan and India as full members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization last year was anticipation that collectively within the SCO China, India and Pakistan could peacefully resolve the dispute over Kashmir in the context of mutually beneficial economic infrastructure development from the BRI.

In June, 2017, China informed the Pakistan government that construction of the Diamir Bhasha Dam in Gilgit-Baltistan would be a part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. In 2006 the Asian Development Bank (ADB) had committed to finance the dam but after ten years of stalling, finally backed out under pressure, stating, after a decade, that it was in “disputed territory,” something that clearly reflected the hidden hand of Washington sabotage.

The $14 billion dam when complete will produce 4500 megawatts of electricity through environmentally clean hydropower generation, and store an extra 8 500 000 acre feet (10.5 km3) of water for the country for irrigation and drinking, and extend the life of Tarbela Dam located downstream by35 years. This will protect Punjab and Sindh downstream from the high flooding of the River Indus.

Rails, Highways, Ports

For China, today dependent on the vulnerable Straits of Malacca for 80% of its oil imports from Africa and the Middle East, construction of a major oil pipeline from Gwadar port on the Arabian Sea. This year construction of a Gwadar-Kashgar oil pipeline that will carry one million barrel per day (1MMBD) Middle Eastern oil to China, will allow China to shift around 17 percent of its oil import away from the Malacca Strait. The new pipeline is due to complete by 2021. In 2015 the Chinese Overseas Port Holding Company (COPHC) took over operation of the Gwadar Port in a lease for 43 years, and Gwadar Port became a formal link between the overland and the maritime sections of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Ongoing expansion of the port under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project is estimated at $1.6 billion. It will link northern Pakistan and western China to the deep water seaport. Gwadar will also have a floating liquefied natural gas facility as part of a $2.5 billion Gwadar-Nawabshah segment of the Iran–Pakistan gas pipeline project. Gwadar is only 120 miles from the Iranian border. Construction began in June 2016 on the Gwadar Special Economic Zone, which is being built adjacent to the port. The Chinese government is financing much of the port construction via zero interest loans whereby Pakistan must only repay principal.

Estimates are that the Gwadar oil pipeline to Kashgar in Xinjiang China will cut the shipping cost and transit time to half of the current circuitous 12,000 km sea route. It also avoids the geopolitically risky Malacca Strait. China is also building a major oil refinery at the Gwadar port, giving easy access for doing business with Middle East, Africa and Europe with much shorter time and distance.

Since the Obama Administration proclaimed its foolish “Asia Pivot” military redeployment to encircle China in the South China Sea and beyond, China has prioritized its alternatives for energy and military security in event of a future confrontation with Washington, something not at all inconceivable these days. In his 2017 reconfirmation Senate testimony September 27, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford declared,

“I think China probably poses the greatest threat to our nation by about 2025.”

Since Washington declared its Asia Pivot in 2010 as official military doctrine to contain China, China definitely sees the US as China’s “greatest threat.” I can’t say I blame them given all the mischief the US has been making to isolate China over the past seven years.

A recent study by Beijing’s Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies of Renmin University remarks that the building up of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor will not only be a “huge driving force for the development of China and Pakistan, but also in its stimulation of coordinated economic development by closely linking up Central Asian, South Asian, North African and Gulf countries and regions with the economic, trade and infrastructure connectivity and energy cooperation.”

The BRI and the CPEC prime corridor of the BRI is not about making easier a Chinese invasion of India as some Indian and Washington think tanks claim. It is about intelligent building up the economic space, not bombing it down as Dunford, Defense Secretary Mad Man, sorry, Mad Dog Mattis, and others in Washington advocate.

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

This article was originally published by New Eastern Outlook where the featured image was sourced.

In comments that underscore the advanced US preparations for war with North Korea, Defence Secretary James Mattis declared yesterday that the armed forces had “to be ready to ensure that we have military options that our president can employ if needed.”

Mattis’s remarks to the Association of the US Army Exposition on Building Readiness directly echoed President Trump’s instruction last Thursday to a meeting of his top military and intelligence chiefs, including Mattis.

“I also expect you to provide me with a broad range of military options, when needed, at a much faster pace,” Trump stated.

The defence secretary yesterday emphasised that “the US army must stand ready.” He pointedly urged his military audience to read T.R. Fehrenbach’s “This Kind of War”—a history of the bloody US-led Korean War of 1950–53—to make clear that the army could well be flung into another devastating conflict in the near future.

In a chilling indication of what is being planned and what would be required of the army, Mattis quoted Fehrenbach:

“You may fly over a nation forever, you may bomb it, atomise it, pulverise it and wipe it clean of life. But if you desire to defend it… you must do this on the ground the way the Roman legions did: by putting your young men in the mud.”

Speaking to the media at the same military gathering, US Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley declared that the military was ready to act, warning that time was short.

“It’s not an indefinite amount of time. And there will be a decision made, there is no question about it,” he said.

Like Mattis, Milley warned of what lay in store in a war on North Korea:

“There are no good, easy, risk-free options here. This is extraordinarily difficult, extraordinarily dangerous. No one should underestimate it.”

In his comments, Mattis maintained that the White House is engaged in “a diplomatically-led, economically sanction-buttressed effort to try to turn North Korea off this path [towards war].”

President Trump, however, has repeatedly and openly dismissed efforts to start talks with North Korea, declaring just last week that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was “wasting his time” in putting out feelers for negotiations with Pyongyang.

Yesterday, Trump echoed his threatening tweet on Saturday that “only one thing will work” with North Korea—namely, a war of total destruction. On Monday, he tweeted:

“Our country has been unsuccessfully dealing with North Korea for 25 years, giving billions of dollars & getting nothing. Policy didn’t work?”

Trump’s crude, ignorant and menacing threats evoke no significant opposition or criticism in the compliant American and international media, which once again serves as a propaganda arm for war, through its incessant demonisation of the Pyongyang regime. The real threat to the world is not North Korea and its limited nuclear arsenal, but US imperialism, which is on the brink of launching a war that could drag in all of the major nuclear-armed powers.

Over the past 25 years, successive US governments have pursued a policy of undisguised hostility towards Pyongyang and have never negotiated in good faith. In 1994, President Clinton was on the brink of launching an all-out war against North Korea. He only pulled back at the last moment when his generals made clear that there would be tens of thousands of US military casualties and nearly half a million South Korean military casualties in the first three months of a war.

