Global Research

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to issue a proposal tomorrow to repeal the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan—continuing its pattern of putting ideology over science, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The purported rationale for this proposal, as it appears in a leaked draft, is that the Clean Power Plan is unlawful, a position that is directly contrary to what the EPA and the Justice Department argued in court just last fall. 

Below is a statement by Ken Kimmell, president of UCS.

“As severe storms, intensified by warming waters and air, remind us of the urgency of addressing global warming, the administration will repeal  the only national plan the United States had for cutting emissions from one of the biggest global warming contributors—power plants.

“Instead of addressing one of the most significant problems facing mankind, the administration thumbed its nose at science, and now at the law. Rather than positioning America in the global clean energy marketplace, the administration will stand on the sidelines.

“This decision is irrevocably tainted by a conflict of interest.  The EPA’s newly minted claim that the Clean Power Plan is legally invalid comes from—believe it or not—the legal brief of none other than Scott Pruitt, who challenged the Clean Power Plan in court as attorney general of Oklahoma. Mr. Pruitt has now participated in this issue as lawyer for one side, then as the judge and jury at EPA, and now as the executioner of the Clean Power Plan. Notably, a respected court was poised to resolve the legal issue, but Pruitt asked the court to hold off, so that he could short-circuit the judicial process.

“As a result of this cynical move, power plants will continue to have the right to emit unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the atmosphere, free from any federal regulation.

“Despite the administration’s claims, undoing the Clean Power Plan will not bring back coal. If the administration truly cared about coal miners and coal communities, it would work with Congress to pass legislation to help with transition assistance, worker training and the creation of new economic opportunities.”

Please also see Kimmell’s blog on the problems with Pruitt’s legal reasoning.

The United States military has dropped a total of 751 bombs on Afghanistan in September, the highest monthly number in the past seven years, according to data by the US Air Forces Central Command.

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.

Since 2010, the highest number of bombs dropped on Afghanistan by the US military was 589 in August 2012, still over 150 less than September 2017.

The US has dropped a total 3,238 bombs in Afghanistan between January and September this year, more than two times the 1,337 dropped the year before.

“This increase can be attributed to the president’s strategy to more proactively target extremist groups that threaten the stability and security of the Afghan people,” the report said.

Overall, the US had conducted a total of 841 sorties were at least one bomb was dropped on targets across Afghanistan, up from the 615 carried out last year.

The data only included airstrikes carried out by aircraft operating under the command of Combined Forces Air Component Commander, an indication that the actual number of the bombs dropped could be higher.

In a clear U-turn from his campaign pledges to end the now 16-year occupation of Afghanistan, Trump said in August that his views had changed since entering the White House and that he would continue the military intervention “as long as we see determination and progress” in the South Asian country.

As a first step, six F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft were added to Bagram Air Base while more B-52 bombardment missions were dedicated to Afghanistan, the report noted.

The Trump administration is also planning to deploy roughly 3,000 more troops to Afghanistan. The United States already has about 8,400 troops in the country alongside another 5,000 from NATO forces.

The new US ambassador to the military alliance said earlier this month that Washington was going to ask NATO to contribute about 1,000 extra troops to help in the battle.

US Defense Secretary James Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee last week that the Trump administration’s strategy in Afghanistan could be summed up in the acronym “R4+S,” which stands for “regionalize, realign, reinforce, reconcile and sustain.”

He also said that the Pentagon had replaced previous rules of engagement with more aggressive ones, arguing that the old ones “did not allow us to employ the airpower fully.”

Former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff warned Sunday that Washington’s interference in Venezuela is “extremely dangerous” and could provoke an armed conflict. 

“Our continent has been living in peace for 140 years. Any attempt to interfere in the legitimate constitutional process in Venezuela, including by forcing a presidential election, is extremely dangerous, as it might lead to a civil war,” she said in an exclusive interview with RT in Moscow.

Rousseff was herself impeached and removed from her elected post last year in what was widely decried as a “parliamentary coup”.

The Brazilian leader likewise took aim at her congress-designated successor, Michel Temer, who has moved to align Brasilia’s foreign policy closely with Washington, leading the regional charge against the government in Caracas.

“The Temer government has an absolutely incorrect attitude with respect to Venezuela and it’s not only the pressure from Trump and (Temer’s) intention to appear submissive, but above all the fact that it accepted joint action with US troops in the Amazon,” she continued, referencing a US-led military exercise set for November, in which the armed forces of 14 countries will participate.

Rousseff denounced the drills, which will involve the creation of a “multinational logistics base” in the Brazilian city of Tabatinga, as part of an “anti-democratic vision to besiege Venezuela”.

Located on the border with Peru and Colombia, Tabatinga is a little over 630 kilometers south of Venezuela.

The ex-president additionally criticized US support for Venezuela’s right-wing opposition, which led four months of violent anti-government mobilizations aimed at toppling the Maduro government earlier this year.

Comparing Venezuelan anti-government forces to the Syrian rebels, Rousseff said the US has “often been mistaken in regard to oppositions”.

“(Washington) says: ‘Those are democracy supporters’. They’ve said it about opposition forces in Syria too. And what has happened with that opposition? Islamic State has emerged, which has nothing to do with democracy.”

Over one hundred people were killed in the unrest, including at least 14 at the hands of Venezuelan state security forces and 31 direct and indirect victims of opposition political violence.

Lastly, Rousseff condemned as an “absurd error” the decision by the right-wing governments of Argentina and Brazil to indefinitely suspend Venezuela from the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR) on the grounds of a breach of the body’s democratic clause.

She slammed the move as hypocritical, noting that a similar measure was not taken against Brazil following her ouster.

In August, MERCOSUR’s parliament issued a statement backing Venezuelan sovereignty and rejecting US President Donald Trump’s threats of military intervention.

At the time, former Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula Da Silva similarly hit back at the White House, calling US military threats “inadmissible”.

Last weekend, tens of thousands of people marched in Washington, DC in the combined March for Racial Justice and March for Black Women. Native Americans joined black and brown people to lead the march.

At the march, Rev. Graylan Hagler said,

“White Supremacy has been given aid and comfort by a so-called president and so-called administration, and so-called leaders of that ideology are comforted and feel that they are back as a centerpiece of American political life.”

From coast to coast, it is true that white supremacists are active and are being more visible than they have in decades. This weekend, Richard Spencer held another torch rally in Charlottesville. In Houston, fascists attacked a left-wing book fair, and the book fair organizers had to take action to protect attendees while police did not respond. Similar events happened in Portland, OR, San Diego, New York and Washington, DC.

Not all events are successful. In San Francisco, International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU Local 10) members and allies prevented a right-wing racist and violent group from holding a rally, thwarting the group at every attempt. And sometimes, white supremacists have to go to great lengths to hide their gatherings. David Lewis reports on how he infiltrated a secret convention in Seattle and saw how fascism is growing in Seattle the liberal city of the Northwest.

White supremacy is not new, and it manifests itself in many ways, not only in overt white supremacists, but also culturally and systemically. With the rise of open white supremacy, there are discussions about and controversy over how to respond.

Is there room for racism in civilized debates?

This issue is particularly pertinent for us right now because a local Baltimore League of Women Voters chapter is holding a series of panel discussions on immigration to which they invited speakers from anti-immigrant white supremacist groups that are listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The initial panel was protested by the local Green Party and others after The League refused to dis-invite the speaker and he was prevented from completing his presentation. He left the event.

This sparked discussion in our community and raised many questions: Was this an infringement on his right to free speech? Is this starting a slippery slope to shutting down people’s right to free speech? Should he have been allowed to speak and then challenged during the question and answer period? What is hate speech and should it be prohibited?

We speak about this topic as two white European-Americans who were raised in middle class households that condemned discrimination and bigotry. We have experienced white privilege throughout our lives. We are engaged in ongoing education about white supremacy and how we end it. Our thoughts are:

First, it should be clear that in a legal sense, individuals do not violate another individual’s right to free speech. The right to free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment, which prevents the government, not individuals, from infringing on a person’s right to free speech. As long as the government protects the First Amendment, there is no slippery slope. Whether the government does protect free speech at present is a whole other conversation.

Second, when it comes to what private organizations do, this is another matter entirely. Organizations and institutions do not have a requirement to include those who espouse hate. They are not required to give a platform to or legitimize white supremacist views. In fact, one could argue that it is anti-social to do so. Professor Matt Pratt Guterl, from Brown University, explains it well in “How American’s Faith in Civilized Debate is Fueling White Supremacy.” when he writes about a debate between WEB DuBois and racist Lothrop Stoddard in 1920′s describing it as based on “the bizarre premise that there are two sides equally deserving our attention.” No, the white supremacist view should not be given legitimacy.

The essential idea is that the question of whether or not racism and white supremacy should exist has been answered. We have already agreed that we have equal human rights, even though we have not yet achieved them. Guterl writes that “Institutions should remember, though, that they exist to foster new ideas and better understandings” and that “mindfulness, civility, and respect are more closely aligned with oft-celebrated concepts like diversity and inclusion.”

Guterl writes about a public debate between W.E.B. Du Bois and a racist, Lothrop Stoddard. He concludes,

“We should hear this story and think, with horror, of the obscene false equivalency at the heart of this confrontation – the bizarre premise that there are two sides equally deserving our attention. We should think it a travesty that a man of Du Bois’s erudition and intellect should have to prove that his race deserved to survive.”

Hate speech is legally defined as “speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability).” A Supreme Court ruling earlier this year found that hate speech is protected from government repression under the First Amendment. Yet, while many injustices are technically legal, that does not mean we should defend them.

The International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the United Nations in 1965, clearly states that “all propaganda and all organizations” based on ideas or theories of racial or ethnic superiority should be illegal and that states should take “positive steps to eliminate them.” We would do better as a society to debate the best ways to eliminate white supremacy.

What is white supremacy?

Of course, to eliminate white supremacy, we must understand what it is. Van R. Newkirk discusses this in “The Language of White Supremacy.” White supremacy is not limited to those people who identify as such or who behave in a certain way. He writes that the definition is much more expansive, and he quotes Frances Lee Ansley:

“I refer instead to a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.”

White supremacy is the state of Mississippi taking control of Jackson’s schools away from the people of Jackson. It is policies designed to break up and destroy black communities in Baltimore (Cliff DuRand expands on this here). It is families in Flint, MI that lack clean water or in Detroit that have their water shut off for being a few hundred dollars behind in their bills while just down the road Nestlé  pays $200 a year to bottle and sell public water.

White supremacy is the attack on public sector unions when it is public jobs that have brought greater prosperity to black families. It is a system of college admissions that favors the wealthy when blacks have much less wealth than whites through centuries of policies that denied them. It is economic inequality in St. Louis that is maintained through racist and violent policing.

It is policies that perpetuate environmental injustice, which Basav Sen explains are just as devastating to communities as the overt white supremacy witnessed in places like Charlottesville. And it is not only the disgraceful lack of action to bring timely aid to our people in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, similar to what happened after Hurricane Katrina, but also blatant discrimination by the US in the Marshall Islands.

And it is evident in US foreign policy, which devalues the lives of black and brown people all over the world. Medea Benjamin describes the justifiable outrage over the murder victims in Las Vegas but the silence on the anniversary of the murder of even more Yemenis at a funeral last year. Another example is the brutal ethnic cleansing in West Papua under Indonesian occupation that was made possible more than fifty years ago by the New York Agreement, which left out participation by West Papuan people. They are still bravely fighting for their right to independence.

Dismantling White Supremacy

In our recent experience with the League of Women Voters in Maryland, we were accused of “falling for identity politics that are being used to divide and weaken people.” So, as we work to dismantle white supremacy, let’s recognize that there is already a wide racial divide in the United States. It is obvious every day through the examples given above and more. A powerful way to resist being divided is to unite around efforts to end institutions and policies of white supremacy. We cannot hope to unite as equals and as a strong society until that is accomplished.

To do that, we need to move past allowing white supremacist ideas and theories to have a legitimate place in public debates. They have no place in our society except in textbooks so that future generations understand how destructive they were once upon a time.

Bill Bigelow of Rethinking Schools has an article for “Columbus Day,” which many cities and states celebrate as Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Bigelow  writes that in his review of children’s textbooks, he found “these books teach young readers that colonialism and racism are normal.” There is a long history of mis-education in the United States. Indeed, one candidate at the League of Women Voters panel informed us that we had open borders hundreds of years ago when “nobody was here,” completely ignoring the tens of millions of indigenous people in North America before settlers came.

Peter Saudek describes his journey from being a child surrounded by lessons and symbols that warped his perception of Native Americans to his awakening to the realities of settler-colonialism.

Bigelow leaves us with excellent advice this holiday weekend:

“Let’s pull down the monuments, let’s make the holidays more inclusive, let’s rewrite the textbooks and children’s literature. But let’s also challenge the fundamental structures of ownership, power, and privilege that have given us such a skewed constellation of heroes and holidays.”

This article was originally published by PopularResistance.Org where all images were sourced.

It was once again a hot, muggy day in Jakarta. The air was full of pollutants, epic traffic jams blocking entire center of the city. Biasa, as locals would say, or in a lax translation, ‘business as usual’.

It is September 29^th, 2017, Friday, just one day before the most sinister anniversary in the entire Southeast Asia.

On September 30^th, 1965, the Indonesian military obeying orders from foreign powers (mainly the US and the UK), overthrew the progressive and anti-imperialist government of President Sukarno, murdering between 1 and 3 million men, women and children (including almost all members of the Communist Party of Indonesia – PKI). This was done with the direct help of almost all the major religious organizations (Muslim, Protestant, Catholic and Hindu). The bloodshed continued well into 1966, and the “Rivers were choked with corpses and ran red from blood,” as I was told by Pramoedya Ananta Toer, the greatest Indonesian novelist. All the hopes for a socialist, just and egalitarian motherland were wasted.

Before the coup, Indonesia used to be a true internationalist nation, and was one of the proud founders of the Non-Aligned Movement (the West Javanese city of Bandung hosted its establishing conference in 1955). President Sukarno and his progressive and patriotic government used to hold in their hands almost all the natural resources, trying to build a proud, artistic and productive nation. Sukarno once even humiliated the US Ambassador, in front of a huge crowd, at a packed stadium: “To hell with your aid!” He did not need any Western aid. He was presiding overpotentially one of the richest nations on Earth.

The Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), the third largest in the world after those of the Soviet Union and China, was going to win the elections, comfortably and democratically, in 1966, while being fully supported by President Sukarno. Their manifesto was clear: anti-imperialism, social justice and land reforms. But who were some of the largest landowners in Indonesia during that period? Religious leaders! And they, together with the military and corrupt elites, decided: “No!” This has to be stopped! No justice. No internationalism. No socialism.” They betrayed the nation and its people;they committed treason and on September 30, 1965, overthrew socialist democracy.

The results were horrifying. Perhaps the worst massacres of the 20^th Century took place. Mass slaughter, mass rape, and cutting off of female breasts, torture, and shortly after the initial horrors, overflowing prisons and concentration camps. Around 40% of all the teachers of Java were slaughtered and the military was substituted into the school classrooms. Film studios and traditional theatres were shut down, and writers were sent to Buru concentration camp. Intellectualism was fully discouraged, while Communism, the Chinese language and culture, but also all progressive arts and creativity were either ridiculed, or out rightly banned. Promoted instead, were Western-style turbo-capitalism (that which was invented for the colonies, not that for the local consumption in Europe and North America), ‘religions’ (based on repetitive rituals, not on intellectual or spiritual search for God), ‘family values’ (read: patriarchal oppression), an empty pop culture, and selfishness, boosted by consumerism. All this combined gave birth to some of the worst corruption levels in the world.

Indonesia as it used to be before September 30, 1965, died. Unable to produce anything of substantial value, it began perpetrating the unbridled plunder of its own natural resources, predominantly on behalf of foreign conglomerates. The entire beautiful and naturally rich, enormous islands, like Borneo (the largest island in Asia and the second largest in the world), Sumatra and Papua,were converted into devastated, poisoned and fully privatized ecological and social nightmares.

*

It seems that killing everything decent and hopeful has not been enough for this regime. Even memories have to be killed, even dreams. The great progressive past of Indonesia is being smeared and twisted, until there is nothing more left, only confusion and mechanical religious, family and commercial rituals.

Huge anti-PKI demonstration

Now, one of the mainstream Indonesian magazines Tempo put on its 25 September – 1 October 2017 cover: “SEKALI LAGI HANTU PKI” (“Once Again, Ghost of PKI”).

Whenever it suits the corrupt elites, the military and the religious cadres (three main pillars of the Indonesia oppressive regime), the Communist ghost is evoked. It is depicted as a monstrous, nasty, and murderous creature. Indonesian children were taught that the Communist hammer was thereto smashthe heads of the people, while the sickle was – to cut their throats.

Islamic organizations, as well as the military and police are ‘guarding the nation’ from vicious atheist religious gangs and the security forces regularly dispersing countless meetings. Those who dare to address topics such as social inequality, the lack of decent medical care, affordable education, housing and other basic services, get physically attacked, or legally sanctioned.

MP’s and some government officials, who dare to talk about the necessity to redistribute the wealth of the country, favoring the poor, get attacked or at least openly smeared, including such individuals like the present President, Joko Widodo. Popular, extremely effective and left-leaning, the Governor of Jakarta, ‘Ahok’, was recently locked up in a prison for ‘insulting Islam’ –on thoroughly bogus charges. His biggest ‘sin’ appeared to be his determination to build a mass public transportation system (instead of forcing people to use private vehicles, as all previous pro-business administrations have been doing, submissively), creating green public areas, building drainage and cleaning clogged and polluted canals.

‘Ahok’ is of Chinese origin, a great ‘crime’ in the racially intolerant Indonesia. President Widodo is not. No matter what his ‘blood’ is, he is repeatedly accused of being a ‘Communist’, especially after his State of the Nation speech earlier this year. He has been addressing issues related to social justice, something thoroughly unacceptable in extremely pro-business and pro-Western Indonesia.

Putting the interests of his people above the interests of foreign corporations has gained him countless enemies, at home (from the elites servile to the West) and abroad. His arch-rival and enemy, General Prabowo (former commander of the notorious Kopassus Special Forces under Suharto) is taking full advantage of the situation.

Many Islamists are now calling President Widodo ‘a Communist’. In Indonesia, it is synonymous with a threat and it could also mean a death sentence.

*

And so it is September 29^th, 2017, Friday, in Jakarta, Indonesia. Thousands of protesters are gathering in front of the main gate of the Parliament. Today it is hot and humid, and the air is hopelessly polluted.