The Clinton administration never carried out the terms of the hastily reached 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, which was rapidly overturned by the incoming Bush administration. Bush himself only negotiated the 2007 denuclearisation agreement with Pyongyang because the American military was bogged down in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He effectively sabotaged the deal by unilaterally demanding a new, more intrusive inspection regime. Obama never attempted to resurrect talks.

Trump’s declaration that “only one thing will work” in dealing with North Korea makes clear that nothing short of Pyongyang’s complete capitulation to Washington’s demands will halt the US drive to war.

The imminence of a war in North East Asia with incalculable consequences is generating tensions within Washington, including within the White House, as well as in capitals around the world.

Concerned about the danger of a broader conflict and the potential for an eruption of anti-war opposition, Mattis and Tillerson have both stressed the need to exhaust diplomatic avenues, while backing the so-called “military option.”

Other longstanding establishment figures, none of whom are fundamentally opposed to a war on North Korea, have voiced similar concerns.

On CNN yesterday, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper suggested that Trump should “cool” his statements, which North Korea “could easily construe… as a declaration or at least a threat of war.” He warned that Trump’s “bellicose rhetoric” only heightened the danger that Pyongyang would respond.

Speaking to an International Bar Association conference in Sydney on Monday, former US Defence Secretary Robert Gates stated that a pre-emptive US strike on North Korea would be a “big mistake” that risked triggering a devastating war. “At what point do the tweets become provocative and create a situation in which any incident could lead to a much broader conflict?” he asked.

In the wake of Trump’s belligerent tweets, Russia and China yesterday called on all sides to pull back. Kremlin spokesman Dmity Peskov appealed for all parties “to exercise restraint and to avoid steps that would only worsen the situation.” Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying described the situation as extremely complex and serious. While both countries have opposed North Korea’s nuclear programs, neither wants a major war on its doorstep.

At the same time, the US and its allies are preparing for conflict. South Korea’s Hankyoreh reported last week that the aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS Ronald Reagan would be joining South Korean warships in mid-October for “high intensity joint exercises.” The Australian navy is reportedly sending two navy frigates to South Korea later this month to participate in a week of military exercises.

In Britain, the Daily Mail reported that British officials are drawing up war plans that could involve the dispatch of the navy’s new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, and other warships to a US war in North East Asia.

In Las Vegas on 1 October 2017, it appears that one man (although it might have been more) killed 59 people and shot and injured another 241 (with almost 300 more injured while fleeing). The incident got a lot of publicity, partly because the man managed to kill more people than most mass killers. However, because the killer was a white American and had a Christian name, he was not immediately labeled a terrorist, even though his death toll considerably exceeded that achieved in many ‘terrorist attacks’, including those that occur in war zones (such as US drone murders of innocent people attending weddings).

According to the Gun Violence Archive, there is now an average of one mass shooting (arbitrarily defined by the FBI as a shooting in which at least four victims are shot) each day in the USA. By any measure, this is a national crisis.

However, while there has been a flood of commentary on the incident, including suggestions about what might be done in response based on a variety of analyses of the cause, none that I have read explain the underlying cause of all these mass killings. And if we do not understand this, then any other suggestions, whatever their apparent merits, can have little impact.

The suggestions made so far in response to this massacre include the following:

1. Making it much more difficult, perhaps even illegal, to own a gun. See ‘Guns’.

2. Drastically reducing the prescription of pharmaceutical drugs (which are almost invariably being consumed by the killer). See ‘Drugs and Guns Don’t Mix: Medication Madness, Military Madness and the Las Vegas Mass Shooting’.

3. Recognising and addressing the sociological factors implicated in causing the violence. See ‘violence is driven by socioeconomic factors, not access to firearms’ argued in ‘Another Mass Shooting, Another Grab for Guns: 6 Gun Facts’ and ‘a deep sickness in American society’ argued in ‘The social pathology of the Las Vegas Massacre’.

4. Identifying whether or not the killer had ideological/religious links to a terrorist group (in this case ISIS, as claimed by some). See, for example, ‘ISIS Releases Infographic Claiming Las Vegas Gunman Converted 6 Months Ago’.

5. Identifying and remedying the ways in which constitutional provisions and laws facilitate such massacres. See ‘Las Vegas Massacre Proves 2nd Amendment Must be Abolished’.

6. Recognizing the way in which these incidents are encouraged by national elites and are sometimes, in fact, false flag attacks used as a means to justify the consolidation of elite social control (through such measures as increased state surveillance and new restrictions on human rights).

7. Limiting the ways in which violence, especially military violence, is used as entertainment and education, and thus culturally glorified in ways that encourage imitation. See ‘People Don’t Kill People, Americans Kill People’.

However, as indicated above, while these and other suggestions, including certain educational initiatives, sound attractive as options for possibly preventing/mitigating some incidents in future, they do not address the cause of violence in this or any other context and so widespread violence both in the United States and around the world will continue.

So why does someone become a mass killer?

Human socialization is essentially a process of inflicting phenomenal violence on children until they think and behave as the key adults – particularly their parents, teachers and religious figures – around them want, irrespective of the functionality of this thought and behavior in evolutionary terms. This is because virtually all adults prioritize obedience over all other possible behaviors and they delusionarily believe that they ‘know better’ than the child.

The idea that each child is the only one of their kind in all of living creation in Earth’s history and, therefore, has a unique destiny to fulfill, never even enters their mind. So, instead of nurturing that unique destiny so that the child fully becomes the unique Self that evolution created, adults terrorize each child into becoming just another more-or-less identical cog in the giant machine called ‘human society’.

Before I go any further, you might wonder if the expression ‘phenomenal violence?’ isn’t too strong. So let me explain.

From the moment of birth, human adults inflict violence on the child. This violence occurs in three categories: visible, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’. Visible violence is readily identified: it is the (usually) physical violence that occurs when someone is hit (with a hand or weapon), kicked, shaken, held down or punished in any other way. See ‘Punishment is Violent and Counterproductive’.

But what is this ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ violence that is inflicted on us mercilessly, and has a profoundly damaging impact, from the day we are born?

In essence, ‘invisible’ violence is the ‘little things’ we do every day, partly because we are just ‘too busy’. For example, when we do not allow time to listen to, and value, a child’s thoughts and feelings, the child learns to not listen to themselves thus destroying their internal communication system. When we do not let a child say what they want (or ignore them when they do), the child develops communication and behavioural dysfunctionalities as they keep trying to meet their own needs (which, as a basic survival strategy, they are genetically programmed to do).

When we blame, condemn, insult, mock, embarrass, shame, humiliate, taunt, goad, guilt-trip, deceive, lie to, bribe, blackmail, moralize with and/or judge a child, we both undermine their sense of Self-worth and teach them to blame, condemn, insult, mock, embarrass, shame, humiliate, taunt, goad, guilt-trip, deceive, lie, bribe, blackmail, moralize and/or judge.

The fundamental outcome of being bombarded throughout their childhood by this ‘invisible’ violence is that the child is utterly overwhelmed by feelings of fear, pain, anger and sadness (among many others). However, parents, teachers and other adults also actively interfere with the expression of these feelings and the behavioural responses that are naturally generated by them and it is this ‘utterly invisible’ violence that explains why the dysfunctional behavioural outcomes actually occur.

For example, by ignoring a child when they express their feelings, by comforting, reassuring or distracting a child when they express their feelings, by laughing at or ridiculing their feelings, by terrorizing a child into not expressing their feelings (e.g. by screaming at them when they cry or get angry), and/or by violently controlling a behaviour that is generated by their feelings (e.g. by hitting them, restraining them or locking them into a room), the child has no choice but to unconsciously suppress their awareness of these feelings.

However, once a child has been terrorized into suppressing their awareness of their feelings (rather than being allowed to have their feelings and to act on them) the child has also unconsciously suppressed their awareness of the reality that caused these feelings. This has many outcomes that are disastrous for the individual, for society and for nature because the individual will now easily suppress their awareness of the feelings that would tell them how to act most functionally in any given circumstance and they will progressively acquire a phenomenal variety of dysfunctional behaviours, including many that are violent towards themselves, others and/or the Earth.

Moreover, this emotional (or psychological) damage will lead to a unique combination of violent behaviours in each case and, depending on the precise combination of violence to which they are subjected, some of them will become what I call ‘archetype perpetrators of violence’; that is, people so emotionally damaged that they end up completely devoid of a Self and with a psychological profile similar to Hitler’s.

These archetype perpetrators of violence are all terrified, self-hating and powerless but, in fact, they have 23 identifiable psychological characteristics constituting their ‘personality’.For a full explanation of this particular psychological profile, see ‘Why Violence?’and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.Of course, few perpetrators of violence fit the archetype, but all perpetrators are full of (suppressed) terror, self-hatred and powerlessness and this is fundamental to understanding their violence as explained in ‘Why Violence?’

Rather than elaborate further in this article why these perpetrators behave as they do (which you can read on the documents just mentioned), let me explain why the suggestions made by others above in relation to gun and drug control, socioeconomic factors, ideological/religious connections, constitutional and legal shortcomings, resisting efforts to consolidate elite social control, and revised education and entertainment programs can have little impact if undertaken in isolation from the primary suggestion I will make below.

Once someone is so emotionally damaged that they are effectively devoid of the Self that should have defined their unique personality, then they will be the endless victim of whatever violence is directed at them. This simply means that they will have negligible capacity to deal powerfully with any difficult life circumstances and personal problems (and, for example, to resist doctors prescribing pharmaceutical drugs), they will be gullibly influenced by violent ideologies, education and entertainment, and they will have virtually no capacity to work creatively to resolve the conflicts (both personal and structural) in their life but will do what was modeled to them as a child in any effort to do so: use violence.

And by now you have probably realized that I am not just talking about the mass killers that I started discussing at the beginning of this article. I am also talking about the real mass killers: those politicians, military leaders and weapons corporation executives, and all those other corporate executives, who inflict mass violence on life itself, as well as those others, such as academics and those working in corporate media outlets, that support and justify this violence. This includes, to specify just one obvious example, all of those US Senators and Congresspeople who resist implementing gun control laws. See ‘Thoughts and Prayers and N.R.A. Funding’.

In essence then, if the child suffers enough of this visible, invisible and utterly invisible violence, they will grow up devoid of the Selfhood – including the love, compassion, empathy, morality and integrity – that is their birthright and the foundation of their capacity to behave powerfully in all contexts without the use of violence.

Instead, they will become a perpetrator of violence, to a greater or lesser extent, and may even seek employment in those positions that encourage them to support and/or inflict violence legally, such as a police or prison officer, a lawyer or judge – see ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’– a soldier who fights in war or a Congressperson who supports it, or even an employee in a corporation that profits from violence and exploitation. See ‘Profit Maximization is Easy: Invest in Violence’.

In addition, most individuals will inflict violence on the climate and environment, all will inflict violence on children, and some will inflict violence in those few ways that are actually defined as ‘illegal’, such as mass killings.

But if we don’t see the mass killers as the logical, if occasional, outcome of (unconsciously) violent parenting, then we will never even begin to address the problem at its source. And we are condemned to suffer violence, in all of its manifestations, until we inevitably drive ourselves to extinction through nuclear war or climate/environmental collapse.

If you are looking for a lead on this from political leaders, you are wasting your time. Similarly, there are precious few professionals, particularly in the medical and psychiatric industries – see ‘Defeating the Violence of Psychiatry’ – who have any idea how to respond meaningfully (assuming they even have an interest in doing so). So why not be your own judge and consider making ‘My Promise to Children’?

In addition, if further reducing the violence in our world appeals to you, then you are also welcome to consider participating in the creation of communities that do not have violence built into them – see ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’– signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ and/or consider using the strategic framework on one or the other of these two websites for your campaign to end violence in one context or another: Nonviolent Campaign Strategy and Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

In summary then: For the typical human adult, it is better to endlessly inflict violence on a child to coerce them to obey. Of course, once the child has been terrorized into this unthinking obedience, they won’t just obey the parents and teachers (secular and religious) who terrorized them: they will also obey anyone else who orders them to do something. This will include governments, military officers and terrorist leaders who order them to kill (or pay taxes to kill) people they do not know in foreign countries, employers who order them to submit to the exploitation of themselves and others, not to mention a vast array of other influences (particularly corporations) who will have little trouble manipulating them into behaving unethically and without question (even regarding consumer purchases).