A river of human beings flows slowly. Today it consists predominantly of Muslim militants. Loudspeakers are blasting “Allahu Akbar!” and almost simultaneously:

“Ganyang, ganyang, ganyang PKI

Ganyang PKI, sekarang juga!”

(Destroy, destroy, destroy PKI

Crush PKI right now!)

These are mainly men, excited and determined. Some women are present, too. Most of them are fully covered. And there are also some children, clinging to their parents, several of them scared, but others clearly enjoying the loud yells and deafening noise.

Numerous black banners, carrying Arabic insignia, can be spotted in the hands of demonstrators, some suspiciously resembling those of the ISIS. Other flags belong to such organizations as the outlawed but largely tolerated Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, which is determined to establish a caliphate all over this vast archipelago.

Theoretically illegal but also tolerated Forum Pembela Islam (FPI) – Islamic Defender’s Front – is operating openly, and it is rubbing shoulders with the police and other security forces. No one would dare or even bothers to stop them from giving speeches or publicly displaying force.

It is obvious that the law is taken seriously only when it comes to the Communists (who are now practically non-existent in this country), or to any socially or people-oriented movements. Radical Islam is increasingly becoming untouchable, as it generally defends the status quo, as well as the political interests of several high-ranking extreme right-wing military officers, business elites, and Western imperialists.

I look around and I see not a single Western reporter. Surely they are busy sitting in their clubs, luxury hotels and condominiums, dutifully scribbling that Indonesia is a ‘vibrant democracy’, and ‘a country known for its predominantly tolerant brand of Islam’; an official Western dogma since 1965 coup.

Anti-communist march

At one point I’m approached by a group of young men with a small camera.

“What do you think about PKI?” I’m asked in English.

I pretend to be totally brain-dead. I smile. We shake hands.

“You killed PKI here, didn’t you?” I reply with a question.

“You think so?” they are grinning, talking to me as if I was a child. “You really think so? You are mistaken. PKI are like rats; they are hiding underground… they are everywhere. But don’t worry, we will get them all, soon!”

“Islam is a religion of peace. Indonesians are peaceful people,” his friend concludes. He sounds like the BBC.

*

Then it is my turn to ask questions. I go from person to person. I want to know what do they really know about the PKI, about Communism? For years and decades, Indonesians have been bombarded by grotesque propaganda which was aiming at discrediting everything great and positive that ever took place in the Communist and socialist countries, from the Soviet Union and China, to Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, North Korea and dozens of other left-wing states all over the world.

After 1965, the perception of Indonesians about the world was never based on knowledge and well-informed analyses, but instead on the lowest grade of Western and local propaganda, on racist clichés, and on the gross censorship of everything that could challenge official dogmas.

I talk to a dozen “Communism-haters” and I realize that they know absolutely nothing about the subject they are loudly shouting about. Some are clearly paid to be here. Some have nothing better to do. Some are, perhaps, subconsciously scared about the emptiness of their lives in present-day Indonesia, and they need to cheer each other up, with hate speeches and feelings that they are not alone, that they are like hundreds of millions of others.

Mrs. Bode from Gerakan Ibu Negeri (Movement of the Country’s Mothers):

“We are here protesting against resurgence of the PKI!PKI is here; it exists! Their members are all over the social media. They even held seminars, recently.”

Some seminars were held recently. Not by the PKI, but by scholars and activists who were trying to address the history of Indonesia, particularly the coup of 1965. But the military interfered. Orders were given to break such encounters.A one-sided interpretation of history is the main and sacred pillar of the propaganda unleashedby the regime.

Mr. Wahnad from Majelis Taklim Nurul Ikhlas (Islamic studies assembly) from the city of Bekasi:

“We are supporters of the HTI and we are against the government regulation which bans extremist mass organizations like ours. But PKI is real danger to our country. We want them to be banned. Now we even have them represented in the Parliament. Ribka Tjiptaning, an MPs from PDIP, proudly stated that she is a daughter of a former PKI member!”

Poor Ms. Ribka Tjiptaning is the daughter of a former PKI member (and a Javanese aristocrat) who was hanged upside-down and tortured in front of her and her little brother (when they were children), before being sent to a prison. Consequently, each of her steps is being scrutinized as if under a microscope. She is clearly left wing, perhaps the most progressive Indonesian politician. And she wrote a book called “I’m Proud To Be a Daughter of a PKI Member”. But this lone socialist voice could hardly be mistaken for a great renaissance of the Communist thought in Indonesia.

A small, bearded man wearing white robes introduced himself only as Hamba Allah (Allah’s slave):

“We are against the resurrection of PKI. They have distributed t-shirts, pictures, and other things, and there are even some children of the PKI members now pushing this ideology.” 

Ms. Khairunnisa from a madrasah in Sawangan, Depok:

“We are against the resurgence of the PKI. PKI was a party that did some sadistic things to Muslims in general and to Ulamas in particular.”

“Sadistic things?” I wonder. The PKI was a relatively tame, constitutional and democratic political party. Even in 1965, many of its members were Muslims. Unless by ‘sadistic things’ she meant that it was pushing for land reforms, and had it won the elections in 1966 (it definitely would have done, if the West had not intervened), it would most definitely have broken the scandalous and feudal mass land ownership by the religious leaders.

“Yes, sadistic,” Ms. Khairunnisa raises her voice.

“How do you know?” I ask.

She replies without hesitation:

“We know from G30S/PKI film and also from what the teachers told us. We haven’t read any history books on this issue; why should we? We know anyway…” 

By “G30S/PKI” she means an official state propaganda film, full of gore, with which all children of Indonesia were terrorized and shockedwith on the anniversary of the coup. The film was directed by an arch ‘cultural’ collaborator with the ‘New Order” regime of General Suharto – Mr. Arifin C. Noer.

*

At one point, I get fully covered by an enormous white flag with Arabic script. The flag covers several lanes of the roadway. Perhaps, as a foreigner, I’m being shown my place, taught a lesson, but I don’t care. I just sit down on the concrete road divider and rest for a couple of minutes. It is cooler under the flag, and all those aggressive, militant noises are now mercifully muted.

The flag under which I was later burried

‘Indonesia is a peaceful country’, I think, sarcastically. That’s what the West wants everybody to believe, convincing even Indonesians themselves that it is the case. ‘Indonesia committed three horrid genocides after 1965 – against its own people, against inhabitants of East Timor, and now against Papuans. Here, I have witnessed and covered all sorts of horrors, for decades: from the mass rapes of Chinese women in Jakarta and Solo, to religious violence in Ambon, Lombok and elsewhere. Even members of most of the non-Sunni Muslim groups (including Shia, Liberal Islam, Ahmadiyah) are frequently attacked, even physically liquidated.

The West praises Indonesia, as long as the country allows its companies to plunder the vast natural resources, in such places as Borneo (Kalimantan), Sumatra and Papua, as long as Indonesia remains anti-Communist, as long as its elites – business, military and religious – are willing to sacrifice hundreds of millions of its defenseless, desperately uninformed and mainly wretched citizens.

*

“Protests in front of the Parliament were confusing. They brought the issue of PKI awakening. But they were led by the hardline Islamist group, HTI, which is itself banned,” explained Iman Soleh, a professor at the Faculty of Social and Political Science (University of Padjadjaran- UNPAD). He continued:

“In the meantime, it is suspected that the demonstrations were supported by anti Jokowi (President Joko Widodo’s nickname) parties, especially Gerindra and PKS… also Aksi 299 is allegedly funded by General Prabowo group, which always uses month of September to bring forward the issue of ‘PKI awakening’… of course it does it in order to weaken Jokowi’s government.”

In Indonesia, everything appears to be confusing, even what is and what isn’t truly Communist.

Several months ago I met a former Indonesian Mujahedeen fighter in Afghanistan, who barefacedly told me that the present-day Russia is actually Communist, and so is Assad’s government in Syria. According to him, even the governments of Karzai and Ghani in NATO occupied Afghanistan continue to be essentially Communist.

In the minds of many local people, Communist ghosts appear to be crawling out from every corner, even from the tiniest cracks in the floor.

Indonesia is scared; it is clearly not at peace with itself.

It is not really scared of “Communism”, but of something else, although it finds very difficult to define what exactly is frightening it.

Between 1 and 3 millions of corpses could compile an unimaginably huge mountain of horrors. Most of the Indonesian families have both victims and killers in their ranks. And the killings in 1965/66 Indonesia were not perpetrated ‘long-distance’, by pressing some button. People were often slaughtered with bare hands. Victims looked into the eyes of their killers and tormenters, and they were begging, screaming, howling.

There were never any trials like those that took place in Chile, Argentina or South Africa. There was no serious reconciliation process. The military leaders are not rotting in jail; they are actually running the country.

In fact, the crimes have never been acknowledged. Even worse: the victims are still being officially blamed for the beginning of the 1965 ‘tragedy’.

A bad conscience is hanging over this entire enormous archipelago. Bad conscience because of at least three genocides committed in the last half a century, because of selling the entire country to foreign interests, because of the unimaginable plunder of this once, a long time ago, beautiful and abundant land.

Bad conscience is being silenced by loud senseless sounds of brainless pop music, by countless religious rituals, and by continuous attempts not to read anything serious, not to learn and not to understand.

Another anniversary of the terrible event has just passed. And thousands took to the streets to protest against the victims. They went to insult the memory of those who were mercilessly slaughtered on orders coming from the West. They went to demand that the days of true independence and the greatness of Indonesian nation would never return.

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 revolutionary novel “Aurora” and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and  “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. View his other books here. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.

This article was originally published by New Eastern Outlook.

All images in this article are from the author.

The West claims that the Kurds are one of the most moral and dignified forces in the Middle East fighting against Daesh. But if their focus is on defeating Daesh, as they claim, why are they committing genocide against Syrians in the process? Taking this into consideration, it is hard to justify the West’s persistent claim that armed Kurdish terrorist groups are trying to help Syria. The reality on the ground contradicts these empty compliments, which the West uses to save face while supporting these terrorist organizations. This false narrative was in fact used to arm the Kurds in Syria in order to create instability and division.

For separatist Kurds to claim an area that they have lived in or have liberated as being rightfully theirs defies international law and logic.

The U.S. has armed the Kurds and supported their efforts since helping them establish the Syrian Democratic Forces on Oct. 10, 2015. The U.S. needed to fund a group within Syria that was fighting against Daesh, but that was not as extremist as the Free Syrian Army, which was outed as being affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Per South Front on October 1, 2017, Omid Kabar a commander of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) said, at a funeral for SDF fighters who were killed in Raqqa city, that the SDF will not handover al-Tabqah town or any other area to the Syrian government.

“The regime says we will hand over our regions or al-Tabqah town to the regime’s army … Our people must realize that within five years of our revolution as the People Protection Units and after our alliance with other factions in the name of Syrian Democratic Forces, we have not handed over any inch of our land… We will never hand it over. Our law is clear. The land that is watered with the blood of the martyrs belongs to the people and we will not hand them over to any force,” Kabar said.

It is strange that the Kurds would be so antagonistic towards Syrians, as the country has largely been welcoming for them. For example, reforms were made in Syria in 2012 to benefit the Kurds.

“President Assad issued a decree granting Arab Syrian citizenship to people registered as foreigners in the (governorate of Hassake),” said the SANA news agency.

The measure, which benefited about 300,000 Kurds, came a week after Assad tasked a committee with “resolving the problem of the 1962 census in the governorate of Hassake.”

In January 2015, SANA news reported that then-Syrian Prime Minister Dr. Wael al-Halqi said:

“the Kurds are a deeply-ingrained component of the Syrian society and Ayn al-Arab is part of Syria that is dear to the hearts of all Syrians.”

Al-Halqi’s affirmation came during his meeting with a Kurdish delegation which comprised Kurdish figures. He also urged all to discard violence and spread amity, reiterating that a solution to the Syrian crisis could be achieved “through national dialogue and consolidating national reconciliations,” indicating that dialogue will definitely be “under the homeland’s umbrella away from foreign dictates.”

In 2014, The Civil Democratic Gathering of Syrian Kurds said that the steadfastness of the people of Ayn al-Arab in the face of terrorists was a form of expression of the Syrian Kurds’ commitment to their affiliation to their homeland of Syria. The gathering’s Higher Council of Secretaries said that the steadfastness of Ayn al-Arab was cause for admiration and that attempts to transgress against the territorial integrity of Syria were parts of a plot to cause chaos and division and undermine the resistance axis.

These are just a few examples of the Syrian government’s attempts to unify all of those who live within the country’s borders. But even with these actions of good faith, the SDF has chosen to side with Syria’s enemies rather than work with the Syrian army.

A recent agreement – initiated and brokered by the U.S. between a Free Syrian Army (FSA) faction and the Kurdish-led SDF lays out conditions whereby U.S.-initiated negotiations would allow the FSA faction al-Muatasim Brigade to peacefully take over 11 villages in northern Syria that are controlled by the SDF. The general outlines of this unprecedented agreement were announced on May 10, stating that the U.S.-led coalition had delegated to al-Muatasim the task of being in charge of and administering the designated villages.

Image copied from Mustafa Sejari Twitter Credit

Al-Muatasim is known to be a strong ally of the U.S., which is why it was chosen to be in charge of the designated villages. This further proves the point that the U.S., SDF, and FSA are still working together. Their cooperation is part of an effort to counter the progress being made by the Syrian Arab Army and its allies.

The leaders of the SDF announced that they’ll try to annex the majority-Arab city of Raqqa if they manage to liberate it. The Kurds are ethnically cleansing Arabs from Raqqa en masse in order to pave the way for the city’s annexation to their unilaterally declared “Federation” after its forthcoming capture.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. Focused on exposing the lies and propaganda in mainstream media news, as it relates to domestic and foreign policy with an emphasis on the Middle East. Contributed to various radio shows, news publications and spoken at forums. For media inquiries please email [email protected].

This article was originally published by The Rabbit Hole.

The diplomatic relations between Turkey and the US are seem to become much colder.

Ankara has issued a detention warrant for a second US consulate worker, according to Hurriyet newspaper.

“The man, who is a staff member at the U.S. Consulate Istanbul and does not have ‘diplomatic immunity,’ has been invited to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office for his testimony,” the newspaper quoted the prosecutor’s office.

It added that the suspect’s wife and child have already been detained in the province of Amasya.

The announcement followed the detention of Metin Topuz, a Turkish citizen who worked at the US general consulate in Istanbul. According to Turkish security services he may have ties to exiled Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen and his movement outlawed in Turkey. Topuz will remain in custody while his alleged links to Gulen are investigated.

Topuz’s arrest led to a rapid deterioration of the relations between the two countries.

Featured image is from South Front.

Yesterday Turkish army forces entered the Syrian Idleb governate from the west. The move is officially part of a de-escalation supervision process agreed upon between Syria, Turkey, Russia and Iran. One point of the agreement is to continue the fight against al-Qaeda in Syria, currently operating under the name Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). HTS controls large parts of Idleb governate.

This is confirmed in the official Turkish Idleb Operation Explanation. “To purge terrorist organisations, especially DAESH, PKK/PYD-YPG and HTS from the region,” is described as one aim of its de-escalation force.

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).

An (anti-Syrian government) journalist reports:

Hassan Hassan‏ – Verified account @hxhassan – 5:22 PM – 8 Oct 20171. Turkey established three checkpoints in Darat Izzat, west of Aleppo, in coordination with HTS.
A senior HTS official tells @MousaAlomar Turkish forces won’t be present anywhere other than those checkpoints “for now.”

2. Mousa asks a series of questions to the HTS official:
Q. Will the Turkish army enter [rebel-held] areas?
A. Yes (but not beyond the three areas agreed with HTS)
Q. Any imminent battle in Idlib?
A. No. So far things are good, unless Turkey changes its position
My own sources confirm that an effort to keep things peaceful between Turkey and HTS is so far successful.

The purpose of this Turkish incursion is obviously not to counter al-Qaeda/HTS but only to surround the Kurdish held enclave around Efrin.

An aggressive Turkish move could now  try to cut of the Kurdish Efrin area (yellow) from the Syrian government held areas (red) by connecting the Turkish controlled rebel area in the north (blue) with the al-Qaeda controlled Idleb governate (green). Such a move would encounter fierce resistance not only from Kurdish elements and the Syrian government but also from Iran. Auxiliary Iranian troops hold the government corridor between Aleppo and Efrin to protect some important Shia villages in the area.

On one side one can understand the Turkish abrogation of its duties under the Astana agreement. Erdogan is afraid of the domestic backlash a real fight against HTS would likely cause. But it was Turkey that created the mess by supplying al-Qaeda in Syria with men and goods for nearly six years. It is its duty to kill the monster it created. It also has to uphold its diplomatic agreements.

Turkey has proven again that it is not trustworthy. Erdogan may hope to get NATO cover should he incur new Russian wrath about his breach of trust and his abrogation of the de-escalation agreement. But the expanding spat between the State Department and the Turkish government, as well as low Turkish standing within NATO populations, do not bode well for any bet on that alliance.

From time to time, the Kremlin uses the Sunday evening weekly news wrap-up program of Dmitry Kiselyov on state television channel Rossiya-1 to send blunt and public warnings to Washington without diplomatic niceties. 

Last night was one such case and we must hope that the intended audience within the Beltway can put aside its focus on Russia Today’s supposed fake news long enough to read a real message from Moscow.

The last such message came in the week following the April 8^th Tomahawk attack on a Syrian air base that Donald Trump sprung on the world, allegedly to punish the regime of Assad for a chemical attack on a village in Idlib province.

Kiselyov used his airtime then to spell out the Russian response, which he characterized as unprecedented in scope and seriousness. It was essential to put all of its elements together in one place, as he did, because our boys in the Pentagon chose to downplay one or another element in isolation, such as the Russian installation of their Iskander nuclear potential missiles in Kaliningrad, or the abrogation of the deconfliction agreement relating to air space over Syria, or the dispatch of still more Russian vessels to the Eastern Mediterranean equipped to sink our Navy.

While our generals were saying that the Russians didn’t really mean it, Kiselyov put the whole picture on the screen:  an ultimatum to Washington to back off or be prepared for war.

A still earlier message of this kind to Washington aired on the Kiselyov Sunday news show in the week following the supposedly accidental US and allied bombing of Syrian army positions in the encircled eastern town of Deir Ezzor, which killed more than 80 Syrian soldiers and prepared the way for a renewed offensive by the siege forces.

That bombing scuttled the agreement on a Syrian cease-fire concluded with the approval of Barack Obama less than a week earlier by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry after a 14 hour negotiating session.

Lavrov was shown on the Kiselyov program openly accusing US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter of directing “friendly fire” against Kerry and of dangerous insubordination to his boss, the US President, which put in question any possibility of reaching agreements with the Americans on anything.

That last charge has now again re-emerged in the program that Kiselyov presented yesterday. The Americans were identified as the “main obstacle” to the mopping up operation in Syria, at a time when “the light at the end of the tunnel” is visible [Kiselyov’s characterization], when more than 90% of the Syrian territory is under government control.

To wit, the United States is secretly aiding the terrorists: supplying them with weapons, helping them to move around, removing them from under hostile fire, giving them the findings of aerial reconnaissance, maps of where Syrian government forces are operating and even the locations of Russian military detachments.

Things have gotten to the point where it is not the military capability of the Islamic State but the American assistance which stands in the way of the total liberation of Syria from terrorists.

This, says Kiselyov, is not his own idea: it is the official position of the Russian Ministry of Defense as issued through its spokesman this week, Igor Konashenkov.

Kiselyov resumes:

The Americans deny everything. But the RF Ministry of Defense does not believe their words, relying instead on facts. We recall in the past week how part of the main road connecting Palmyra and Deir Ezzor was taken over by the fanatics.

This is the main artery supplying the Syrian forces leading the offensive from Deir Ezzor against the remaining forces of the terrorists in Syria. De facto this was an attack in the rear. This was planned and facilitated by the Americans.

In parallel, on 28 September a large group of terrorists numbering about 300 men left the area of the American base in Et Tanf at the Jordanian border. In this area there is a refugee camp numbering tens of thousands.

Per Kiselyov, the Americans have cut off the refugee camp, not allowing in UN or other humanitarian relief convoys, so as to use the camp as cover, a human shield, for the Islamic State fighters they are supporting.

Then comes the direct warning from Konashenkov: If the US forces see these attacks by mobile units of terrorists they are assisting as “unforeseen random events,” then Russian armed forces in Syria are prepared to totally destroy all such random events directed against the zone under their control.

Kiselyov asks why is this happening?  Did Trump decide this?

The question is rhetorical. Trump is exculpated.  It may be “amazing,” but it appears that Trump was not a party to this.  More likely it is due to what he calls sloppy management, when the military gets out from under political control, and then on the territory of Syria, “they start wandering around quite on their own” and “flirting” with the terrorist groups.

Whatever the case, says Kiselyov, the result is extremely unpleasant both for Russia and for the American leadership as its generals are being pushed towards adventurism.

Konashenkov characterized the area in Syria under American control near the Jordanian border as a “black hole” that is 100 km long. From this black hole, like devils escaping from a snuff box, the terrorists come out to stage their attacks on Syrian troops and against the peaceful civilian population.

The feature segment moves on to a calm note, with insistence that Putin remains confident in the victory over the terrorists regardless of who is aiding them.

To demonstrate this Olympian calm, which comes from certainty of victory in the near future, we are shown footage of Putin’s response to questions put to him at the Energy Forum in Moscow at mid-week.

Putin tells us that:

“in the end, we all [presumably including the Americans] have common interests in securing Syria and the region against terrorists and that will bring us together for cooperative action.”

In the meantime though, we are treated to videos showing the consequences of Russian air activity in Syria this past week.

That included more than 400 sorties of Russian planes based in Syria, plus bombing by SU 134 and 135 arriving from Russian territory that killed a dozen or more terrorist leaders together with 50 security personnel and seriously injured their top official, who lost an arm and sank into a coma.

Russian air attacks destroyed the terrorists’ main underground weapons caches amounting to a thousand tons.  And an attack by Kalibr cruise missiles launched from submarines in the Mediterranean destroyed Islamic State command installations and vehicles as well as weapons supplies. This cleared the way for Syrian troops to move to liberate the town of Meyadin.

The dots are left unconnected, but the Russian threat is clear: they will use their air power to eliminate all forces standing in the way of their complete victory including US forces on the ground near the Jordanian border.

The same news round-up last night also had another segment that relates in less direct fashion to the coming Russian victory in Syria: this was a week when the king of Saudi Arabia made the first state visit to Russia in their 90 plus years of diplomatic relations. And it was not a simple affair.

Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud brought with him a suite of 1,000, including business leaders, ministry officials and senior military.  We are told they came with 100 tons of baggage, including favorite carpets and other necessities of life.

All aspects of this visit were impressive, including the signing of contracts and letters of intent for multi-billion dollar joint investments in industrial projects in both countries, possible Saudi purchases of Russian Liquefied Natural Gas from yet another mega-project seeking financing and multi-billion dollar military procurement, said to include the latest S-400 air defense system that Russia agreed to supply to Turkey a few weeks ago in exchange for a 2.5 billion dollar down payment and which Turkey accepted gratefully over NATO objections.

Putin quipped to the moderator of the Moscow Energy Forum also held during the past week that nothing is forever, not even the U.S. hold on the Saudis.

Kiselyov placed the visit in the context of Russian foreign policy in the region generally. Putin, he said, is pursuing a policy of seeking peaceful harmony in the Near East that takes into account the balance of interests of all countries in the region, a policy which is paying off:

Russia is now the only country in the world to have good relations with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, Turkey, Iraq and, of course, Syria.

From both segments it would appear that US domination is unraveling.

Featured image is from the author.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA), the National Defense Forces (NDF) and Hezbollah have repelled all ISIS attacks along the Palmyra-Deir Ezzor highway, regained an area east of Sukhna and restored control over this key supply line to government forces operating near Deir Ezzor city, according to pro-government sources.

Meanwhile, government forces, led by the SAA Tiger Forces, started storming the ISIS stronghold of Mayadin. The SAA seized the old airport, the grain silos and other points west and south of the city.

The situation inside Mayadin remains unclear. Some sources report that ISIS is withdrawing from the area under the threat of being encircled by government forces. At the same time, no photos or videos showing SAA troops deep inside the city are available online.

Anyway, the fall of Mayadin will be a major blow to the ISIS defense in the Euphrates Valley.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) seized the town of as-Sawah from ISIS northwest of Deir Ezzor. Separately, SDF units captured Markadah town in southern Hasakah. Markadah is located on the road heading to the SDF-held town of As Suwar and the ISIS strong point of al-Busariyah.

The SDF is attempting to deliver a fell stroke to ISIS in the city of Raqqah. Last weekend, Jihan Sheikh, spokesperson for the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), said that 85% of Raqqah is under the SDF control and vowed that the US-backed force will take full control over the city in few days.

Ardal Raqqa, a SDF field commander, told Reuters that the final push to defeat ISIS militants was set to be started on Sunday night.

Turkey has deployed a large force including Leopard 2 and M60T battle tanks at the border with Syria ahead of the large-scale military intervention in the province of Idlib. According to Turkish President Recep Erdogan, Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army groups have already entered the province and developing momentum there.

In case of the military intervention, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) would likely be the main enemy of Turkey-led forces. Recently, the group has had very cold ties with Ankara and its proxies.

Pro-Turkish media also argue that the operation would be linked to countering Kurdish militias operating in northwestern Syria.

On Sunday, Turkish officers and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) representatives reportedly held a meeting in Darat Izza town in northwestern Aleppo. The meeting was likely linked to the upcoming Turkish military action in the militant-held area. Opposition sources speculated that HTS might surrender positions near the Kurdish-held area to Turkey without any fighting.

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.

The Secretary-General of NATO said this on October 9th, speaking in NATO member Romania, right across the Black Sea from Russia’s region of Crimea (which had always been part of Russia except for the brief period 1954-2014, when the Soviet dictator arbitrarily transferred Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 — i.e., the Soviet dictator had made Crimea ‘Ukrainian’, and only in 2014 was a plebiscite actually held there in order to determine what the people there wanted, and more than 90% chose to be restored to the Russian Government). He said, on October 9th, that NATO is “concerned by Russia’s military buildup close to our borders”, but NATO actually had expanded up to Russia’s borders; in no way had Russia expanded up to NATO’s borders. NATO’s leader was importantly misrepresenting history, there.

In fact, Romania, itself, used to be a member of the former Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact military alliance of nations, which had been set up by the Soviet Union in response to America’s having established in 1949 its NATO military alliance with Western European nations. After the Cold War ended, on Russia’s side, in 1991, and has been secretly continued by the U.S. Government and its allies right up to the present time, Romania became a member of the NATO anti-Russian alliance in 2004, under George W. Bush’s Administration. But Bush’s father, President George Herbert Walker Bush, had, as the U.S. President, established, in 1990, the foundation for what NATO now is doing in Romania, against Russia — even though Russia had, in fact, ended the Cold War on its side, in 1991. 

When the Cold War ended in 1991, it was on the basis of the promise by the Soviet Union that the U.S.S.R. would end, and would become its component separate independent states (one of which was Russia), and end its communism, and end its Warsaw Pact military alliance with nations adjoining the Soviet Union — that all of this would happen if the United States and its NATO allies would not expand NATO, and that especially NATO would not move “one inch to the east” (i.e., toward Russia) by adding, to the NATO military alliance, any of the nations (such as Romania) which had been in the Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact, nor especially any nations that had been a part of the former Soviet Union itself (such as Ukraine). The U.S. Government wants to bring Ukraine into NATO, to become its 29th member-nation. But Ukraine is not yet a member, and NATO therefore doesn’t yet have any legitimate business there, at all. NATO isn’t, and can’t yet be, ‘defending’ Ukraine — no matter how much NATO might possibly want to go to war against Russia.

For NATO to be alleging to be “concerned by Russia’s military buildup close to our borders” is amazing, since NATO is militarily building up not only “close to” Russia’s borders, but right on Russia’s borders (such as in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) and is now seeking to add Ukraine as a member, but already has other formerly Russia-allied nations: Poland, East Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, and, this year, Montenegro — and is attempting to draw in the few remaining ones, but especially Ukraine, which it claims to be ‘defending’.

The Warsaw Pact was formed six years after the NATO alliance was, and only after repeated failures by the Soviet Union to be allowed into NATO. The Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, was, additionally, but only vaguely, promised, in 1990, that if the Cold War would ‘end’, then Russia, now to become an independent nation, would be considered ‘again’ for possible admission into NATO, but this vaguely presented bait turned out not to be honored in reality, once the deal was done. During the years after 1991, NATO boldly and blatantly violated the “move not one inch to the east” agreement with Gorbachev, and took on 13 new members — all of which lands had previously been either inside the Soviet Union, or else inside the Warsaw Pact — so that NATO increased from its then-existing 16 nations, to become today’s 29 nations, all of which 13 additional nations had previously been allied with Russia; and, so, NATO is now not only near Russia’s borders, such as in Romania, but right on Russia’s very borders in other nations, and the U.S. is, even now installing an anti-missile system to annihilate Russia’s retaliatory missiles in the event that the U.S. regime decides to launch a blitz first-strike nuclear attack against Russia to eliminate Russia’s retaliatory nuclear arsenals either on the ground or in the air and thus finally conquer NATO’s eternal target: Russia.

NATO repeatedly accuses Russia of aggression for defending itself against American, and other NATO, aggressions, such as U.S. President Barack Obama’s carefully engineered coup that started being planned in 2011 and was finally perpetrated in 2014 to take over Ukraine’s Government to turn anti-Russian this country, Ukraine, which has the longest of all European borders with Russia. The U.S. regime wants Ukraine in NATO, but other NATO members don’t yet allow it (and maybe never will).

However, American and other NATO ‘news’media, lie about this entire matter, and present NATO as being purely a ‘defensive’ organization, instead of what it actually is: a major component in the U.S. dictatorship’s effort ultimately to checkmate Russia or else to kill Russians entirely and take over their natural resources to be controlled by U.S. and other international corporations.

NATO is an international mega-criminal gang, which enormously increases the likelihood of World War III, but which also is enormously profitable for its ultimate backers, Lockheed Martin and other NATO weapons-makers, whose controlling ownership also happens to own and control, and to advertise their other corporations’ products and services in, the ’news’ media in those nations. Media-profits are thus connected — both directly and indirectly — to that military-industrial complex, which needs invasions, even if it doesn’t actually need to conquer Russia or any other country. But perpetual war for perpetual ‘peace’ is the most essential thing of all for NATO (and, since nuclear weaponry is the most expensive type of all, the anti-Russian agenda is especially important to NATO, even without Russia’s natural resources). That’s what actually is behind NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s speech on October 9th near Russia’s border, in which he alleged,

“Our deployments are a direct response to Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine,” and, “We are concerned by Russia’s military build-up close to our borders.” He said there, “We do not want to isolate Russia. NATO does not want a new Cold War. Our actions are designed to prevent, not provoke conflict.”

(Even Hitler had said, prior to the start of WW II, that he was merely ‘defending’ Germany, against other countries.) Stoltenberg knows, as well as anyone possibly can, that, on the U.S. regime’s side, the Cold War never stopped, and that it has escalated sharply and re-invigorated NATO itself, with the Obama-regime’s takeover of Ukraine, and he knows that the ‘aggression’ which NATO and the U.S. regime blame against Russia, constitute actually Russia’s defensive actions which necessarily result from Obama’s Ukrainian coup on Russia’s very doorstep — a coup which was even documented on recordings, such as here and here (and many other key moments) (and the key background for which coup has, by now, also been documented, going all the way back to 2011, when the planning for organizing Obama’s coup was already begun in 2011 inside the U.S. State Department), and which therefore cannot even be denied (except in the persistently lying U.S.-NATO team’s ‘news’media). 

It’s all a big ‘jobs program’ for the U.S. and other extremely corrupt-at-the-top nations — the U.S. aristocracy and its vassal-aristocracies in Europe and elsewhere, and their lying ‘news’media, who can’t deny the evidence, and so they simply ignore the evidence, and they instead stenographically ‘report’ the U.S. Government’s lies as ‘truths’, much the same as had happened prior to the U.S. Government’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, only on a much larger scale now. 

So, these ugly facts are not reported in the NATO press, because they’re true — their truth is why they’re not allowed to be broadcast and publicly debated. Their being true is blocking those ‘democracies’ from allowing their respective publics to know anything about any of this. 

We are, thus, all living in the type of situation that the allegorical novel 1984 described; but the means by which it operates, in reality, turn out to be far more sophisticated than in the fictional version. 

Welcome, then, to 2017’s version of 1984 — it’s the updated version, in which, NATO is “concerned by Russia’s military buildup close to our borders.”

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

During four days, September 16-19, I was in Caracas, Venezuela, as one of more than 200 delegates from 60 countries who responded to an invitation to attend the international solidarity meeting “Todos Somos Venezuela – Dialogo Mundial por la Paz, la Soberania y la Democracia Bolivariana” (We Are All Venezuela – World Dialogue for Peace, Sovereignty and Bolivarian Democracy). There were delegates representing political, social, religious and trade union organizations. I was representing the Canadian organization Frente para la Defensa de los Pueblos Hugo Chavez and I was one of seven Canadians. 

We had an opportunity to hear from, and exchange with, people from the Venezuelan administration. Among them: President Nicolas Maduro, Jorge Arreaza, Minister of Foreign Relations, Delcy Rodriguez, former Minister of Foreign Relations and current President of the National Constituent Assembly, and Adan Chavez, brother of Hugo Chavez, the International Coordinator of the United Venezuelan Socialist Party (PSUV).

Among the international delegates Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, shared his country’s undivided solidarity with Maduro. Other delegates were Fernando Gonzalez, former “Cuban Five” prisoner and President of the Cuban Institute for Friendship with the Peoples, Maria do Socorro Gomes, president of the World Peace Council, the son of murdered President Patrice Lumumba, from Congo, and a Palestinian delegate whose words made us all rise to a standing ovation of solidarity.

Why such urgency and such a wide call to an international meeting in Caracas?

There is a concerted plan by the U.S. government to overthrow President Maduro and to completely wipe out the Bolivarian Revolution and the governing party the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV, United Socialist Party of Venezuela). The first attempt was the failed coup against Chavez in 2002. Then there have been attempts through parliamentary coups and referendums to remove the president “constitutionally”.

Failing all of that, the level of violence, orchestrated by the rightwing Venezuelan opposition, increased reaching a peak in April-July of this year with more than 120 Venezuelans killed, some burned alive as suspected Chavistas. This tactic of extreme violence was used in order to destabilize the country and reach international visibility, with the aid of corporate media, setting up the perfect pretext for the U.S. government to justify any kind of intrusion in the name of the “poor suffering” Venezuelan people.

Source: Nino Pagliccia

Following U.S. threats of military intervention and escalating sanctions, the violence has subsided and the last round of sanctions were applied on August 25. This amounted to a virtual financial blockade that prevents Venezuela from having access to international financing necessary for its oil industry. To this Venezuela has responded by dropping the petrodollar and peg the oil trade to the Chinese Yuan.

Regrettably but not surprisingly, Canada has recently joined the U.S. in applying sanctions to 40 high-ranking Venezuelans including President Nicolas Maduro.

There is no denial that the attack on Venezuela comes from governments that want to strangle the Venezuelan economy for the purpose of regime change. Delcy Rodriguez stated in Caracas,

“Venezuela is the victim of a non conventional war”, and she reminded us of the case of Iraq, Libya and Syria.

That is why international solidarity is necessary and hence the call to the meeting “Todos Somos Venezuela” in Caracas.

The message throughout the four days of discussions and planning on how to break the corporate media silence – indeed disinformation – about Venezuela, was loud and clear: Venezuela wants peace, sovereignty and Bolivarian democracy.

Venezuela’s peace has been shattered by what was called “four months of fascist violence” to which, in the words of Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza, “instead of appealing to repression, Maduro appealed to the Constituent Assembly.”

In fact, while the formal goal of the Constituent Assembly is to present a new constitution to the people of Venezuela to be voted on, perhaps the most meaningful goal is to bring together the population to discuss solutions to the common issues they face, and with it bring peace to the country. It is an opportunity that the Venezuelan opposition has stubbornly refused to give it a chance.

It is unfortunate that rightwing countries that usually profess the importance of democracy, side with the opposition and fail to recognize the significance of this popular participatory process that the Constituent Assembly provides in Venezuela.

While the U.S. promotes a “worn out model” of democracy based on a confrontational process, Venezuela (and Cuba before that) attempts to build a “new value system and a new model of democracy” – Bolivarian democracy – from the roots up based on a constant participatory process where no one is left out, except those who choose not to be part of it.