Or, to put it another way: For the typical human adult, it is better to endlessly inflict violence on a child to coerce them to obey and to then watch the end-products of this violence – obedient, submissive children who are powerless to question their parents and teachers, resist the entreaties of drug pushers, and critique the propaganda of governments, corporations and the military as well as the media, education and entertainment industries – spiral endlessly out of control: wars, massive exploitation, ecological destruction, slavery, mass killings…. And to then wonder ‘Why?’

For these terrorized humans, cowardly powerlessness is the state they have been trained to accept, while taking whatever material distractions are thrown their way as compensation. So they pass on this state to their children by terrorizing them into submission too. Powerfully accepting responsibility to fulfill their own unique destiny, and serve society by doing so, is beyond them.

The great tragedy of human life is that virtually no-one values the awesome power of the individual Self with an integrated mind (that is, a mind in which memory, thoughts, feelings, sensing, conscience and other functions work together in an integrated way) because this individual will be decisive in choosing life-enhancing behavioural options (including those at variance with social laws and norms) and will fearlessly resist all efforts to control or coerce them with violence.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here.

Global Research is an independent organization that is funded exclusively through the support of its readers. It does not accept public or private funding. Every contribution helps us continue to bring you the up-to-date, incisive information that you count on.

If you are unable to make a donation, you can help us by cross-posting and/or forwarding Global Research articles, sending them to your friends on your e-mail lists, posting them on internet blogs, etc. This will help us reach a broad readership.

*     *     *

Sputnik and Russia Today Under Investigation by US Department of Justice (DOJ)

By Philip Giraldi, October 11, 2017

The apparent line of inquiry that the Bureau is pursuing is that both are agencies of the Russian government and that both have been spreading disinformation that is intended to discredit the United States government and its institutions. This alleged action would make them, in the DOJ view, a propaganda arm of a foreign government rather than a news service. It also makes them subject to Department of the Treasury oversight under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.

US Military Dropped 751 Bombs in Afghanistan in September

By Press TV, October 10, 2017

The figure indicated a 50-percent increase from August (503 bombs), which the command attributed to President Donald Trump’s so-called “strategy to more proactively target extremist groups” in the country.

The Kremlin’s “US-Gate” Probe: Russia Gets Ready for US “Interference” in 2018 Presidential Election

By Anton Kulikov, October 11, 2017

Officials with the Federation Council Commission for the Protection of State Sovereignty concluded during a meeting on Monday that attempts to interfere in Russia’s internal affairs were noticeable during the regional elections in September of this year, even though they did not show much influence on the outcome of the elections.

Ousted Brazilian President: US Intervention in Venezuela Could Spark “Civil War”

By Lucas Koerner, October 10, 2017

Former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff warned Sunday that Washington’s interference in Venezuela is “extremely dangerous” and could provoke an armed conflict.

Syria – Turkey Violates Astana Agreement – Renews Alliance with Al-Qaeda

By Moon of Alabama, October 10, 2017

But the Turkish forces have made a deal with HTS. When their reconnaissance teams entered Idleb yesterday they were escorted by heavily armed HTS forces (video). According to their agreement with the terrorists the Turkish forces will only take up three positions. All of these will be bordering the Kurdish enclave Efrin (Afrin).

It has become almost cliche to compare the current atmosphere of Russo-Phobia in US politics to the 1950s “Mccarthyism.” The sometimes open and sometimes subtle demonization of alleged Chinese influence in Hollywood has drawn similar parallels. While the anti-Russia, anti-China atmospheres of the 1950s and today are very different, in some ways they are quite similar. The commonalities between the two episodes point to certain truths about the psyche of the American people, especially certain demographics, and what those demonizing the two Eurasian superpowers are really afraid of.

An Inner-Party Purge

The opening of Mccarthyism in the USA, much like the current “Russia Investigation” was a fight within a major US political party. Though Mccarthyism eventually moved toward Republicans calling Democrats “soft on Communism,” the period opened with the Democratic Party purging its own ranks of a distrusted element.

Prior to the Second World War, Franklin Delano Roosevelt had often stood up to his own party in order to transform the United States. Democrats who opposed him had formed the “American Liberty League” in the 1936 Presidential election. Prominent Democratic leader Al Smith urged opposition to Roosevelt saying that the USA “can have only one capital, Washington or Moscow!” This was, of course, a not so subtle recognition of the fact that Roosevelt’s mass movement of supporters had many outspoken Communists and Socialists in its ranks. Though Roosevelt died 1945, after the war, the leftist political army that had backed him remained intact.

In 1946, when Truman’s Cold War crackdown began, this network of labor unionists, intellectuals, and African American community leaders still had a large amount of influence among the Democratic Party’s activist base. Vito Marcantonio, a close ally of the Communist Party, represented Harlem in the US House of Representatives. Many Roosevelt Democrats had a very positive opinion of the Soviet Union and the role it played in defeating fascism.

Many of these urban based Roosevelt Democrats had no objection to aligning with the Communist Party and its larger political milieu on local issues. Democratic Party Labor Unions like the United Auto Workers, the International Longshore Warehouse Union, the National Maritime Union, and the United Steelworkers of America, had large pro-Communist factions among their leaders. Many Black ministers were associated with the National Negro Labor Congress and other civil rights groups linked to the Communist Party.

The period known as “Mccarthyism” began with the Democrats actively suppressing this pro-Soviet, left-wing populist faction within their own party. The first targets of the Mccarthyist witch-hunts were figures like Alger Hiss, a State Department official who had been key in establishing the United Nations. Hiss was subject to demonization by both Democrats and Republicans, who accused him of being a Soviet agent. He was eventually imprisoned for perjury.

In response to this purge of Roosevelt Democrats, Henry Wallace, Vice President from 1940 to 1944 broke with the Democrats to form the “Progressive Party” and run for President against Truman in the 1948 elections. Wallace, once the Vice President, was maligned as a traitor and Russian agent because he dared challenge Cold War politics. His Presidential campaign served to rally the remnants of Roosevelt’s army against Truman’s anti-labor and militaristic trajectory.

Today, the “Russia Investigation” is also very much a fight within a single party, however, this time, it is the Republicans. Establishment Republicans like Lindsay Graham, John Mccain, and Marco Rubio are sounding the alarm, and hoping to squash the emerging, isolationist, right-wing populist, “America First” wing of the GOP. Like the Democrats once did against Henry Wallace’s supporters, these establishment Republicans are reaching across the isle to attack a distrusted wing of their own party’s base.