In the last 18 years Venezuela has had 21 democratic elections and it is preparing for the 22^nd election on October 15 when Venezuelans will vote for 23 state governors in more than 13,000 polling stations and with the support of the Council of Electoral Experts of Latin America, which will send 50 international election experts to observe the electoral process. At the time of writing all major opposition parties appear to be willing to participate in the elections in what seems to be an acceptance of Maduro’s persistent invitation to dialogue.

On the last day of the meeting an “anti-imperialist” march, where all delegates participated ending at a mass gathering in front of the presidential office of Miraflores, gave us all an opportunity to hear Maduro’s final call to peace – “Este es un pueblo de paz” (“This is a people of peace”) – and his warning that a threat of military action against Venezuela “is a threat to the whole world.”

Source: Nino Pagliccia

This was not an ordinary meeting. This was not an occasion for a photo op to be seen with famous Venezuelan and international delegates. This was much more than an occasion to express our solidarity. This was an urgent call from Venezuela to the world asking to roll up our sleeves and work alongside the Venezuelan people anywhere we live to defend the Bolivarian Revolution. That part of the world represented by the 200 delegates responded by issuing a detailed work plan with a commitment to promote the peaceful and democratic electoral process of October 15, among other actions.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge.

Featured image: Senator Bob Corker (Source: FreedomWorks)

“I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it’s a situation of trying to contain him.” – Senator Bob Corker on Donald Trump, New York Times, Oct 8, 2017

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson may well be pulling out what tender remains of his hair are left. With the North Korean-Trump spat now personalised to the point of caricature, the Secretary was hoping to soften the ground in hope for a constructive meeting with Pyongyang. He was, in other words, doing a Trump, a considering the unthinkable, wishing for the profane in US foreign policy to come good.

The US, claimed the secretary, had “lines of communication to Pyongyang,” which shed little by way of news on a well-known situation that President Donald Trump seemed ignorant of.

“We’re not in a dark situation, a blackout. We have a couple, three channels open to Pyongyang. We can talk to them. We do talk to them.”

Comforting to know that the situation is not entirely hermetic, self-contained and delusional.

Trump’s radar envisaged something quite different. To shock, and pretend to awe, seemed to remain in fashion. In truth, it seemed to be yet another tactic drawn from the arsenal of business bullying and hectoring: steady the blows, mock the proposal, and dismiss your opponent with calculated scorn. Diplomacy is a measure best left to the weak and the secretive. 

For Trump, Tillerson misstated the position of calm and communication, being all too diplomatic when diplomacy had lost relevance.

“Being nice to Rocket Man hasn’t worked for 25 years, why would it work now? Clinton failed, Bush failed, and Obama failed. I won’t fail.”

Misguided and petulant as ever, this is a recipe that burns manuals rather than writes them.

The diplomatic commentariat have been stunned by this display, though Trump remains entirely consistent in his erratic explosiveness. His “remarkable decision to rebuke his own secretary of state’s attempt at pursuing diplomacy with North Korea last week was a dangerous move at a dangerous time,” claimed Ankit Panda of The Diplomat.[1]  His behaviour had been “deterrence degrading” in its manner, the sort of language that betrays on Panda’s part an all too keen worship of a supposedly scripted art.

Over the weekend, the infant show continued with blustering menace, this time with a new addition. Senator Bob Corker, Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, shot a few lines of his own on the Trump show.

“It’s a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.”[2]

To the New York Times, Corker showed splenetic dismay, pointing out with some accuracy that the president had confused diplomacy with the savage format of The Apprentice. “He concerns me. He would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation.” Such a “reality show” could well set Washington “on the path to World War III.”[3]  Corker’s timing was opportune, given his obsession with tying in the budget deficit with a tax overhaul.

Trump’s response, however, was not. “Bob Corker gave us the Iran Deal, & that’s about it. We need HealthCare, we need Tax Cuts/Reform, we need people that can get the job done!”[4] The reason for adding a spear to the assault was, ever consistently, personal. Corker had “begged” the president “to endorse him for re-election in Tennessee. I said ‘NO’ and he dropped out (said he could not without my endorsement).”[5]

Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, was left scratching for an explanation.

“Under the normal, traditional rules of politics of the last 40 years of my life, a president would not poke a senator in the eye when he has a two-seat majority and a major legislative agenda needing to be accomplished.”[6] 

Former House Republican, Tom Davis of Virginia, was similarly consulting the thumbed rule book of wise conduct in politics.

“There is an old saying in politics: Don’t pick a fight with someone who has nothing to lose.”

If there is one thing to be said in favour of the cantankerous president, poking the eyes of those who have shown a long record of opposing reforms, bills and measures in a country where political stagnation is the norm is precisely the counter-intuitive approach that might reap rewards. Under President Obama, Congress became a place where measures went to perish. Foot dragging, vacillation and delays became affairs of dull predictability.  

Trump’s singular approach can only ever be blunt. It would be a story steeped in irony that figures such as Kim Jong-un and the mullahs of Iran might end up undoing the White House on the domestic front.

While there is little to praise in terms of US approaches, be they Democrat or Republican administrations, to so-called trouble states, Trump is bearing witness to a gradual unraveling. His own party, which he cares little for, is unsheathing swords to do battle. Given the upcoming budget vote and a series of legislative measures, Trump is in short supply of allies from either side of the aisle. But he is bound to be relishing it. The show will go on.

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

Notes

Kyrgyzstan’s state security service arrested Kanatbek Isayev, a supporter of opposition candidate Omurbek Babanov, just weeks before the presidential election on 15 October on the grounds that he was coordinating with criminal groups in planning Color Revolution riots and essentially working to carry out a coup against the government. This doesn’t mean that the opposition itself wants to do this, but just that it could be a rogue individual doing so on their own initiative, or at the “useful idiot” behest of a foreign intelligence agency such as the CIA. It’s important to treat this incident very delicately because of how sensitive the situation is in the Central Asian country. Kyrgyzstan has already experienced two violent Color Revolutions, the last of which was in 2010 and descended into inter-ethnic violence between the native Kyrgyz and minority Uzbeks in the diverse Fergana Valley of the country’s south.

During that time, rioting did indeed lead to a coup, and the security vacuum that was created as a result provided the opportunity for people to “settle old scores”, so to speak, and start a massive killing wave in and near the country’s second-largest city of Osh. It was only by a stroke of luck and the stern self-discipline on all sides – especially the Uzbek government – that a larger war was averted and a so-called “Central Asian Spring” didn’t precede the Arab one which began less than half a year later in what curiously appears in hindsight to have a been an organized destabilization attempt all across what the Bush Administration had at one time referred to as the “Greater Middle East”.

The consequences of widespread disorder in this pivotal region between Russia, China, Iran, and Afghanistan would be a deterioration of their collective security as a result of the possible outflow of millions of what Ivy League researcher Kelly M. Greenhill considers “Weapons of Mass Migration”, the spread of Daesh and other terrorist groups into this region and disguised among potential refugees, a possible Russian-led CSTO peacekeeping operation, and of course the end of China’s Silk Road dreams for the region. All of these disturbing yet very realistic scenarios explain why Alexei Fenenko, a lead researcher at the International Security Problems Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences, told TASS last week that the US might try to destabilize Central Asia in the near future in order to take revenge against Russia for its success in Syria.

All of this becomes more relevantly pressing when considering that it was announced earlier this week that Russia is exploring options for a second base in Kyrgyzstan, this time in the southern Fergana Valley where the 2010 killings occurred. On the one hand, forthcoming unrest could offset these plans, but on the other, they give Moscow an even more important reason to get more directly involved in balancing the region’s complex interethnic affairs and safeguarding its and its nearby Great Powers’ collective security. As of now, there’s no reason to expect more Color Revolution chaos in Kyrgyzstan, especially seeing as how the security services are evidently doing their job by detaining suspected organizers of this plot, but nevertheless, the Central Asian country will always remain a powder keg of potential conflict by virtue of its tumultuous history, geostrategic location, and diverse ethnic composition.

The post presented is the partial transcript of the CONTEXT COUNTDOWN radio program on Sputnik News, aired on Friday Oct 6, 2017:

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

Featured image is from the author.

Featured image: Ai Weiwei @ 798 Beijing (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

When I received the invitation from Magnolia Pictures to preview a forthcoming film by artist Ai Weiwei, recognizing the name of its celebrated Chinese director, I was eager to screen it. I have a scant impression of the visual extravagance of Ai’s art work, but knew nothing of his film-making before my research for this review. Now I learn of his copious filming explorations resulting in more than 20 video productions between 2003 and 2013, some rather lengthy, e.g. Chang’an Boulevard (10:13 hrs) or Fairytale at 2:33 hrs, and mostly completed in his homeland.

Ai Weiwei’s early videos are largely investigative visual documentations of injustices, tragedies, dissident profiles and autobiographical projects. A prolific artist who also identifies himself as an activist and dissident, Ai gained wide international attention, predictably, when in 2011 he was detained for some 81 days in his city, Beijing.

He works in multimedia, often on a grand scale. This may explain his attraction to the theme of this film, Human Flow@HumanFlowMovie @aiww, due for release October 13^th in the USA. More than two hours long, taking us into fourteen refugee camps across more than ten countries from Bangladesh to Kenya to Mexico (notably, this project omits reference to Tibetan or Qinghai refugees from China), employing some 100 staff and 60 translators, Human Flow is of epic scale in more than its title.

Human Flow is essentially a human rights story—a visual statement of the unfulfilled rights – or dreams, if you will– of refugees across the globe. His tens of thousands of subjects—representing tens of millions worldwide–are souls in transit: South Americans slipping across the Mexican border into the USA, Palestinians driven from their lands, Africans escaping from various homelands by boat to Europe, and Middle Eastern families walking into the European mainland. It’s about fences and guards, and waiting huddled families.

Most of those offering testimonials, Ai Weiwei films inside refugee camps. Stark, somewhat formal, on-camera interviews with individuals provide first hand accounts of their victimization, anxiety, and bitterness.

Little of what we witness in Human Flow will be new to anyone following international events. In recent years, with the massive exodus of people from the Middle East into Europe, the military conflicts, the controversial status of undocumented workers, the deaths of thousands crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and subsequent debates about what host counties ought to do, even the most disinterested of us is aware of the “human tide” pressing upon our shores.

Testimonies by refugee families in the film are interspersed with statements by officials– professionals in the refugee business: we hear from doctors inspecting camp conditions, from human rights lawyers citing UN conventions, from a diplomatic Jordanian princess, from Hanan Ashrawi, Palestine’s most articulate representative, from UNICEF’s spokesperson in Lebanon, from Israel’s B’Tselem director, from the Carnegie Middle East director, from a UNHCR spokesman in Kenya. All offer choreographed, disembodied statements about the need for more, more, more…

A short segment with the single politician in the film, Lebanon’s Walid Jumblatt, is noteworthy for its candor. About migrants, Jumblatt declares, “without memory you are nothing”; about refugee management he points to the hypocrisy of international refugee policies. In skimming over Jumblatt’s blunt assessments, Ai Weiwei missed the chance to explore more fundamental issues behind those pompous, exploding human rights’ businesses. He could have offered us a really piercing story, introducing Human Flow with Jumblatt’s provocative assertions followed by dialogue with Jumblatt about the financing of camps, the wars generating these exoduses, the pornographic use of pitiful images of victims, threaded together with the powerful visuals that Ai’s cameras capture. A lost opportunity by a man known for provocative, daring work.

As with his other projects, Ai Weiwei wants us to know he is there:  on the ground with sobbing refugees, beside his camera crew at a tense frontier, his hair disheveled by sand-laden desert winds. Here is the anthropologist, there-but-not-there, allowing refugees and images of their environments to speak for themselves, superimposed with an occasional news headline or quote from a Turkish or Arab poet to augment the pictures.

Which brings us, finally, to the images. What is new to our refugee picture are spectacular aerial shots presenting a panorama of refugee living:—we are taken high above an endless, blue sea where a boat laden with escapees slowly moves into the frame; we gaze through a wide angle photo of a camps’ columns and columns of identical, orderly white structures; another aerial encompasses countless scattered huts amid the detritus of their impermanence; we are held beside tents haphazardly pitched at a railway station, dwarfed by an enormous, slowly moving train passing resolutely behind.

This is the “flow”– perhaps more accurately termed “stagnation”– that impacts the viewer more forcefully than faces and statements of refugees and administrators.

Because of the director’s reputation, a lot of people will want to see Human Flow. Still, given Ai Weiwei’s goal of using art to change perceptions, we need to ask: can this film do that?

Global Research is a small team that believes in the power of information and analysis to bring about far-reaching societal change including a world without war.

Truth in media is a powerful instrument. As long as we all keep probing, asking questions, looking through the disinformation to find real understanding, then we are in a better position to participate in creating a better world in which truth and accountability trump greed and corruption.

Stronger together: your donations are crucial to independent, comprehensive news reporting in the ongoing battle against media disinformation.  (click image above to donate)

*     *     *

Longest War in US History Turns 16 Today – Thousands Dead, No End in Sight & It’s Getting Worse

By Rachel Blevins, October 09, 2017

After the US began ‘spreading democracy’ there 16 years ago, Afghanistan has become more dangerous, more corrupt, and deadlier than ever.

Afghanistan: US Sponsored Al Qaeda “Freedom Fighters” Were Used to Railroad the Formation of a Secular Socialist Government

By Gaither Stewart, October 09, 2017

Neocons continues to be a promising alternative. No oil but lots of poppies and valuable land and location. Soviet Russia had dreamed of a Soviet-friendly progressive Afghanistan to protect and secure its vast Islamic regions extending from the Caucuses to the Far East. It failed to quell the ruly, untamable Afghans as Americans cannot still today. Though U.S.-supported Mujahideen could not defeat in battle the Soviet-supported government in Kabul in the 1980s, it at least convinced the Russians to abandon a lost mission and to leave, a lesson that the USA has continued to learn and unlearn for 16 years. On the flimsiest of excuses it too invaded indomitable Afghanistan in 2001 after 11 September … and is still there flailing at windmills, unable to completely abandon another lost war.

The Invasion of Afghanistan, October 7, 2001: Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan?

By David Ray Griffin, October 07, 2017

US political leaders have claimed, to be sure, that the UN did authorize the US attack on Afghanistan. This claim, originally made by the Bush-Cheney administration, was repeated by President Obama in his West Point speech of December 1, 2009, in which he said: “The United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks,” so US troops went to Afghanistan “[u]nder the banner of . . .  international legitimacy.”

US to Plunder Afghanistan’s Mineral Riches

By Stephen Lendman, September 24, 2017

Endless US aggression in Afghanistan has nothing to do with combating terrorism (America supports it), everything to do with controlling the country, using it for oil and gas pipelines, part of encircling Russia and China with US military bases, and plundering vast Afghan mineral riches – likely worth trillions of dollars, a prize corporate predators covet.

The People of Afghanistan Have Had Truly Enough of Western Imperialist Barbarism

By Andre Vltchek and Alessandro Bianchi, September 12, 2017

The US alone claims that it has managed to spend, since the invasion in 2001, between 750 billion and 1.2 trillion dollars. That’s huge, an astronomical amount, even bigger than the entire Marshall Plan after WWII (adjusted to today’s dollar)! But has it been spent to help the Afghan people? Of course not! It has gone mainly into corrupting of ‘elites’ and their offspring, into the military, into the salaries of foreign contractors. Huge military bases were built; some were at some point decommissioned, others were moved somewhere else. Airports were constructed – all of them military ones. Private Western security firms are having a ball. I once calculated that if all that money were to be equally divided between all Afghans, the country would have had a much higher income per capita than relatively affluent Malaysia, for 16 consecutive years!

The Spoils of War: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 22, 2017

The following article first published in May 2005 provides a background on the history of the Afghan opium trade which continues to this date to be protected by US-NATO occupation forces on behalf of powerful financial  interests.

In Afghanistan, Civilian Casualties Happen by Design, Not by Accident

By Masud Wadan, May 20, 2017

Afghanistan’s death toll from the US-led war is placed at 100,000 people. This startling figure sparks the speculation that the US and allies were just watching the people dying over this period. The US-based Brown University’s “Costs of War” study finds that at least 100,000 civilians have lost their lives to the war between 2001 through 2014.

Sixteen years ago, the criminal US army, with the partnership of the English colonizers, invaded our country under the pretext of “war on terror” and dismantling the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The invaders overthrew and annihilated its Taliban stooges in a few weeks, but installed the Jehadi hyenas, drenched in the blood of thousands of people, instead.

The US occupier and its NATO partners have killed thousands of innocent Afghans during their military operations, B-52 bombardments, and drone strikes. In its latest report, the ICC revealed the shocking physical and psychological torture methods used by the US military personnel on Afghan civilians in secret CIA prisons. But this report failed to shock the conscience of Afghan officials, or intellectuals who talk their heads off in TV appearances as “experts” and “political analysts”, because most of these sold-out traitors do not dare to stand against their masters.

The sixteen year war of the US in Afghanistan, which Noam Chomsky, the respectable American thinker, called “the most hideous crime in recent years”, turned our war-ravaged country into one completely dependent on imperialism. The most corrupt and anti-national elements and groups are in power today. Recently, SIGAR’s John Sopko stated,

“We spent millions of dollars to fix a minister’s office to turn it into a palace… [the Afghan government leaders should] prosecute corrupt commanders within the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF)…”

Karzai and now Ghani, raised slogans on fighting corruption to deceive people, but their actions in the best case were limited to arresting a few low-ranking officials, while the entire apparatus from Arg to ministries and the Parliament are occupied by kings of corruption who enjoy the unconditional support of the US. Most recently, the corruption scandal of the Parliament speaker and well-known Gulbuddini, Abdul Rauf Ibrahimi, came to light.

The heads of the mafia puppet government of Afghanistan and their intellectual lackeys are overjoyed with the announcement of the “new strategy” by Donald Trump, because this strategy will elongate their ominous lives. But the truth is, that this “new” strategy is not really new, and is the continuation of the warmongering and aggression policies of the US which will further sink our country in occupation and the bloody rivalries of world powers. The increase in the number of US troops in Afghanistan is not to secure the country or annihilate the US creations, the Taliban and ISIS, but rather to show its power to its rivals, Russia, China and Iran. A few weeks had not passed since the strategy was announced, and tens of civilians were killed in the blind bombardments of the criminal US army in several parts of Afghanistan.

The US will try to finance its new war costs by plundering the minerals of Afghanistan, as Trump mentioned it in a meeting with Ghani and the traitor president accepted the demand immediately.

The people who are cheering for the US “pressurizing” Pakistan are forgetting that the filthy government and terrorist-fostering army of Pakistan has trained and exported the most bloodthirsty and reactionary groups to our country in the past several decades, in accordance with the orders and dollars of the White House. The US was also well-informed on the role of Pakistan in empowering the Taliban in the past sixteen years, but still gave billions of dollars in aid and military equipment to the country because next to its puppet government in Kabul, the West needed its Taliban creations to justify its military presence and legalize its war in Afghanistan. Trump basically attempted to drag Pakistan and India into a war in Afghanistan, and warned Pakistan on its growing relations with Russia and China, rather than actually pressurizing it to stop the nurturing of the Taliban.

Criminals like Atta, Salahuddin Rabbani, Mohaqeq, Dostum, Latif Pedram, Amrullah Saleh, Zia Massoud, Qanooni and others, who have treachery running in their blood, are parading themselves as representatives of the non-Pashtun ethnicities and using deceptive terminologies like “decentralization of power” to lock horns with their more traitorous brothers, Ghani, Gulbuddin, Hanif Atmar, Masoom Stanikzai, and others, over their share of power. Flaring tribal, linguistic and sectarian conflicts has been pivotal to the US imperialist plans in Afghanistan, so the US can prevent the unity and mobilization of our people by sinking them in this quagmire, and carry out its dark plans in Afghanistan and the region without facing any difficulties.

Dear compatriots,

Driving away foreign occupiers for independence, is the first step in defeating the Taliban, ISIS and their regional supporters. It is only by cutting off the hands of foreign invaders that their stooges will be left orphaned, and the struggle of our people and the defenders of justice and democracy to overthrow these traitors and criminals will become easier. Otherwise, the US presence in our country will result in terrorism, drug trade, corruption, insecurity, and poverty finding a permanent place here.

The mouthpieces and propaganda machines of the West try to whitewash the painful reality of Afghanistan and the evil policies of the US, but the truth is that history proves that no nation has attained prosperity and progress under a criminal foreign power and its puppet government. Our people cannot escape from this disaster and misery unless they take their fate into their own hands under the leadership of a progressive force.

Há dezesseis anos, o Exército criminoso dos EUA em parceria com os colonizadores ingleses, invadiu nossa país sob pretexto de “Guerra ao Terror” e do desmantelamento do Taliban e da Al Qaeda. Os invasores derrubaram e aniquilaram os talibans em algumas semanas, mas em seu lugar instalaram as hienas jihadistas, encharcadas com o sangue de milhares de pessoas.

Os ocupantes dos EUA e seus parceiros da OTAN mataram milhares de afegãos inocentes durante as operações de suas Forças Armadas, bombardeios com B-52 e ataques com drones. Em seu último relatório, o Trbunal Penal Internacional revelou os chocantes métodos de tortura física e psicológica utilizados pelo pessoal militar dos EUA em civis afegãos, em prisões secretas da CIA. Mas este relatório não foi capaz de chocar a consciência das autoridades afegãs nem de intelectuais que expõem as cabeças na TV como “especialistas” e “analistas políticos”, a maioria deles vendidos – os traidores não se atrevem a se opor aos mestres.
A guerra de dezesseis anos dos EUA que Noam Chomsky, respeitável pensador norte-americano, qualificou de “crime mais horrível dos últimos anos”, transformou nosso país devastado pela guerra em algo completamente dependente do imperialismo. Os elementos e grupos mais corruptos e anti-nacionais estão no poder hoje.

Recentemente, John Sopko da SIGAR [Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction], declarou: “Gastamos milhões de dólares a fim de restaurar o escritório de um ministro, para transformá-lo em um palácio … [Os líderes do governo afegão devem] processar comandantes corruptos dentro das Forças de Defesa Nacional e de Segurança Afegãs (ANDSF)…”

Karzai, e agora Ghani, levantaram o tema da luta contra a corrupção para enganar as pessoas, enquanto suas ações, no melhor dos casos, limitaram-se a deter alguns oficiais de baixo escalão, enquanto todo o aparelho dos ministérios e do Parlamento estão ocupados por reis da corrupção que gozam do apoio incondicional dos EUA. Mais recentemente, o escândalo de corrupção envolvendo o orador do Parlamento e bem conhecido Gulbuddini, Abdul Rauf Ibrahimi, veio à tona.

Os chefes do governo de fantoches mafiosos do Afeganistão e seus lacaios intelectuais, estão muito felizes com o anúncio da “nova estratégia” de Donald Trump, porque essa estratégia prolongará suas vidas ameaçantes. Mas a verdade é que essa “nova” estratégia não é realmente nova, é a continuação das políticas agressivas dos EUA, que afundarão ainda mais nosso país na ocupação e nas rivalidades sangrentas das potências mundiais.

O aumento do número de tropas dos EUA no Afeganistão não é para garantir a segurança do país ou aniquilar as criações dos EUA, o Taliban e o Estado Islamita, mas sim para mostrar seu poder a seus rivais, Rússia, China e Irã. Passaracasm-se pou semanas desde que a estratégia foi anunciada, e dezenas de civis foram mortos nos bombardeios cegos do Exército criminoso dos EUA em várias partes do Afeganistão.

Os EUA tentarão financiar seus novos custos de guerra saqueando os minerais do Afeganistão, como Trump mencionou em uma reunião com Ghani, e o presidente traidor aceitou a demanda imediatamente.

As pessoas que estão torcendo para que os EUA “pressionem” o Paquistão, esquecem-se de que o governo imundo e o Exército do Paquistão promoveu o terrorismo, treinou e exportou o mais sanguinário e reacionário grupo para o nosso país nas últimas décadas, de acordo com as ordens e os dólares da Casa Branca.

Os EUA também estavam bem informados sobre o papel do Paquistão na capacitação dos talibans em mais de dezesseis anos, e ainda deu bilhões de dólares em forma de ajuda e equipamentos militares para o país porque ao lado de seu governo de fantoches em Cabul, o Ocidente precisava de suas criações do Taliban para justificar a presença de suas Forças Armadas, e legalizar sua guerra no Afeganistão. Trump, basicamente, tentou arrastar o Paquistão e a Índia para uma guerra no Afeganistão, e advertiu o Paquistão sobre suas crescentes relações com Rússia e China, em vez de, na verdade, pressioná-lo para impedir a educação dos talibans.

Criminosos como Atta, Salahuddin Rabbani, Mohaqeq, Dostum, Latif Pedram, Amrullah Saleh, Zia Massoud, Qanooni e outros, que têm a traição no sangue, estão se desprezando a representação das etnias não-pashtunes, e utilizando-se de terminologias enganosas tais como “descentralização de poder” para juntar forças com seus irmãos mais traidores, Ghani, Gulbuddin, Hanif Atmar, Masoom Stanikzai e outros, por sua fatia no poder. Conflitos tribais, linguísticos e sectários tem sido fundamentais para os planos imperialistas dos EUA no Afeganistão, para que os EUA possam impedir a unidade e a mobilização de nosso povo, afundando-os neste pântano e realizando seus planos obscuros no Afeganistão e na região, sem enfrentar dificuldades.

Queridos compatriotas,

Expulsar os ocupantes estrangeiros rumo à independência, é o primeiro passo para derrotar o Taliban, o Estado Islamita e seus apoiantes intelectuais. Apenas cortando as mãos de invasores estrangeiros, suas marionetes se tornarão órfãs, e a luta do nosso povo e dos defensores da justiça e da democracia para derrubar esses traidores e criminosos serão mais fáceis.

Caso contrário, a presença dos EUA em nosso país resultará em terrorismo, tráfico de drogas, corrupção, insegurança e pobreza, um lugar permanente aqui.

Os porta-vozes e as máquinas de propaganda do Ocidente tentam ocultar a dolorosa realidade de Afeganistão e as políticas malignas dos EUA, mas a verdade é que a história prova que nenhuma nação alcançou prosperidade nem progrediu debaixo de uma força criminosa estrangeira, e seu governo de fantoches.

Nosso povo não pode escapar deste desastre e miséria, a menos que tenha o destino nas próprias mãos sob a liderança de uma força progressista.

Rawa

Artigo original em inglês  : US occupiers and NATO, their puppets, and the Taliban and ISIS hyenas are the cause of the current disaster in Afghanistan!, Rawr, 7 de outubro de 2017

Tradução : Edu Montesanti

www.edumontesanti.skyrock.com

Nunca na história o avanço tecnológico matou tantos inocentes, ao mesmo tempo que eleva sem precedentes o lucro do negócio das guerras.

“O que posso dizer, como alguém que trabalhou dentro desse programa massivo, é que se trata de algo assustador”, disse Lisa Ling, ex-militar da Força Aérea dos Estados Unidos e uma das protagonistas do documentário National Bird dirigido por Sonia Kennenbeck, lançado em novembro de 2016 em que Lisa e mais dois denunciantes detalham a ineficácia e o terror produzido pelo programa unilateral e onipresente – além de, no mínimo, discutível do ponto de vista legal – de drones utilizado por controle remoto tanto pela força militar de Washington quanto pela CIA. “(O uso de drones) é global, recebe informações de qualquer lugar, a qualquer momento; dispara contra pessoas de qualquer lugar, a qualquer momento”, acrescentou Lisa em delação após ter viajado ao Afeganistão e constatado como aquilo em que participava não se tratava de Guerra contra o Terror, mas de uma guerra promotora de terror.

Procurada por esta reportagem, Lisa, militar desde 1991 e sargenta técnica do programa de veículos aéreos não tripulados entre 2007 e 2009, afirma que “o envio de drones também permite que a guerra seja invisível”. De acordo com a ex-militar, os drones tornam cada vez menos necessário o envio de tropas o que, segundo Lisa, escancara o caminho para mais crimes de guerra. “Há menos discussão ou prestação de contas, porque (o envio de drones) não é anunciado publicamente como ocorre frequentemente quando enviamos tropas. Aqueles que vivem debaixo dos drones armados estão em constante estado de terror, portanto não acredito que possamos nos engajar em uma guerra contra o terror com mais terror”. Perguntada sobre os maiores estragos contra vidas humanas que presenciou, Lisa esquiva-se e não responde; questionada sobre o número de mortes desde George W. Bush (2001-2009), incluindo civis nos sete países onde os Estados Unidos utilizam a tecnologia aérea hoje, a ex-sargenta técnica das Forças Armadas norte-americanas é direta: “Não posso comentar sobre isso. Me desculpe”.

Desde que bombas foram instaladas em drones no final de 2001, a Casa Branca, o Departamento de Defesa dos Estados Unidos e a CIA recusam-se a detalhar o programa de veículos aéreos não tripulados, sobretudo as mortes de civis causadas por eles, cujos números têm historicamente superado, em muitas vezes, aos de supostos combatentes inimigos países onde os drones são acionados portando bombas. Até maio de 2013, sequer a guerra com drones era reconhecida por Washington; foi quando, intensamente pressionado pelos ataques a inocentes com a nova tecnologia de guerra, o então presidente Barack Obama (2009-2017) fez o principal discurso de contraterrorismo de seu segundo mandato na National Defense University em Washington D.C., onde pretendeu especificar a “eficácia” e a “precisão” dos drones, não sem sofrer protesto: a escritora e ativista norte-americana pelos direitos humanos, Medea Benjamin, fundadora da organização pelos direitos humanos CodePink – Women for Peace, interrompeu diversas vezes Obama denunciando o programa de drones até ser arrastada para fora do auditório por seguranças. Também procurada pela reportagem, a ativista diz que a tentativa de Obama de justificar o uso indiscriminado de drones foi o que a deixou profundamente indignada. “Estive no Iêmen, Paquistão e Afeganistão, onde conheci famílias que perderam seus entes queridos pelos ataques com drones norte-americanos. O presidente disse que utilizávamos drones apenas na certeza de que nenhum civil seria morto, mas eu sabia que muitos civis estavam sendo mortos e que o governo dos Estados Unidos escondia essa informação do público norte-americano. Senti-me obrigada a desafiar o presidente por causa de um programa que, matando muitas pessoas inocentes, nos tornava mais odiados no mundo todo. Como advogado constitucional, ele nunca deveria ter autorizado o uso de drones assassinos, particularmente em países onde não estávamos em guerra”.

Os sucessivos regimes norte-americanos têm relutado também em desclassificar os documentos solicitados judicialmente dentro do território norte-americano. O que mais se sabe de drones vêm a público através de suas vítimas, de denunciantes como Lisa Ling, de ativistas por direitos humanos e de cabos secretos revelados por WikiLeaks tal qual o emitido pela CIA em 7 de julho de 2009, liberado pela organização de Julian Assange em 18 de dezembro de 2014. Intitulado CIA Best Practices in Counterinsurgency (As Melhores Práticas de Contrainsurgência da CIA), o telegrama revela a ineficácia da estratégia dos ataques com drones especificamente no Afeganistão, ao reconhecer que o Taliban substitui facilmente seus líderes mortos em bombardeios – como sempre ocorreu em todo tipo de ataque das forças de coalizão nesta, que é a mais longa guerra da história dos Estados Unidos. Para o ativista britânico pelos direitos humanos ouvido pela reportagem, Peter Tatchell, tudo não passa de estratégia imperialista a fim de afirmar sua política coercitivo-expansionista a nível global: “Os drones servem ao mesmo propósito das tropas terrestres: são nada mais que uma maneira diferente de alcançar o mesmo objetivo militar”.

Outros diversos documentos têm revelado o reconhecimento interno, por parte da CIA e do Pentágono, de que não existe nenhuma preocupação, ao contrário do discurso público, em se capturar supostos terroristas mas que a “política” tem sido matar acima de tudo. “A campanha de drones neste momento, realmente, visa somente matar. Quando se ouve a frase ‘capturar’ é, na verdade, termo mal usado”, afirmou ao sítio The Intercept o tenente-general Michael Flynn, ex-diretor da Agência de Inteligência de Defesa (DIA, na sigla em inglês). Há inúmeros relatos oficiais sigilosos em relação ao fracasso dos drones em atacar combatentes inimigos. Publicamente, nas poucas vezes que se pronunciam sobre o assunto os funcionários do regime dos Estados Unidos insistem em classificar praticamente todos os civis atingidos de ligação a terroristas, invariavelmente se tivessem idade militar, e de desmentir evidências que apontam que locais atingidos nada tinham a ver com práticas de terror. Nas raras vezes que civis assassinados acabam reconhecidos, quando se torna impossível negá-los acabam considerados “efeito colateral” dos “cirúrgicos e precisos” drones. Para Medea, trata-se de postura altamente cínica e criminosa do regime norte-americano: “É criminoso e insensível simplesmente ignorar o assassinato de pessoas inocentes como ‘danos colaterais’, como se suas vidas não fossem importantes. Os Estados Unidos são tão poderosos, que podem permanecer impunes diante de um comportamento tão arrogante”.

Se com Barack Obama, através da “lista da morte” e da ampliação da guerra secreta para mais zonas de batalha não declaradas os ataques com drones já tinham sido capazes de superar a quantidade e a intensidade do terror do antecessor Bush, nos poucos meses de Donald Trump como presidente dos Estados Unidos a situação já se agravou, e tende a piorar. “Por mais odioso que fosse o método da guerra com drones de Obama, é voz moderada em comparação a Trump”, avalia para esta reportagem o historiador e escritor norte-americano Peter Kuznick, diretor do Instituto de Estudos Nucleares da Universidade Americana da capital estadunidense de Washington. Desde que Trump chegou à presidência em 20 de janeiro de 2017, proporcionalmente o número de ataques e vítimas civis aumentou vertiginosamente: o novo ocupante da Casa Branca tem dado carta branca aos militares e à CIA, limitada pela administração anterior, para que decidam sobre sua utilização afrouxando as regras de Obama que visava – teoricamente – proteger civis. “Como Obama, ele quer evitar as baixas norte-americanas. Mas ao contrário de Obama, Trump parece ter pouca preocupação com civis. O uso generalizado de drones por Obama legitima o uso ainda maior e menos cauteloso de Trump, precedente muito perigoso”, avalia Kuznick.

Tecnologia focada na vigilância indiscriminada e na morte por controle remoto que poderia ser altamente benéfica à humanidade, servindo apenas para poupar vida militares estadunidenses enquanto, fora das fronteiras dos Estados Unidos, menosprezam vidas alheias tratando-se da exacerbação do poder do Estado sobre a vida e a morte – sobre toda e qualquer vida que o regime de Washington considere, através de processos secretos sem acusação nem julgamento, merecedores de vigilância e execução. Lisa denunciou, em National Bird de que, em apenas dois anos em que serviu como sargenta técnica, o programa drones foi capaz de espionar e identificar nada menos que 121 mil pessoas. “Como alguém pode não achar isso perturbador?”.

Os Estados Unidos iniciaram a utilização de drones em 1995, sobrevoando os céus da Bósnia como parte da intervenção da OTAN no país báltico. Naquela época, os veículos aéreos não tripulados eram usados exclusivamente para o reconhecimento da região. Em outubro de 2001, como resposta aos ataques de 11 de setembro de 2001 nos Estados Unidos, o primeiro míssil Hellfire foi instalado com sucesso em um drone. Em 4 de fevereiro de 2002, a CIA executou alguns dias de ataque com Hellfire na província afegã de Paktia, nas proximidades da cidade de Khost, cujo alvo alegado era Osama bin Laden: após os ataques, jornalistas no local juntaram materiais que comprovaram que os mortos eram civis, juntando sucata metálica. Este fato marcou o que seria a criminosa guerra de drones de Bush.

O primeiro drone utilizado fora de zona de guerra declarada ocorreu em 5 de novembro de 2002 no Iêmen, quando a CIA alegou que seis “suspeitos” membros da Al-Qaeda haviam sido mortos. Depois disso, fora de Iraque e Afeganistão, zonas de guerra declaradas, Bush limitou-se a atacar com drones o território paquistanês (zona de guerra não declarada), quando o programa era bem menor que em relação a Obama, quem ampliou o uso para a Somália (fora da zona de guerra), para a Síria (zona de guerra), e intensificou o uso em Iêmen e Iraque. Alvo de Alto Valor é um termo importante entre operadores de drones, referindo-se a militantes inimigos. Porém, em National Bird outro denunciante, um ex-analista de inteligência cujo nome é citado apenas como Daniel, afirmou: “Quando se trata de Alvo de Alto Valor, todas as missões consistem em buscar uma pessoa por vez, mas qualquer outro morto naquele ataque é considerado associado ao indivíduo alvo”. As denúncias de Daniel são confirmadas por slides dos operadores de drones, liberados ao sítio The Intercept por operador anônimo em cujos documentos oficiais pode ser lido que qualquer assassinado fora do alvo pretendido é classificado como EKIA, segundo o código dos controladores dos veículos não tripulados, iniciais de “inimigo morto em ação” em inglês.