The fact that the hysteria in both periods took place within major parties, shows that its not simply partisan political theatrics. The issue is not one major party accusing the other of being soft on Russia. The issue is a deep divide about how to relate to the largest country in the world.

China & Hollywood Hysterics

As Mccarthyism escalated in the early 1950s, the focus shifted from the Roosevelt wing of the Democratic Party, to Hollywood. The House Un-American Activities Committee began investigating screenwriters and film stars, alleging that they had “Un-American” political views and were using their platform in cinema to advance Soviet and Chinese geopolitical positions.

Today, the alarm bells about “Communists in Hollywood” have rung once again, with the target this time being Wang Jianlin, the Chinese billionaire who owns AMC theaters. When Wang announced that he intended to purchase a Hollywood Studio, the press went into an uproar. As reports from National Public Radio, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal revealed, the fears of “Chinese influence” in Hollywood extended well beyond Wang Jianlin’s financial empire.

The fact that the Chinese Communist Party censors and approves films shown on the mainland has greatly influenced major studios, who seek to make revenue from China’s expanding film market. The Communist Party does not allow films featuring homosexuality, vampires, zombies, or demonization of the People’s Republic to be shown in the country. Fearing that they may lose access to such markets, Hollywood’s production decisions have certainly been affected.

In the 1950s, talk of Communism in Hollywood involved accusations that it was promoting sexual promiscuity. The feeling was that Soviet and Chinese Communists were not Christians, and therefore, would seek to destroy the morality of the American public with sexually explicit movies. However, today, Chinese influence is blamed for asserting a more socially conservative agenda. China’s Communist Party maintains certain aspects of traditional culture, and if Hollywood is to appease them, it must be less sexually explicit, and more friendly to the traditional family. Also, Hollywood producers have noticed that Chinese audiences tend to really favor films with Chinese actors.

The fear that perhaps China’s leaders could influence movies smacks with hypocrisy. Over 1800 hollywood movies have been sponsored by US military intelligence agencies. Pentagon and CIA officials frequently consult with Hollywood about what films to make. American movies, which are shown all over the world and influence millions, if not billions of people, are subtly crafted to advance US foreign policy goals.

The fear isn’t that Hollywood is becoming political, it always has been. Rather, the fear is that perhaps another government could influence Hollywood’s political messaging, and the US government will lose its virtual monopoly over cinematic politics.

Middle Class Mobilizations To Defend The Establishment

In 1954, the US Congress censured Joe McCarthy for his behavior. Dwight Eisenhower was President. Stalin was dead. Edward R. Murrow and other media voices had shifted public opinion away from the anti-Communist hysteria.

But a small section of the US public kept going. While the Republican President, and the leaders of both parties, were urging the American people to “cool down” with the anti-Russia hysteria, a certain sector of the public refused. When Joe McCarthy died after being discredited politically, he continued to maintain a group of admirers who said that he was a misunderstood hero.

The forces that eventually became the John Birch Society, and believed that America’s drinking water was being contaminated by a Communist conspiracy, and that Communists had taken over both the Democratic and Republican Parties, continued to move ahead with Russophobia. Many blame Republican candidate Barry Goldwater’s loss in the 1964 election on these elements, which most of the US public viewed as unstable. Eventually, the Republican Party disavowed the Birchers, with William F. Buckley banning them from the Conservative Political Action Conference.

The John Birch Society was made up of the middle class strata that had been the backbone of Mccarthyism at its height. The fear of communism had struck a cord with them. These doctors, shopkeepers, and lawyers had their little piece of property, their own practice, their own store. To them, the Communists represented a mob of inferiors, “the rabble” coming to seize it away from them, and reduce them to being workers like everyone else.

In post war fiction, Ayn Rand’s dystopian novel “Anthem” and George Orwell’s “1984” we hear this petty bourgeois fatalism being echoed. The “individuality” of the middle class was being threatened from both ends. Both the powerful big business interests of western capitalism and the socialism of Russia and China threatened the middle class, and its hope for being “independent” of “the mob” of ordinary people.

Oddly, the anti-Trump movement pushing “Russia-gate” despite coming from the liberal wing of American politics, has roughly the same constituency, and roughly the same fears. The Rachel Maddow watching, New York Times reading, NPR listening, white, middle class American liberal sees Donald Trump as a “demagogue.” He is rallying “the working class” to make trouble.

Among “Russia-Gate” promoting Anti-Trump liberals, the crowd of Trump supporters is presented as people who believe “conspiracy theories” and don’t understand that the USA is benevolent democracy that is doing just fine. Hillary Clinton explained that Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan was wrong because the country had never stopped being great. Paul Krugman lambasted Trump’s inauguration speech, claiming he painted an inaccurate, dismal view of the United States.

To the middle class, college educated, east coast dwelling, doctors, professors, lawyers, and banking executives, Trump represents “the rabble” who are “making trouble” and threatening the comfortable, independent life they enjoy.

Who are they really afraid of

In both the 1950s and today, when it gets down to it, the Americans who cling to Russo-phobia, hatred for China, or fanatical anti-Communism, are not really afraid of anything in Eurasia.

In reality, they are afraid of other Americans. Americans who “think wrong,” and with their “wrong thoughts” might be compelled to take action.

The members of Congress conducting the Russia investigation have confirmed again and again that no voting booths or ballot counts were tampered with. The election results were completely accurate.

The accusation is that somehow Russia influenced American minds. The same fear exists about China in Hollywood, using its growing market to influence American media, and thus, change American’s view of the world.

The essence of the middle class mobilizations against Russia and China, in both the 50s and today, is anti-populism. Russia is allegedly “stirring up” the common people. The danger is that the common people, if put into motion, will threaten the independence and sacred property rights of the middle class.

In the 1950s, this middle class phobia took on a racial connotation. The White Citizens Councils of the southern USA openly believed that the civil rights protests were a Communist conspiracy. These suburban white racists feared that the Communist Party was mobilizing Black people in order to create a revolution, and seize their property. While the fascists of the KKK were primarily from the ranks of the white working class, and operated by means of violence and terror, the middle class White Citizens Council moved through slick propaganda, backroom deals, and other maneuvers within the establishment to undermine the Civil Rights movement.