Se para o historiador estadunidense é “obsceno” o regime de Washington apontar mortes civis como dano colateral dos veículos aéros não tripulados, a posição dos oficiais de seu país tem se tornado ainda mais preocupante ultimamente. “Os Estados Unidos encontraram uma solução ao problema do ‘efeito colateral’ alegando que todo homem com idade militar em uma zona de guerra é militante, merece execução. Na maioria desses ataques, os Estados Unidos não têm como saber se os alvos eram terroristas”, diz Kuznick.

Segundo dados do Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ), conservadores porém os mais aproximados e confiáveis envolvendo drones, apenas em Afeganistão, Iêmen, Paquistão e Somália entre 2002 e 2017 mais de seis mil pessoas foram mortas pelos veículos não tripulados estadunidenses, entre elas um mínimo de 631 civis sem contar em outros países sobre os quais sobrevoam os “pássaros assassinos” de Tio Sam: Iraque, Líbia e Síria. Nos anos de Obama os ataques secretos com drones, isto é, aqueles realizados fora de campos de batalha declarados – Iêmen, Paquistão e Somália – foram dez vezes superiores em relação a Bush. Apenas no término do primeiro ano na Casa Branca, em janeiro de 2010 o prêmio Nobel da Paz já superava os ataques com veículos aéreos não tripulados em comparação aos oito anos de Bush e, se com este o ataque com veículos aéreos não tripulados no Iêmen limitou-se ao de novembro de 2002, Obama realizava até 2012 um ataque a cada seis dias sobre território iemenita. Durante os dois mandatos de Obama, um total de 563 ataques aéreos, em grande parte através de drones, deram-se contra Paquistão, Somália e Iêmen, frente aos 57 ataques de Bush. No entanto, a estimativa dos Estados Unidos sobre o número de civis mortos, como sempre ao longo destes anos, foi excessivamente subestimada: ficou entre 64 e 116.

É vasta a lista de crimes de guerra de Obama contra civis por drones. A sangrenta Operação Heymaker no nordeste do Afeganistão de 2011 a 2013, durante um período de menos de cinco meses, entre maio e setembro de 2012, apresentou “números” alarmantes: quase nove das dez pessoas que morreram em ataques aéreos não eram alvos pretendidos pelos norte-americanos, segundo documentos do Departamento de Defesa entregues anonimamente a The Intercept. Isso tudo é mais perturbador levando-se em conta a observação de Timo: “Inclusive os alvos pretendidos podem não ser legítimos”. Timo também observa que muitas vezes os ataques estadunidenses com veículos aéreos não tripulados são precisos em matar terroristas, mas não em poupar quem os acompanha, sobre o que vale destacar o ataque de 21 de maio de 2016 na província de Baluchistão, sudoeste paquistanês que serve de refúgio aos talibans , o qual matou em um táxi o líder taliban desde 2013, Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, e junto o motorista do veículo que apenas trabalhava e nada tinha a ver com atos de terror. Outro “detalhe” é que o governo paquistanês não apenas não havia autorizado o ataque norte-americano, como havia no país vizinho intensos protestos entre os paquistaneses pela guerra com drones de Washington: mais uma grave violação do direito internacional pelos Estados Unidos.

Em cinco meses na Casa Branca, Trump apresenta média de ataque com drones a cada 1,8 dia, e ao menos 101 mortos até o segundo mês de mandato segundo dados conservadores do BIJ. Em 16 de março, no povoado de al-Jina na Síria houve mais um ataque emblemático pela agressividade seguida de cinismo, quando ao menos 38 civis foram mortos em uma mesquita, entre eles ao menos cinco crianças, vítimas de dois bombardeios seguidos por drone – a chamada “torneira dupla”, cujo veículo disparou pela segunda vez quando sobreviventes tentavam sair dos escombros. O Pentágono, que jamais fizera investigação pessoal na região do ataque para reconhecimento limitando-se às vigilâncias remotamente controladas, negou que uma mesquita foi alvo de bombardeio contrariando relatos, fotos e vídeos autenticados por organismos sírios e pela Human Rights Watch. Recusando-se ainda a verificar o local pós-tragédia e ouvir testemunhas do ataque, o Departamento de Defesa norte-americano afirmou que nenhum civil foi morto dando o caso por encerrado, por “insuficiência de evidências”. Quanto às “torneiras duplas”, geralmente atingem, no segundo disparo, socorristas que deveriam atender vítimas de bombardeios, outro crime de guerra. O finlandês Timo Kivimäki, diretor de Pesquisa em Relações Internacionais da Universidade de Bath na Inglaterra, vê com profunda preocupação a maior liberdade que Trump tem dado à CIA para atacar com drones, contrariando seu antecessor na Casa Branca: “O poder crescente da CIA é uma preocupação para todas as pessoas que vivem à sombra dos drones dos Estados Unidos”.

Em relação à vigilância por drone em substituição à presencial, Timo Kivimäki adverte também para esta reportagem: “Enquanto os Estados Unidos tentam evitar fatalidades norte-americanas reduzindo presença terrestre, compreenderão menos ainda a dinâmica da sociedade onde atuam, e menos capazes ainda de identificar quem é terrorista e quem não é”. Medea concorda, questionando Washington em sua sinceridade na “Guerra ao Terror”: “Se a causa for tão crítica para a segurança dos Estados Unidos, devemos estar dispostos a enviar soldados”. Lisa aponta no mesmo sentido ao observar que em determinadas questões, nada substitui a inteligência humana. Para a denunciante, a comunidade de inteligência dos Estados Unidos está perdida em meio à tecnologia: “Em vez de estudar diferentes culturas ou considerar nuances sociais e tradicionais, depende da tecnologia e da quantidade de dados, não de informações de qualidade prática. A capacidade de coleta e os dados coletados em si não significam nada mesmo com informações demais, se não houver entendimento cultural para saber o que se está procurando: seja qual for a tecnologia, é inútil neste sentido”.

Perguntado se drones são uma boa alternativa às tropas terrestres conforme alega Washington, Kuznick responde que a questão vai além disso, tratando-se de opção bélica entre guerra e diplomacia. “Há situações em que a diplomacia não funciona, mas os Estados Unidos têm sido muito rápidos em recorrer a meios militares para resolver todas as controvérsias e problemas”. Lisa aponta ao mesmo sentido quando questionada sobre a “eficiência” dos drones: “A ninguém é dada trégua e não se pode dizer que porque estou segurando uma criança não me sobrevenha um drone, ou que sou médico, e por isso não vão me atacar. Não era possível imaginar que se viveria assim, uma das razões pelas quais penso que as armas devem ser removidas dos drones”. Sobre o avanço no combate ao terror, Kuznick questiona: “Nestes 16 anos de guerra liderada pelos Estados Unidos, tem havido alguma melhora? Alguns afegãos e empreendedores da defesa norte-americana ficaram ricos, mas a maioria dos afegãos tem se tornado miserável”. O pesquisador demonstra a disposição dos Estados Unidos em encontrar pretextos para alimentar sua indústria bélica e a expansão de seu poder a nível global em detrimento da paz, lembrando a relutância de Washington em ter Bin Laden entregue pelos talibans nas semanas subsequentes aos ataques do 11 de Setembro, e assim levá-lo a uma corte – o então presidente Bush preferiu a invasão. “Desde então, o Afeganistão tem sido um parque infantil para a guerra com drones dos Estados Unidos”.

A aprovação de um ataque com drone passa por mais de duas dúzias de funcionários do regime norte-americano, até chegar ao presidente segundo um dos slides obtidos por The Intercept: se neste percurso houver uma oposição que seja, a ofensiva é suspensa; se aprovada, os operadores têm até 60 dias para realizar o ataque. Se o prazo de dois meses for expirado sem a execução todo o processo deve ser refeito, o que também pode explicar o afoite dos militares responsáveis pela mais nova tecnologia da guerra, em atingir os alvos. Lisa adverte que diante do atual estágio onipresente de vigilância e da capacidade de atacar através de controle remoto, algo sem precedentes, “a supervisão e o controle, global e local, são necessários para se manter este imenso poder sob controle. Pode-se levar anos para que o público descubra as falhas que custam milhares de vidas inocentes, e a capacidade em se corrigir disparidades pode demorar décadas”. Consultada pela reportagem, a jurista norte-americana pró-direitos humanos, Azadeh Shahshahani, diretora do Projeto South que atua em combate ao racismo e injustiças sociais além de diretora do Projeto de Segurança Nacional e dos Direitos dos Imigrantes da American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Organização Não-Governamental que desde o princípio condena duramente o programa de drones do regime norte-americano (assim como os mais diversos organismos de direitos humano), observa que “de acordo a lei humanitária internacional, os drones só podem ser usados como bombas em um conflito armado ativo e, mesmo assim, com certas restrições incluindo necessidade militar, humanitária, distinção e proporcionalidade. Somente combatentes ou civis que participam diretamente das batalhas podem ser alvo. A focalização de outros civis é proibida, e pode constituir um crime de guerra”.

Kuznick avalia que os ataques, além de moralmente censuráveis e na maioria das vezes ilegais, são “contraproducentes, produzem mais terroristas que matam”. Kivimäki concorda: “A influência externa dá aos criminosos, terroristas e ditadores, legitimidade nacionalista à violência justificada como ‘proteção contra os invasores’”. O especialista finlandês enfatiza que tal fato não legitima ataques contra inocentes como resposta. “Mas é certo que as partes em conflito tendem a buscar legitimidade à própria violência, diante da violência que seus oponentes impuseram”, acrescenta o docente, responsabilizando os norte-americanos pelo acirramento do extremismo religioso e do ódio contra o imperialismo norte-americano. “O uso de drones alimentou essa violência, não a tratou”. Kuznick considera ainda que os Estados Unidos não utilizam drones em prol da paz e da vida, mas como “máquinas de matar”: “Como no caso da maioria das inovações científicas e tecnológicas, os drones podem ser usados para guerra ou paz, enriquecer a vida ou destruí-la enquanto representam não apenas engrenagem da morte na guerra, como também mecanismo de vigilância que ameaça a privacidade”. Lisa pensa da mesma maneira, mostrando-se preocupada com o futuro da humanidade ao prever que a inteligência artificial substituirá a humana, em breve desnecessária. “Quando isso acontecer, como o mundo ocidental reagirá? Escolheremos o controle global? É ilógico acreditar que o uso de qualquer tecnologia militar não se voltará contra nós. Dizer essa verdade, talvez, faça com que outros se engajem diante do que o futuro tem-nos reservado se deixarmos as coisas como estão. Talvez reconhecendo que as armas podem se proliferar além do controle, as coisas mudem”.

Azadeh também enfatiza a importância que a tecnologia dos drones poderia exercer em favor da vida, porém aponta que a questão não está sendo tratada com a mesma importância pelo regime de Washington, quando envolve seu uso bélico e de ferimento às liberdades civis de vigilância em massa. “Seu uso ainda precisa ser regulado nos Estados Unidos, para garantir que sejam utilizados por exemplo na vigilância do agronegócio e na verificação de possíveis envolvimentos em abuso animal, por agências reguladoras”. No contexto das Relações Internacionais, Timo Kivimäki observa preocupado um cenário de utilização de drones sem a devida regulação. Durante tanto tempo, os Estados Unidos ‘monopolizaram’ a tecnologia de drone em conflitos globais. Isso os deixou relutantes em negociar sobre a regulamentação de Hoje, quase cem países fazem uso de drones para aumentar a defesa, e o mundo com regulação limitada de como os drones podem ser utilizados, é um mundo perigoso”. Kuznick adverte no mesmo sentido, mostrando-se altamente preocupado com o uso internacionalmente desenfreado dos drones: “Os Estados Unidos, Israel e Grã-Bretanha estão se armando para usá-los em “zonas de guerra”, mas o que é feito para impedir que os russos os usem para matar os chechenos, ou os chineses para matar os uigures?”. Para o pesquisador da Universidade Americana, a obsessão de Washington pela guerra está levando o mundo a um caos béico sem precedentes. “A visão dos Estados Unidos é muito estreita enquanto seus líderes pensam que manterão o monopólio deste tipo de guerra. China, Rússia e Irã também possuem sistemas muito avançados de drones predadores. A face da guerra moderna é assustadora, e está prestes a piorar. Atenção”, completa Kuznick.

Perguntada sobre os interesses por trás do uso ilimitado e ilegal da mais nova tecnologia da guerra, Lisa garante: “Há muito dinheiro a ser ganho. Há uma conveniência política quando um drone é enviado em vez do filho ou da filha de alguém. Há tantas respostas possíveis para esta questão… muitas estão bem acima do meu conhecimento. O comércio global de armas é muito poderoso. O presidente Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) advertiu os cidadãos dos Estados Unidos sobre o ‘complexo militar-industrial’ em seu discurso de despedida. Talvez já estejamos onde ele avisou que algum dia estaríamos”.

O negócio dos veículos aéreos não tripulados é altamente lucrativo para as grandes corporações. Segundo o National Priorities Project do estado norte-americano de Massachussets, no ano fiscal de 2016 foram gastos 116.063 dólares por hora pelo regime de Washington para o programa de drones dos Estados Unidos, que inclui o General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper e o General Atomics MQ-1 Predator.

Para o ano fiscal de 2017, segundo o Center for the Study of Drone da Bard College de Washington, dos cerca de 600 bilhões do total gasto em defesa o Departamento de Defesa estadunisense alocou cerca de 4,6 bilhões de dólares para a guerra através das aeronaves não tripuladas, capazes não apenas de espionar mas também de transportar mísseis teleguiados.

As maiores fabricantes da tecnologia de veículos aéreos não tripulados, tanto ocidentais como não-ocidentais, são as norte-americanas The Boeing Company, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, AeroVironment Inc. e E Textron Inc., a norueguesa Prox Dynamics AS, a sul-africana Denel Dynamics, a chinesa SAIC e a israelense Israel Aerospace Industries.

Cada Predator produzido pela General Atomics, tão elogiado por Barack Obama pela capacidade de bombardear, custa 4,5 milhões de dólares à Força Aérea dos Estados Unidos. Já o míssil Hellfire que vai acoplado ao Predator, fabricado pela Lockheed Martin, custa 110 mil dólares cada um.

Os cerca de 400 ataques com drones ao Paquistão que mataram entre 2 mil e 3 mil pessoas, custaram de 33 milhões 44 milhões de dólares de acordo com informações de Robotenomics (US Military To Spend $23.9 Billion on Drones and Unmanned Systems) e Mother Jones (Drones: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know But Were Always Afraid to Ask).

Quanto ao alerta de Eisenhower mencionado por Lisa, Ike dizia-se decepcionado em uma época que os gastos militares do Estados Unidos já superavam o lucro líquido de todas as corporações do país, apontava que deveria haver desarmamento contínuo e mútuo entre as nações, e que se não houvesse recuo do complexo militar-industrial norte-americano a democracia e a liberdade locais, e a própria segurança internacional correriam sérios riscos. Pouco efeito surtiram as advertências de Ike: segundo último levantamento de Pew Research de maio de 2015, 58% da sociedade norte-americana aprova a guerra com drones mesmo consciente do assassinato indiscriminado de civis, já que a nova tecnologia da guerra poupa a vida dos militares estadunidenses.

Edu Montesanti

www.edumontesanti.skyrock.com

Media on all sides surrounding the recent Catalan referendum for independence from Spain focused on Madrid’s security crackdown on voters. However, what is not being mentioned about Catalonia’s ongoing bid to achieve independence, who is leading it, and what their plans are for the region should they succeed, is just as important.

Catalonia is one of the most prosperous regions of Spain, possessing a population and GDP on par with or slightly above Singapore or Scotland. It has enjoyed various levels of autonomy for decades and – unlike many US-European “independence” projects around the world – could likely emerge as an independent and prosperous sovereign nation.

For this fact alone, many people support and are enthusiastic about Catalan independence.

Real Independence, or Shifting Dependence from Madrid to Brussels? 

However, despite attempts by the Western media and the special interests they represent to appear indifferent or even opposed to Catalan independence, policy papers from Western corporate-financier sponsored think tanks indicate an eagerness – particularly by NATO – to integrate what they expect to be a robust military capability into their global wars of aggression.

In an article published in 2014 by NATO think-tank, the Atlantic Council titled, “The Military Implications of Scottish and Catalonian Secession,” it would state:

Catalonia has 7.3 million people, with more than $300 billion in GDP. Spending just 1.6% of that on defense provides over $4.5 billion annually, or roughly the budget of Denmark, which has well-regarded and efficient armed forces. Catalonian military plans are more vague, but so far, they emphasize the navy. With excellent ports in Barcelona and Tarragona, Catalonia is well-positioned as a minor naval power, ‘with the Mediterranean as our strategic environment, and NATO as our framework’, as the nationalists’ think-tank on defense argues. The rough plans call for a littoral security group of a few hundred sailors at first. After a few years, Catalonia would assume responsibility as “a main actor in the Mediterranean,” with land-based maritime patrol aircraft and small surface combatants. Eventually, the nationalist ambition may include an expeditionary group with a light assault carrier and hundreds of marines, to take a serious role in collective security.

The Atlantic Council article cites Catalan policy papers regarding what they called, “a valuable and refreshing view of specialization in collective defense,” in reference to Catalan intentions of joining NATO should they achieve independence.

This is confirmed by unambiguous statements made by leading Catalan politicians themselves, including the former President of the Generalitat of Catalonia Artur Mas who personally picked and supported his successor, current president, Carles Puigdemont.

In a 2014 article titled, “Catalan PM confirms NATO membership, commitment to collective security,” then President Artur Mas stated unequivocally Catalonia’s plans to join NATO.

The article would state:

Prime Minister Artur Mas explicitly confirmed Catalonia is seeking NATO membership. In a recent interview with the Italian daily La Reppublica, Catalan Prime Minister Artur Mas explained that an independent Catalonia sees herself at the heart of NATO. This is in line with Catalonia’s commitment to the international community, the principle of collective security, international law, and the rule of law at sea.

The article – written by Alex Calvo and Catalan naval analyst Pol Molas– also claims:

Catalonia seeks freedom, not to avoid the inescapable responsibilities that come hand in hand with it, but to fully exercise them side by side with partners and allies. Catalans understand fully that freedom never comes without cost, and that whereas independence means government of the people, by the people, and for the people, instead of alien rule, it also means that they will not be able to look the other way when a crisis or challenge arises. They understand that when the next Afghanistan comes, Catalan blood will also be spilled.