Russia, China & The American Working Class

In 2017, the USA faces a growing economic and political crisis. Among those who are dissatisfied, the biggest and most affected constituency is the working class. Young people stuck in short term, low wage jobs. Residents of communities and regions devastated by de-industrialization. Those who see police everywhere, drug addiction everywhere, repression everywhere, while opportunities and hope for the future is hard to find.

The working class in the USA is quite unhappy, and it isn’t because of Russia.

While the working class is unhappy, it is also deeply divided. The Black and Latino working class tends to live in urban areas and is associated with the Democratic Party. The white working class tends to live in southern and rural areas, and is associated with the Republican Party.

While the two groups vehemently disagree on issues related to police brutality, immigration, and affirmative action, elsewhere they tend to have a lot in common. They both think economic conditions are getting worse. They both think that police state repression is crushing their freedom. They both tend to be more socially conservative and religious than other strata. They both tend to feel that a shadowy ruling elite controls the USA, and that American democracy is a sham. They both tend me be critical of the US government’s continued militarism, not accepting the various justifications for “humanitarian intervention” repeated in the media.

The values extolled by the governments of Russia and China are much more favorable to the underlying worldview of much of the American working class. Russia and China have state controlled economies where business is forced to work in the interests of the country. Though both countries have many millionaires and billionaires, the wealthy are controlled by the state. The state draws its support from a well organized, working class population, and often represses the wealthy people on their behalf. The people of Russia and China are much more socially conservative than those in western countries. They tend to emphasize family values, and the obligation of an individual to their country or their community.

The fact that the political messages of Russia and China, and the political ideas of the increasingly disenchanted American working class are similar, is not the result of a conspiracy or propaganda. It is simply natural. The working class and the middle class have different aspirations and different world views. The Russian and Chinese governments depend on a mass, well organized working class in order to maintain their power, in the context of a hostile relationship with capitalism, both domestically and internationally.

Russia, China, and the American working class all want the world to become more stable, and less filled with unpredictability, market turbulence, and chaos. They want the global standard of living to rise. Meanwhile, the Wall Street and London elite desperately want to maintain their global monopoly, and are working to spread chaos so no stable economic competitors can emerge. In a world increasingly connected by information technology, the American working is more and more sympathetic to the working class values expressed by the governments of Russia and China.

In the aftermath of Obama’s election, the middle class was mobilized into the Tea Party. This was mainly a movement aimed at opposing any expansion of the welfare state or popular economic reforms that Obama may have carried out. The “Stop Trump” movement mirrors the Tea Party. It is a middle class mobilization aimed at disciplining Trump, and ensuring that he does not carry out any of his isolationist promises.

As the middle class is mobilized in 2017, just as it was in the 1950s, to push back the emergence of populism and anti-establishment sentiments among the working class, one key difference is at hand.

In the 1950s, the Communist Party and the Roosevelt wing of the Democrats were shrinking amid a booming economy. Mccarthyism destroyed them. But in 2017, populism of both the leftist and rightist character is rising. Working class sentiments are rising, and the gap between defenders of the establishment and those who oppose it is also growing.

Furthermore, the American middle class is much smaller today than it was in the 1950s. The mobilization against working class unrest, done in the name of opposing Russia and China, is unlikely to be successful, in the context of a failing US economy, and the widespread availability of information.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from the author.

After the ludicrous “Russian hacking” claims have died down for lack of evidence, the attention was moved to even more ludicrous claims of “Russian ads influenced the elections”. Some readers are upset that continue to debunk the nonsense the media spreads around this. But lies should not stand without response. If only to blame the reporters and media who push this dreck.

As evidence is also lacking for any “Russian interference” claims the media outlets have started to push deceiving headlines. These make claims that are not covered at all by the content of the related pieces. The headlines are effective because less than 20% of the viewers ever read beyond them.

On the NYT Homepage today we find another one of these: Google Finds Russia Bought Ads to Interfere in Election.

Google has found no ads that “Russia”, the state or nation, has bought. There is also no evidence that the ads in question interfered in any way with the election. There is evidence that any of the ads in questions aimed to achieve that. The opener of the piece repeats the false headline claims. But now we have “Russian agents”, not “Russia”, which allegedly did something.

Google has found evidence that Russian agents bought ads on its wide-ranging networks in an effort to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign.

The term “Russian agents” is not defined at all. Where these “secret agents” or Public Relation professionals in Washington DC hired by some Russian entity?

Using accounts believed to be connected to the Russian government, the agents purchased $4,700 worth of search ads and more traditional display ads, according to a person familiar with the company’s inquiry …

“Accounts believed to be connected to the Russian government.” Believed by whom? And how is “connected” defined? Isn’t any citizen “connected” to his or her government?

Those believed, connected accounts bought a whopping $4,700 of ads? Googles 2016 revenue was $89,000,000,000. The total campaign expenditures in 2016 were some $6,000,000,000. The Clinton campaign spent some $480,000 on social network ads alone. But something “Russian” spending $4,700 was “interference”?

But wait. There is more:

Google found a separate $53,000 worth of ads with political material that were purchased from Russian internet addresses, building addresses or with Russian currency. It is not clear whether any of those were connected to the Russian government, and they may have been purchased by Russian citizens, the person said.

So now we are on to something. A full $53,000 worth of ads. But ….

The messages of those ads spanned the political spectrum. One account spent $7,000 on ads to promote a documentary called “You’ve Been Trumped,” a film about Donald J. Trump’s efforts to build a golf course in Scotland along an environmentally sensitive coastline. Another spent $36,000 on ads questioning whether President Barack Obama needed to resign. Yet another bought ads to promote political merchandise for Mr. Obama.

The film is anti-Trump. Obama not resigning would have been anti-Trump. Selling Obama merchandise may have been good business, but is certainly not pro-Trump. So at least $43,000 of a total of $53,000 mentioned above was spent by believed, connected “Russians” on ads that promoted anti-Trump material. How does that fit with the claims that “Russia” wished to get Trump elected? Putin pushed the wrong button?

The allegedly “Russian” Facebook ads were just a click-bait scheme by some people trying to make money. The allegedly “Russian” Goggle ads were of a volume that is unlikely to have made any difference in anything. They were also anti-Trump.

Clinton lost because people on all sides had learned to dislike her policies throughout the years. She was unelectable. Her party was and is acting against the interest of the common people. No claim of anything “Russian” can change those facts.

Featured image is from outsidethebeltway.com.

Russian military forces in Syria have successfully constructed a bridge across the Euphrates River near the city of Deir-Ezzor, recently liberated by the Syrian Arab Army. Currently, the main body of the Syrian Arab Army is crossing or has crossed that bridge northward into the northeastern part of the country where the US has built a number of illegal military bases and has enlisted the support of mainly Kurdish mercenaries, who are moving south. The US would like to establish, in this oil-rich area, a Kurdish separatist state similar to one it has strived for twenty years to create in Northern Iraq. However, the Syrian government has pledged to liberate every square inch of its national territory and has the strong backing of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah in Lebanon to do so.

By remaining illegally in this part of Syria, the US Coalition is risking direct military confrontation with Russia in a dangerous game of “chicken”. Already three senior Russian officers have been killed in the last month near Deir-Ezzor, including a three-star general, the deaths of whom have been officially blamed by the Russian government on the USA. It’s a very tense situation indeed.

That’s why we say:

US COALITION OUT OF SYRIA NOW!!!

Syria is a sovereign country. The duly-elected Syrian government in Damascus has the right and duty under international law to defend its people and borders against foreign invasion and occupation. Furthermore, Syria is within its right to invite its allies to volunteer military forces in the defence of the Syrian nation. On the other hand, the US has committed an act of war against Syria and is creating the very dangerous possibility of direct conflict between the superpowers, the USA and Russia.

It is illegal for the US to be in Syria. The US has no more right to be in Syria without Syrian permission than Syria has to be in the US without US permission. This is a principle to which the US has agreed by treaty, namely by signing the UN Charter. It is therefore violating its own law as well as international law.

It is illegal and immoral to commit atrocities or to support those who do. The US has been supporting terrorist organizations who have committed many war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria, and the current leader of the “Deir Ez-Zor Military Council”, set up by US Special Forces, is Ahmad Abu Khawla, a former ISIS fighter. This is only one of the more recent and blatant examples of US use and support of terrorist mercenaries in Syria.

The US and its allies have spent billions of dollars for “regime change” in Syria. We are pleased that they failed, because the proposed cure of permanent chaos, bloodshed, and genocide has been much worse than the disease. However, the monsters in the US government who cooked up this hair-brained scheme, during both the Bush and Obama administrations, have acted on behalf of the oligarchs who run the military-industrial complex and haven’t a care about the millions of American citizens who sacrifice health, education, and opportunity in order to finance this folly.

The US has also roped many other countries into its failed regime change operation in Syria. These include most of the member countries of NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), most of the Arab monarchies, and the State of Israel, all of whom share the guilt with the USA in the deaths of nearly half a million Syrians, the transformation of nearly 12 million Syrian citizens into refugees and displaced persons within Syria, the destruction of vast swaths of Syrian civilian infrastructure, the human trafficking of Syrian women and children, the illegal trafficking in human organs, the poisoning of the environment through war, and decimation of the Syrian economy. For these crimes, the leaders of the other countries participating in the US-led coalition must be made accountable and their countries made to pay reparations to Syria.

The SSM calls on the people of the US and its coalition partners to do the following:

1. Remain on high alert. There is a dire and imminent risk of direct confrontation between the USA and Russia.

2. Circulate this statement widely through social media.

3. Contact elected officials and urge them to bring their governments’ troops and equipment home from Syria now, end economic sanctions against Syria and Syrian individuals, and restore full diplomatic relations with Damascus.

Let us work for peace and social justice. Let’s try to prevent a possible third world war.

Somehow everything keeps coming back around to Russia. In one of its recent initiatives, the Justice Department (DOJ) appears to be attacking the First Amendment as part of the apparent bipartisan program to make Vladimir Putin the fall guy for everything that goes wrong in Washington. In the past month, the DOJ has revealed that the FBI is investigating Russian owned news outlets Sputnik News and RT International and has sent letters to the latter demanding that one of its business affiliates register as a foreign agent by October 17^th. The apparent line of inquiry that the Bureau is pursuing is that both are agencies of the Russian government and that both have been spreading disinformation that is intended to discredit the United States government and its institutions. This alleged action would make them, in the DOJ view, a propaganda arm of a foreign government rather than a news service. It also makes them subject to Department of the Treasury oversight under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.

Sputnik, which is owned by a Russian government media group headed by Putin consigliere Dimitri Kiselyov, has been under investigation due to the accusations made by a fired broadcaster named Andrew Feinberg. Feinberg, the former Sputnik White House correspondent, reportedly took with him a thumb drive containing some thousands of internal business files when he left his office. He has been interviewed by the FBI, has turned over his documents, and has claimed that much of the direction over what the network covered came from Moscow.

RT America, more television oriented than Sputnik, operates through two business entities: RTTV America and RTTV Studios. The Department of Justice has refused to identify which of the businesses has been targeted by a letter calling for registration under FARA, but it is believed to be RTTV America, which provides both operational support of the broadcasting as well as the production facilities. Both companies are actually owned by Russian-American businessman Alex Yazlovsky, though the funding for them presumably comes from the Russian government.

I have noticed very little pushback in the U.S. mainstream and alternative media regarding the Department of Justice moves, presumably because there is a broad consensus that the Russians have been interfering in our “democracy” and have had it coming. If that assumption on my part is correct, the silence over the issue reflects a certain naïvete while also constituting a near perfect example of a pervasive tunnel vision that obscures the significant collateral damage that might be forthcoming.

News organizations are normally considered to be exempt from the requirements of FARA. The Department of Justice action against the two Russian major media outlets is unprecedented insofar as I could determine. Even Qatar owned al-Jazeera, which was so vilified during the early stages of the Afghan War that it had its Kabul offices bombed by the U.S., did not have to register under FARA, was permitted to operate freely, and was even allowed to buy a television channel license for its American operations.

The DOJ is in effect saying that RT and Sputnik are nothing more than propaganda organs and do not qualify as journalism. I would have to disagree if one goes by the standards of contemporary journalism in the United States. America’s self-described “newspapers of record” the New York Times and the Washington Post pretend that they have a lock on stories that are “true.” The Post has adopted the slogan “Democracy Dies in Darkness” while the Times proclaims “The truth is more important now than ever,” but anyone who has read either paper regularly for the past year knows perfectly well that they have been as often as not leading propaganda organs for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, pushing a particular agenda and denigrating Donald Trump. They differ little from the admittedly biased television news reporting provided by Fox News and MSNBC.