In 2015, the Financial Times in an article titled, “Catalan president steps up breakaway plan,” would quote former president Artur Mas, stating:

The most sensitive task, he added, would be to prepare “the design” for a future Catalan military. “Defence is the most delicate of all these aspects, and there is no consensus about this in Catalonia,” Mr Mas said. “But my party and I personally believe that Catalonia has to remain part of Nato. And as a member of Nato we have to pay our dues . . . It would be impossible for Catalonia not to have its own defence structure, even though it would be a light one.”

Policy papers – like those from the pro-independence Catalan National Assembly – have already begun to lay out the specifics of integrating Catalonia into NATO as a member nation focused specifically on configuring its military forces, not for national self-defense, but “collective defense” within NATO.

In one such paper from 2014 titled, “Dimensions of the Catalan Defence Forces: Naval Forces (Executive Summary),” a clear focus on a naval force for use within NATO was laid out:

The Mediterranean: our strategic environment. NATO: our framework
Catalonia must participate in SNMG2 (Standing NATO Maritime Group 2; formerly Standing Naval Force Mediterranean), a component of the NRF (NATO Response Force).

It would also be convenient to participate in the SNMCMG2 (Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group 2).

While there are political parties within Catalonia that oppose Catalan membership both within NATO and the European Union, they seem to lack the ability to put in check pro-EU and pro-NATO leaders determined to peel away from Madrid and transform their new nation into one more eager and effective for NATO than Spain as a whole.

For NATO, Catalonia as a new member-state of NATO – while Spain continues its contributions to NATO – is a case of two for the price of one. Two nations carved out of one, in which both must dedicate a percentage of their respective GDP’s to military and NATO spending, and two nations now both weaker divided apart than united together to influence or oppose the larger collective agenda of NATO set by its much larger and more powerful members.

As to why Catalan politicians expect the Catalan people to believe NATO membership is essential, one reason cited often is “terrorism.” Conveniently – and just in August in the lead up to the referendum – terrorists carried out two vehicle-ramming attacks, killing 14 pedestrians.

The attack – like virtually all others that have occurred recently across Europe – was masterminded by convicted criminals known to European, Spanish, and Catalan security agencies. The Telegraph would note in one report that one “imam” who allegedly radicalized the attackers had been convicted and imprisoned for drug smuggling in 2010. Other reports indicate that Western-backed extremists involved in the war in Syria were involved in planning and radicalizing the perpetrators.

Attacks like the vehicle-rammings in August are an ideal catalyst for selling NATO membership to a newly independent Catalonia, just as domestic attacks are used across the rest of Europe to continue justifying NATO’s pilfering of budgets at home and its unending wars abroad.

Narratives are Heavy on Emotions, Light on Facts 

Regarding independence itself, Catalans appear divided with polls leading up to the referendum indicating less than half supporting succession from Spain. The recent referendum itself – while disrupted by Madrid – saw only a 42% turnout with a 92% voting yes for independence, equating to about 38% of all eligible voters in Catalonia supporting independence.

While it is possible that Catalan voters might vote differently should the referendum be conducted freely and without Madrid’s interference, it is also possible that Catalonia is indeed divided on the issue of independence. And if so, it is important to understand why Catalonia’s pro-EU and pro-NATO leadership is so eager to achieve independence regardless.

Leaders and proponents of Catalonia’s independence movement have been careful recently not to mention their eagerness to join NATO or to “spill blood” in the alliance’s future conflicts. The Western media, including those who appear opposed to Catalan independence, have also not mentioned Catalonia’s future within the EU or NATO.

Instead, as the push for independence continues, a narrative is being constructed around familiar themes seen in other Western-backed political movements – a narrative predicated on emotions, personal struggle and state brutality versus the struggle for national and individual freedom.

Catalonia’s Real Future? 

Should Catalonia achieve independence from Spain, and if political parties within Catalonia fail to put in check pro-EU and pro-NATO leaders and lobbyists eagerly seeking to join and serve the interests of both at Catalonia’s expense, the newly “independent” nation will find itself tasked with policing the Mediterranean Sea for refugees fleeing NATO’s wars in North Africa and perhaps sending its own navy and marines to the shores of North Africa to join in wars itself.

Additionally, Catalan soldiers will find themselves half-way around the world in nations like Afghanistan, fighting the protracted wars of invasion, occupation, and subjugation NATO is so fond of.

For the people of Catalonia, they will watch a percentage of their GDP transferred to foreign defense contractors, foreign wars, and security operations carried out by and for foreign interests.

Within Catalonia itself, it will face – like the rest of Europe – the socioeconomic impact of unending wars and confrontations as well as the impact of the foreign corporate-financier interests as they grow perpetually stronger and more concentrated as these wars rage on.

Terrorist attacks like those carried out in August will also be a part of an “independent” Catalonia aligned closer to Brussels. Terrorism and violence is both a feature of “blowback” from the West’s wars abroad, and as a means by Western security agencies to manipulate and manage public perception regarding the necessity of those unending wars.

While this needs not necessarily be Catalonia’s future as an independent nation, it will be if the current political leadership is allowed to steer Catalonia in this direction. For those who support Catalan independence, it is essential that these issues are addressed, and a clear, definitive, and enumerated alternative put forward.

Well-funded and organized plans to slot Catalonia into NATO’s war machine after achieving “independence” are ready and waiting and if Catalans find themselves with their independence but no other clear path forward, this is precisely what will happen.

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

All images in this article are from the author.

Moscow is calling on all interested parties to show restraint regarding the situation on the Korean Peninsula and to avoid steps that could aggravate the situation, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday.

“As for the Korean Peninsula, of course, Moscow has been calling and continues to call on all parties to the conflict and parties that have relation to these affairs to show restraint and avoid any steps that could only aggravate the situation,” Peskov told reporters.

Kremlin’s statement comes after US President Donald Trump’s remark, saying that US State Secretary Rex Tillerson is “wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man,” adding that “we’ll do what has to be done.” Most recently, the US president said that “only one thing will work” with regard to Pyongyang as “talking to North Korea for 25 years, agreements made and massive amounts of money paid hasn’t worked.”

In ratcheting up the warlike rhetoric, Trump previously vowed that the US will “totally destroy” the DPRK if required as a means to protect itself and its allies from the threat of a nuclear attack.

Meanwhile, earlier this week a Russian lawmaker, who has just returned from North Korea, claimed that Pyongyang is ready to test a missile capable of reaching the US western coast. The Pentagon responded by telling Sputnik that it is “closely” watching North Korea.

The North Korean nuclear and missile test issue has been aggravated in recent months as Pyongyang has held several rounds of missile launches and nuclear tests. The most recent one was conducted on September 15, when North Korea launched a ballistic missile, which flew over Japan before falling into the northern Pacific some 20 minutes after the launch.

On September 11, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted its toughest resolution yet against North Korea over its latest nuclear test and repeated missile launches. The move prompted harsh criticism from Pyongyang which subsequently vowed to use any means possible to retaliate against the United States.

Russia has repeatedly called for a diplomatic solution to the North Korean issue and jointly with China proposed the so-called “double freeze” plan in order to settle the situation on the Korean Peninsula. According to the plan, the DPRK should stop nuclear tests, while the US and South Korea should refrain from joint drills. Washington has already refused to implement the plan, while there was no official response from Pyongyang on the issue.

Featured image is from Sputnik/ Maria Sidibe.

“Competitive armament is not a way to prevent war. Every step in this direction brings us nearer to catastrophe. The armament race is the worst method to prevent open conflict.

On the contrary, real peace cannot be reached without systematic disarmament on a supranational scale. I repeat, armament is no protection against war, but leads inevitably to war.”

These words of Dr. Einstein, so clear because they state such a simple fact, are words ignored by all the nations of the world and the results are as he and logic predicted. Today the peoples of the world face the threat of nuclear annihilation not because the disputes between nations are unresolvable through negotiations, because every dispute can be resolved if the will is there, but because the very existence of nuclear weapons creates the political demand that they be used, either directly or through intimidation, to force one nation’s will on another.

Bearing Einstein’s words in mind, I wonder what would happen if tomorrow the leadership of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea stated that they have thought about what Einstein said and have decided to eliminate their nuclear weapons without even asking for any reciprocity in return, just to set an example, to do the right thing, to prepare for peace instead of war. Can you imagine the consternation in the capitals of the nuclear powers; in Washington, London, Moscow, Beijing, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Tel Aviv, Islamabad, Delhi, the raised eyebrows, the puzzled looks, turning-hopefully- to smiles in Moscow and Beijing, but disgust in Washington, London and Tel Aviv?

Would any of them follow suit? Would they lift the economic war against the DPRK? Would any of them feel shamed by the noble act of a small nation that has just stood up to the world with the threat of peace instead of the threat of war? Would any of them rush to sign the new Treaty On The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and then proceed to follow the DPRK’s example and begin to eliminate their nuclear arsenals? I think the answer is obvious. They would not. But why not?

There is no rational reason to offer us since the possession and use of these weapons is a war crime. Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate and have catastrophic consequences for all humanity. Instead the irrational reason offered by all the nuclear powers to justify the unjustifiable is that nuclear weapons guarantee national security, the very same reason that is now offered by the DPRK. But only the DPRK is subject to economic warfare and threats of nuclear Armageddon for having and testing these weapons. Yet, the DPRK is the only one of the nuclear powers that in 2016 voted in support of the UN resolution to begin negotiations on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons. That may surprise the world public to know. Every citizen may well ask their national leaders, “If the DPRK was willing to support the ban on nuclear weapons just a year ago why did you and all the other nuclear powers refuse to support the ban?”

And again they will receive the same circular argument that “they have it so we have to have it”, though this argument is not one allowed to the DPRK. Of course the beginning of the circle is the United States of America that first developed, tested, and used these weapons. And it must be remembered that the United States did not use them on military targets but on Japanese civilians, an act of world terror that can never be forgotten. It is this American terror to which the USSR reacted in self-defence and built its nuclear weapons, as did China. Britain and France built theirs to carry some weight in Washington, to retain some domination in the world, and to add to the NATO arsenal aimed at the USSR, now Russia.

Their example encouraged India and Pakistan to build them, to what end no one can determine since they cannot be used on the subcontinent without killing everyone. Israel has them to intimidate the Middle East with the same result. Even European NATO powers have access to nuclear bombs supplied by the US. And on it goes.

If, to carry our thought experiment further, President Trump experienced a miraculous epiphany and tomorrow morning announced that the United States feared no one and was reversing its two centuries old policy of aggression and imperial expansion and therefore was going to destroy all its nuclear weapons, could any of the remaining nuclear powers maintain their arsenals in the face of public opinion that would sweep the globe in support of the American action for peace and disarmament? I think not. The nuclear prison in which we all live can be unlocked but the key to the door of disarmament lies in the pocket of the United States. It only has to act.

But action requires will and desire. The leadership of the United States, bankrupt of any positive and progressive solutions to the economic and social decline of its society can think of only one solution; plundering the planet. It therefore refuses to give up its ambition of world domination and in consequence the militarists insist on maintaining the nuclear threat as the key factor of their foreign policy.

The threat they maintain is so frightening that even Russia and China, which logic would dictate should be supporting the DPRK against US nuclear threats, prefer to set principle aside and to squeeze the people of the DPRK, in order to avoid a general nuclear war, which is what they fear war in Korea will lead to. But this is a path sown with mines that can blow up at any time because American officials, including Trump, and the controlled media, are using the Russian and Chinese support of sanctions against the DPRK as evidence that the US is in the right and justified in its aggression against the DPRK. And, “so it goes,” as Billy Pilgrim likes to say in Slaughterhouse 5, Kurt Vonnegut Jr.’s account of the mass slaughter of civilians in the firestorm created by Allied bombs in the city of Dresden in 1945.

For Russia and China the expressed central issue on the Korean peninsular is the threat of general nuclear war. But that is not the issue for the United States. That is its propaganda. The primary issue for the United States is that the DPRK insists on the sovereign right of its people to govern themselves howsoever they choose. It refuses to accept the dominance of the United States over Korea. This independence undermines US domination of Japan, South Korea and East Asia generally. The Russians and Chinese know this very well and are trying earnestly to get the United States to a negotiating position and constantly insist on the application of the obligatory requirement in the UN resolutions that the United States seek a peaceful resolution of all issues. But the Americans never refer to this obligation in their propaganda. In fact, just this first week of October, President Trump attacked his own Foreign Secretary, Rex Tillerson, for merely stating he had contact with officials of the DPRK.

The United States has even managed to insert its inflammatory anti-socialist propaganda in the resolutions. Resolution 2375 of 11 September 2017 contains political language that is very troubling. At sections 24 and 25 under the subheading “Political” the big powers state

“their deep concern at the grave hardship that the people of the DPRK are subjected to, condemns the DPRK for pursuing nuclear weapons and ballistic weapons instead of the welfare of its people while people in the DPRK have great unmet needs, and emphasizes the necessity of the DPRK respecting the welfare and inherent dignity of the people in the DPRK.”

This is a clear attack on the DPRK as a socialist state. It is also an attack composed of a series of lies because the DPRK is one of the few countries in the word that actually does concern itself with the welfare of its people, as every neutral observer who has been there has reported time and again.

That the United States could draft such a paragraph when it is the nation that spends more of its peoples taxes on nuclear weapons, missiles and its armed forces than any other and does little for the welfare of its citizens can only be explained by its leaderships’ pathological hypocrisy. How Russia and China can support this language when they too make the same expenditures on useless weapons at the expense of the welfare of their people, only they can answer. But, again, I suggest that can be explained by their deep fear of a nuclear war launched by the United States. And “so it goes.”

I began with Dr. Einstein and so will close with him. In answer to a question on UN Radio on June 16, 1950, “Can we prevent war?” he replied,

“There is a very simple answer. If we have the courage to decide ourselves for peace, we will have peace. …We are not engaged in a play but in a condition of utmost danger to existence. If you are not firmly decided to resolve things in a peaceful way, you will never come to a peaceful solution.”

Spicer also blustered that under the Trump Administration you will see Secretaries Zinke and Perry working together to produce massive yields of oil and gas from public lands in an “environmentally responsible way” — even though we know that shale development is definitely not environmentally responsible.

Indeed, a lot of false claims were thrown around. During a public health panel I heard the Executive Vice President and CEO of MarkWest Energy Partners, say that the

“steps our industry takes to protect ground and surface water is impressive.”

Though, I suspect that residents in Dimock, Pennsylvania;Pavillion, Wyoming; and Parker County, Texas would disagree.

A lot of false claims were thrown around: like that shale gas development is good for public health.

This sentiment was reinforced by a man named Walter Hufford, who currently works as a director at RESPOL, who has worked for the oil and gas industry for years, and who also served as a member of the U.S. EPA’s Science Advisory Board that drafted the agency’s study on fracking’s impacts on drinking water.

Last year, after revising the June 2015 version of the study, the EPA finally admitted that fracking can contaminate drinking water, a finding that Hufford dissented. During Shale Insight, he told the audience that the purpose of the EPA’s review of fracking’s impact on drinking water is “all because of movies … and allegations,” boasting that the EPA “needs more experts from the industry.”

Perhaps all this exaggeration, or flat out lying, is needed to boost the industry’s morale. A re-occurring theme in the keynotes, panels, and sessions is that there is an urgent need to build out pipelines, petrochemical plants and associated infrastructure, and export facilities. This emphasis may be reflective of the fracking industry’s struggling sector.

Petrochemical manufacturing turns ethane (a hydrocarbon present in natural gas) into ethylene, which is then converted into plastics. In the past few years, fracking has produced an oversupply of this ethane, and beginning in 2012, chemical companies started investing in petrochemical plants and export facilities to tap the ethane glut.

This ethane, which is bountiful in the northeastern Appalachia’s Utica and Marcellus shale gas reserves, is a boon for the plastics industry. At Shale Insight, Perc Pineda, an economist with the Plastics Industry Association said, “the capacity to produce ethylene – from 2010 to 2020 is expected to grow by more than 60% – according to ACC and that will benefit plastics manufacturing.” However, plastics production is inherently wasteful; the largest sector is packaging, which creates materials that are immediately thrown away.

Thus, it was no surprise when there was a lot of buzz around a new petrochemical facility, called an ethane cracker, coming to Beaver County, Pennsylvania – as well as the potential for an ethane storage hub in either Ohio, West Virginia or Pennsylvania. It was even suggested during the conference that there may be additional plastics companies that move into the Appalachian region. But of course, these new facilities mean there will need to be even more pipeline infrastructure. And transforming ethane into plastics and other products is inherently toxic, so welcoming them in also means polluting the environment and imposing public health risks on petrochemical workers and the communities near the plants.

It appears the industry workers representing the tri-state area of Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania think that producing petrochemicals, making plastics, building pipelines and exporting gas are the panacea to their problems – an overabundance of gas from which they cannot profit without new markets or new products.

However, there is another obstacle they will have to overcome: residents across the country that are mobilizing to stop drilling and fracking, as well as the construction of new and expansion of existing pipelines and associated infrastructure.

Direct action seems to really fluster the industry.

The fracking industry is definitely feeling the heat. They even had a breakout session titled “Managing Protests Effectively: Working with Law Enforcement to Safely Manage Demonstrations,” where a panel of police officers admitted there is nothing they have can do to stop peaceful, legal protests. But, for the most part, much of the session revolved around direct action, a form of protesting that seems to really fluster the industry.

A retired Pennsylvania state trooper told the industry that, in his opinion, the “Dakota Access Pipeline invigorated protest activities across the board” and with an increased focus on the Mariner East and Atlantic Sunrise pipelines, he doesn’t see direct action going away anytime soon. While a West Virginia officer suspects there will be an increase in protests in his state with “some of the relaxed regulations.”

Overall, the speeches and the rest of the conference made three things clear.

1. The industry is banking on the Trump Administration’s environmental deregulations to help streamline permitting processes and increase drilling and fracking.

2. They need new infrastructure and exports to thrive.

3. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the ever-growing movement against oil and gas fracking and infrastructure is a major industry problem and it is not easy for them to solve.

Our organizing efforts are working so let’s continue to build our movement’s scope and power and keep the energy industry on their toes.

All images in this article are from the author.

On this day 16 years ago, less than one month after 9/11, President George W. Bush delivered a televised address from the White House announcing the beginning of the Afghanistan War.

“On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan,” he said.

What Bush did not say was the fact that the War in Afghanistan would become the longest war in United States history. Thousands of American lives and billions of taxpayer dollars would be wasted at the expense of the U.S. war machine, and the “War on Terrorism” would only create more terrorism as a result.