What exactly did the Russians do? According to last January’s report signed off on by the FBI, CIA and NSA, which may have motivated the DOJ to take action, RT and Sputnik “consistently cast President-elect Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional U.S. media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment.” Well, they certainly got that one right and did better in their reporting of what was going on among the American public than either the Washington Post or New York Times.

Regarding Sputnik, Feinberg claimed inter alia that he was “pushed” to ask questions at White House press briefings suggesting that Syria’s Bashar al-Assad was not responsible for some of the chemical attacks that had taken place. One wonders at Feinberg’s reluctance as Sputnik and RT were not the only ones expressing skepticism over the claims of Syrian involvement, which have been widely debunked. And why is expressing a credible alternative view on an event in Syria even regarded as propaganda damaging to the American public?

There is a difficult to distinguish line between FARA restricted “trying to influence opinion” using what is regarded a fake news and propaganda and legitimate journalism reporting stories where the “facts” have been challenged. Even real journalists choose to cover stories selectively, inevitably producing a certain narrative for the viewer, listener or reader. All news services do that to a greater or lesser extent.

I have considerable personal experience of RT in particular and, to a lesser extent, with Sputnik. I also know many others who have been interviewed by one or both. No one who has done so has ever been coached or urged to follow a particular line or support a specific position insofar as I know. Nor do I know anyone who has actually been paid to appear. Most of us who are interviewed are appreciative of the fact that we are allowed to air views that are essentially banned on the mainstream media to include critique of maladroit policies in places like Syria and Afghanistan and biting critiques of the war on terror.

Sputnik, in my opinion, does, however, lean heavily towards stories that are critical of the United States and its policies, while RT has a global reach and is much more balanced in what it covers. For sure, it too criticizes U.S. policies and is protective of the Russian government, but it does not substantially differ from other national news services that I have had done interviews for. I find as much uniquely generated negative reporting about the U.S. (usually linked to violence or guns) on BBC World News, France24 and Deutsche Welle as I do on RT International. To describe it as part of an “influence campaign” driven by a “state-run propaganda machine” has a kernel of truth but it is nevertheless a bit of a stretch since one could make the same claims about any government financed news service, including Voice of America. Governments only get into broadcasting to promote their points of view, not to inform the public.

There is a serious problem in the threats to use FARA as it could advance the ongoing erosion of freedom of the press in the United States by establishing the precedent that a foreign news services that is critical of the U.S. will no longer be tolerated. It is also hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in American politics are exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step, while Russia is fair game.

Going after news outlets also invites retaliation against U.S. media operating in Russia and, eventually, elsewhere. Currently Western media reports from Russia pretty much without being censored or pressured to avoid certain stories. I would note a recent series that appeared on CBS featuring the repulsive Stephen Colbert spending a week in Russia which mercilessly lampooned both the country and its government. No one arrested him or made him stop filming. No one claimed that he was trying to undermine the Russian government or discredit the country’s institutions, even though that is precisely what he was doing.

And then there is the issue of the “threat” posed by news media outlets like RT and Sputnik. Even combined the two services have limited access to the U.S. market, with a 2014 study suggesting that they have only 2.8 million actual weekly viewers. RT did not make the cut and is not included on the list of 100 most popular television channels in the U.S. and it has far less market penetration than other foreign news services like the BBC. It can be found on only a limited number of cable networks in a few, mostly urban areas. It does better in Europe, but its profile in the U.S. market is miniscule. As even bad news is good news in terms of selling a product, it probably did receive higher ratings when the intelligence agency report slamming it came out on it in January. Everyone probably wanted to learn what RT was all about.

So it seems to me that the United States’ moves against RT and Sputnik are little more than lashing out at a problem that is not really a problem in a bid to again promote the Russian “threat” to explain the ongoing dysfunction that prevails in America’s democratic process. One keeps reading or hearing how the American government has “indisputable” proof of Moscow’s intentions to subvert democracy in the U.S. as well as in Europe but the actual evidence is still elusive. Will Russiagate end with a bang or a whimper? No one seems to know.

Attempts to interfere in Russia’s internal affairs continue, and this process is not going to fade in light of the upcoming presidential election in Russia in March of 2018.

Officials with the Federation Council Commission for the Protection of State Sovereignty concluded during a meeting on Monday that attempts to interfere in Russia’s internal affairs were noticeable during the regional elections in September of this year, even though they did not show much influence on the outcome of the elections.

It is worthy of note that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe came to conclusion that Russia improperly executes the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights on the case of embezzlement at Kirovles Company. The committee left the case under control, and Russian senators found the decision of European officials “an attempt on the Russian electoral sovereignty.” According to the Council of the Federation, departments of the Council of Europe may make biased political decisions. Thus, the ECHR and other structures of the Council of Europe are dominated by representatives of the countries that imposed sanctions against Russia.

During the above-mentioned meeting, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov noted that Russia’s Foreign Affairs Ministry did not exclude attempts to finance protest actions in Russia from the structures connected with the authorities of the United States.

“In general, one may assume that as the presidential election in Russia approaches, attempts to show influence on our internal affairs and undermine stability from the inside will intensify. We need to be fully prepared for this,” Ryabkov said.

“The Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs together with other federal executive bodies will closely and carefully monitor the situation and make proposals on effective counteraction to such attempts, to stop the destructive line of interference in Russian internal affairs that will remain one of the main links of the US-led policy towards Russia,” he added.

Political scientist Leonid Polyakov said in an interview with Pravda.Ru that the Russian authorities do have a reason to be concerned about such a possibility.

“Judging by statements from US President Donald Trump, he is ready to abandon the traditional policy of interference in affairs of other states under the pretext of promoting democracy. It is obvious that Donald Trump says one thing, but the team that works with him and sometimes independent of him often takes steps that come contrary to what the president says,” the expert said.

“Judging from the experience of the past elections, we shall assume that such actions can be possible indeed. We could hear Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton calling to support the political opposition in Russia. Therefore, I think, a timely warning will cool a few hotheads in Washington,” Leonid Polyakov said.

“In fact, the Americans always decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. They do not take anyone else’s opinion into account. Ryabkov has made a timely statement, especially against the background of the scandal connected with Russia’s alleged interference in the US elections. In Russia, no political party is entitled to receive foreign funds from abroad,” he added.

This article was originally published in Russian on Pravda.Ru.