Over 31,000 civilian deaths have been documented in Afghanistan following the U.S. invasion. It should be noted that over the last few years, civilian deaths have substantially increased—which serves as a reminder that the situation is only getting worse.

The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan began documenting civilian casualties in 2009. The combined number of civilians who were killed and injured that year was nearly 6,000. The number has steadily increased over the years, and in 2016, it reached a record high with nearly 3,500 killed and nearly 8,000 injured.

Image via al-Jazeera

A report from the UNAMA noted that in 2017, the death rate for children has increased by 9 percent over the previous year, and the death rate for women has increased by 23 percent. The report also claimed that an increase in airstrikes has led to a 43 percent increase in causalities.

Before the United States invaded Afghanistan, the production of opium poppies was significantly low, thanks to the Taliban. Not only did the presence of the U.S. military lead to a rise in opium production—because U.S. Marines were literally guarding fields of poppy plants—it led to a drastic increase that has done wonders for the illegal drug trade.

According to a report from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, between 2015 and 2016, opium production in Afghanistan increased by 43 percent, and the area used to farm the poppy plant increased by 10 percent to 201,000 hectares. In response to the report, UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov said the figures were “a worrying reversal in efforts.”

After 16 years of war and a price tag of over $1 Trillion, the United States has not only helped Afghanistan to become the largest producer of opium in world, it has ensured that the war-ravaged country produces around 90 percent of the world’s opium supply.

When former President Obama ran for office in the 2008 election, he campaigned on the promise of ending the Afghanistan War—which resonated with a number of Americans who were hopeful that a fresh face in the oval office would bring about the “change” needed to finally end the war.

However, while Obama promised to end the war and increased it instead, President Trump has been much more blunt about the fact that the war in Afghanistan is not coming to an end anytime soon, and while the U.S. may have a strategy in mind, it does not appear to include an “exit.”

The longest War in United States history turns 16 years old today, and in just two years, brand new military recruits will have the opportunity to fight in a war that has been ongoing for as long as they have been alive. While there are many Americans who support the concept of military intervention—including in countries that have done nothing to the U.S.—even they should be asking the question of why the United States continues to fight a war that has only created an increase in terrorism, innocent civilian deaths and illegal drug production.

Rachel Blevins is a Texas-based journalist who aspires to break the left/right paradigm in media and politics by pursuing truth and questioning existing narratives. Follow Rachel on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Featured image is from the author.

If you find yourself lost and confused in a dark wood, then perhaps following this network of knots strung on a long string of dates listed below will help you find your way back home, where the bread of truth awaits you on the kitchen table. 

As we know, children love to trace, to connect the dots, to make connections, but often the connections they make frighten adults who try to ignore their points or offer some ridiculous circumlocutions. Maybe we adults are much like children in our desires to make connections, but the thought of it frightens us, even when we are already frightened by being lost amidst a forest of propaganda. Suppose we could for a while calm those fears and concentrate long enough to trace through the dim glimmerings of a faded pattern a clarifying story that would jolt us into an awareness that could change our lives and society. I offer here an arc of history that you may consider tedious.

Try patience. I could yell, I could scream, I could try all the classical argumentation and logic that comes “naturally” to me. I could be a wise guy, amuse you, try to provoke you, curse, sing a song, stomp my feet – even write post-modern gibberish.

As Andre Vltchek says, it’s hard – I’m putting it nicely – to get through, to have an impact that counts. We desperately want to believe in a world where we really are children and BIG Daddy (apologies to Burl Ives) has told the truth. And yet we know that is an illusion. Obviously I have reached some stern conclusions, but I think the conclusions follow from the facts. See what you think. Follow these knots. They are a sampling. There are many more.

• 1957 – Massachusetts Senator John Kennedy delivers a Senate speech in support of the Algerian liberation movement, in support of African liberation generally, and against colonial imperialism. The speech causes an international uproar, and Kennedy is harshly attacked by Eisenhower, Nixon, John Foster Dulles, and even liberals such as Adlai Stevenson. He is praised in the third world.

• 1959 – George H. W. Bush moves his oil company – Zapata Offshore – to Houston, Texas. One of Zapata’s drilling rigs, Scorpion, having been moved from the Gulf of Mexico the previous year, is now operating 54 miles north of Cuba

• 1960 – On March 17 President Eisenhower approves the Bay of Pigs project.

• 1961 – On January 17, in anticipation of Kennedy’s inauguration in three days, the Belgian government in complicity with the CIA assassinates Congolese nationalist leader Patrice Lumumba. On February 13^th a devastated Kennedy receives a belated phone call informing him of Lumumba’s murder.

• 1961 – April. More than a week before the CIA led Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba – code-named the Zapata Operation – the CIA discovers that the Soviets have learned the date of the invasion and informed Castro. Knowing the invasion is doomed in advance, the CIA Director Allen Dulles doesn’t tell Kennedy. When the invasion fails, the CIA blames JFK who angrily says he wants “to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” Kennedy fires Dulles.

• 1962 – On June 13 Lee Harvey Oswald, ex-Marine and alleged traitor, returns from the Soviet Union with a loan from the State Department that also arranges for him, together with his Russian wife, to be met at the dock in Hoboken, New Jersey by Spas T. Raikin, an official of an anti-communist organization with extensive intelligence connections. Oswald soon moves to Dallas, Texas where, at the behest of the CIA, he is chaperoned around by CIA asset and George H. W. Bush’s old friend, George de Mohrenschildt.

• 1963 – June 10. JFK delivers his famous American University address calling for an end to “a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.”

• 1963 – On October 11 Kennedy issues National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 American troops from Vietnam by the end of 1963 and all of them by the end of 1965.

• 1963 – November 2. At the last minute JFK cancels his trip to Chicago to attend the Army-Air Force football game when it is learned that a four-man rifle team has plotted to assassinate him.  The four are never charged or named, but an alienated ex-Marine scapegoat with CIA connections, Thomas Arthur Vallee, is arrested on a pretext. Vallee works in a building overlooking a dog-leg turn where JFK’s car was to pass.

Picture of President Kennedy in the limousine in Dallas, Texas, on Main Street, minutes before the assassination. Also in the presidential limousine are Jackie Kennedy, Texas Governor John Connally, and his wife, Nellie. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

• 1963 – November 22. JFK is shot in Dallas on a dog-leg turn at 12:30 P.M. and dies at 1 P.M.  At 1:38 P.M. Walter Cronkite makes the first public announcement of the president’s death.  At 1:45 P.M. George H. W. Bush, who is in Tyler, Texas an hour and a half southeast of Dallas, telephones Houston FBI agent Graham W. Kitchel to inform him that he’s heard gossip that a Houston man, James Parrot, has been talking about killing Kennedy when he comes to Houston (JFK had been in Houston the day before). Parrot is questioned and deemed harmless. Bush tells the FBI agent that he’ll be going to Dallas in the evening, though he fails to mention that he was there the night before. At 1:50 PM the Dallas police arrest Lee Harvey Oswald in the Texas Theatre and charge him with the murder of Dallas police Officer J.D. Tippett. A few minutes after Oswald’s arrest and his exit out the front door to waiting police cars, a second Oswald is arrested in the theatre and surreptitiously taken out the back door. Later in the day Oswald is charged with also killing President Kennedy from behind from the 6^th floor of the Texas School Book Depository. But the fatal shot to Kennedy’s head comes from his right front.

• 1963 – Two days later Jack Ruby kills Oswald, who claimed he was a patsy, in the Dallas police building. That same afternoon LBJ tells Henry Cabot Lodge that “I am not going to lose Vietnam.”

• 1963 – November 29. LBJ announces the formation of the Warren Commission whose key member is Allen Dulles, the former CIA Director fired by Kennedy.

• 1963 – On December 24^th Johnson tells the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Just get me elected, and then you can have your war.”

• 1964 – August. The fraudulent Tonkin Gulf Incidents and Tonkin Gulf Resolution. The Admiral in charge of the U.S. fleet is George Stephen Morrison, the father of the singer Jim Morrison, who the following year will settle into Laurel Canyon in Los Angeles together with, among others, Frank Zappa, “Papa” John Philips, Davis Crosby, and Stephen Stills, all children of parents of the military/intelligence complex.  Johnson orders the bombing of North Vietnam.  The Vietnam War starts in earnest.

• 1964 – September. The Warren Commission findings are made public. Oswald is declared the lone assassin with the magic bullet explanation being the key.

• 1966 – The CIA’s Phoenix Program, an intelligence gathering, assassination, “pacification,” and drug running program, is organized in Vietnam. It conducts countless assassinations and tortures throughout Vietnam. Its organizational structure later becomes the structure for Homeland Security and the “war on terror,” while its drug-dealing modus operandi, joined to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), floods the United States with illegal drugs up to the present day.

• 1967 – Martin Luther King delivers his Riverside Church speech – “A Time to Break Silence” – denouncing the Vietnam War and calling for opposition to it, while linking it to social, racial, and economic oppression at home. He says that the three linked devils of militarism, racism, and economic exploitation can only be solved together.

• 1967 – On June 8 Israel attacks the USS Liberty in international waters, killing 34 U.S. sailors and Marines and wounding 171 others.

• 1968 – April 4. Martin Luther King is assassinated in Memphis. The authorities blame it on James Earl Ray, a petty criminal loner. It is later proven that King was killed by U.S. government forces in coordination with Memphis police and local Mafia.

• 1968 – On June 6 in Los Angeles, Senator Robert Kennedy, on the cusp of becoming the Democratic nominee for president, is assassinated. The accused lone assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, was standing in front and to the right of RFK. None of the bullets from his gun struck the Senator. The autopsy shows Kennedy was killed by a bullet from behind and below that entered his head behind his right ear. Sirhan is subsequently convicted as the lone crazed gunman, despite many witnesses seeing a girl in a polka dot dress with a male companion, running down the back stairs of the hotel, shouting. “We shot him! We shot him! We shot Senator Kennedy.”

• 1968 – November. Richard Nixon, vowing to end the Vietnam War, is elected President after secretly sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks. He subsequently continues the war and secretly expands it to Cambodia and Laos.

• 1972 – June 17. Five CIA employees and veterans of the Bay of Pigs operation are arrested inside the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee. Together with H. Howard Hunt (CIA) and G. Gordon Liddy, they are later indicted. The burglars are caught by a security guard who notices that these skilled undercover operatives have taped locks open from the outside so that the tape is showing.

• The Watergate story is primarily reported by reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein who work at the Washington Post under Editor Ben Bradlee. Woodward had earlier served in Naval Intelligence, as had Bradlee, while Bradlee and the Washington Post have deep ties to the CIA and intelligence communities.

• 1973 – September 11. A CIA organized coup overthrows the socialist government of Chilean President Salvador Allende, killing thousands.

• 1974 – August 9. Nixon is forced to resign. He is the second president in eleven years to be removed from office. Gerald Ford, a former member of the Warren Commission assumes the presidency. Dick Cheney is named White House Chief of staff and Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense.

• 1976 – January 30. Having been nominated by Ford, George H. W. Bush assumes the Directorship of the CIA, despite critics arguing that he has no intelligence experience. He serves in that capacity for 365 days.

• 1976 – George de Mohrenschildt, Oswald’s CIA handler and George H. W. Bush’s old friend, writes a letter to CIA Director Bush begging for help “we are being followed everywhere….”

• 1977 – March 27. George de Mohrenschildt, about to be questioned by investigator Gaeton Fonzi of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, allegedly commits suicide in Florida.

• 1979 – November 4. Fifty-two Americans are taken hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

• 1980 – Ronald Reagan is elected president and George H. W. Bush, vice-president. It is later alleged that Bush, CIA officer Robert Gates, and CIA Director William Casey met secretly with Iranian officials in Paris before the election and made a secret deal to insure Reagan/Bush an election victory by not releasing the hostages before the vote.  The hostages were subsequently released a few minutes after Reagan and Bush were sworn in on January 20, 1981.

• 1985-88 – The Iran-Contra scandal plays out as it is discovered that the Reagan administration was secretly selling arms to Iran in exchange for hostages and using the proceeds to illegally arm the anti-Sandinista rebels in Nicaragua in violation of the Boland amendment. Oliver North becomes the public face of the secret machinations while Reagan and Bush plead ignorance.  Many are indicted, while Bush, when running for president in 1988, claims he was “out of the loop.”

• 1988 – July 16. In the midst of the presidential campaign pitting Bush against Dukakis, the Nation magazine publishes an article by Joseph McBride, “The Man Who Wasn’t There, ‘George Bush,’ CIA Operative.” The article centers around a newly discovered memo from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, dated November 29, 1963, concerning the JFK assassination and an oral briefing the bureau had given on November 23^rd regarding the assassination to “Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency.”  A Bush spokesman denies it was candidate Bush.

• 1988 – July 3. The USS Vincennes shoots down in Iranian airspace civilian Iran Flight 655 killing 299, including 66 children. Vice President Bush says, “ I will never apologize for the U.S.  I don’t care what the facts are … I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.”

• 1988 – George H. W. Bush is elected president.

At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as “shock and awe.” (Source: Consortiumnews)

• 1990-91 – President Bush attacks Iraq, called the Gulf War, public and congressional support for which is given a huge boost on the testimony of a nurse who claims she witnessed Iraqi soldiers In Kuwait City hospital grabbing babies out of incubators and throwing them on the floor to die. It is later discovered that the “nurse” in question was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States and that she hadn’t lived in Kuwait at the time. Her story had been hatched by the Hill and Knowlton public relations firm and was a lie – a successful lie.

• 1991 – May 19. A few weeks after filming had begun on Oliver Stone’s movie, JFK, the Washington Post’s national security reporter George Lardner, Jr. writes a scathing review of the film based on a stolen copy of the first draft of the screenplay.

• 1991 – December 20. Stone’s film, JFK, is released.

• 1991 – On December 24 President Bush grants pardons to six former members of the Reagan/Bush administration facing prosecution in the Iran-Contra scandal.

• 1993-2000 – President Bill Clinton bombs Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Sudan … killing untold numbers of people, while maintaining economic sanctions on Iraq.

• 1995 – April 19. The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, blamed exclusively on Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Evidence pointing to others involved was dismissed, even the report of Air Force General Benton K. Partin, the U.S. Air Force’s top explosive expert, showing in detail that explosives were planted inside the building at critical structural points on the third floor.

• 1996 – May 12.  On CBS’s Sixty Minutes Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albrecht says that the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions are worth it.

• 1997 – The Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative enterprise, three of whose signees are Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush, is launched. Among other things, they call for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Ten signees of the statement of principles go on to serve in the George W. Bush administration.

• 1999 – On April 26 CIA headquarters was named the George Bush Center for Intelligence in honor of former president George H.W. Bush who served as CIA Director for 357 days.

• 1999 – A jury in Memphis, Tennessee returns a verdict in a civil trial brought by Martin Luther King’s family concluding that King was killed, not by James Earl Ray, but by a conspiracy involving agencies of the U. S. government and the Memphis police.

• 2000 – September. The Project for the New American Century releases a position paper, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” stating that the United States will not be able to enforce its will on Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan and maintain a Pax Americana “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”  The paper introduces a new word to refer to the United States of America – “the homeland.”

• 2000 – November. George W. Bush is elected president after a disputed ballot count and the intervention of the Supreme Court. Dick Cheney becomes vice-president and Donald Rumsfeld is named Secretary of Defense.

• 2001 – May 1. George W. Bush gives a major foreign policy speech at the National Defense University and says that the U.S.A. must be willing to “rethink the unthinkable,” giving public notice that the U. S. planned to withdraw from the ABM treaty. He warns against “weapons of mass destruction” and “weapons of terror” in the hands of rogue actors. The speech closely follows the reasoning of the PNAC paper of the previous year in urging an aggressive foreign policy. Cheney and Rumsfeld are in the audience.

• 2001 – June 22-23 Exercise Dark Winter takes place at Andrews Air Force base. The scenario involves anonymous threatening letters sent to mainstream media.  The letters threaten more letters to come with anthrax. Judith Miller, author of Germs, and a notoriously deceptive Iraq war hawk for The New York Times, participates, playing Judith Miller of the New York Times.

Source: Land Destroyer Report

• 2001 – September 11. The terrorist attacks in NYC and Washington, D.C. occur. The media immediately starts referring to them as another Pearl Harbor, a new Pearl Harbor. CBS News reports that before going to bed at night George W. Bush wrote in his diary, “The Pearl Harbor of the 21^st century took place today.” The site of the Twin Towers is first referred to as “ground zero,” a nuclear war term, by Mark Walsh, identified as a freelancer for Fox News by the Fox News interviewer on the street of lower Manhattan. Presciently anticipating the official explanation for the buildings collapse, Walsh adds that the towers obviously collapsed “mostly due to structural failure since the fires were too intense.”

• 2001 – September 12. The New York Times headlines a story: “Personal Accounts of a Morning Rush that Became the Unthinkable.” Another headline under the byline of future editor Bill Keller, Iraq war hawk, reads, “America’s Emergency Line: 9/11.” The endless emergency and war on terror begin.  Henceforth, for the first time in American history, a very important day is referred to by numbers, not by name – an emergency phone number.

• 2001 – September 22. Tom Ridge is named Director of the newly created Homeland Security and becomes in charge of politically motivated terror alerts.

• 2001 – September-October. Real and fake anthrax attacks occur. A sham investigation follows with the FBI eventually accusing government scientist Bruce Ivins on little to no evidence, resulting in Ivins’ alleged suicide.

• 2001 – Throughout the first three weeks of October the major media use the word “unthinkable” repetitively, echoing its association with nuclear war, just as the World Trade Center site is similarly referred to as “ground zero,” another nuclear term. A phony “anthrax” letter containing a harmless white powder, postmarked in St. Petersburg, Florida on September 20, is sent to Tom Brokaw of NBC. The letter, not made public until October 22 after the media’s repeated use of the word “unthinkable,” begins: “The Unthinkable” Sample Of How It Will Look. Judith Miller of the New York Times receives an anthrax threat letter also sent from St. Petersburg.

• 2001 – October 7. The U.S.A attacks Afghanistan.

• 2001 – October 27. The Patriot Act is passed.

• 2001 – December 4. George W. Bush says when he was outside the classroom in Florida on September 11^th he “had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on….”  Problem: No one saw the first plane hit the North Tower since it wasn’t televised live.  Much later a tape someone had made was shown on television.

• 2002 – October 2. At the Cincinnati Museum Center President Bush gives a speech linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks and says that “we cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun – that that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” He urges the disarming of Iraq.

• 2002-10 – Regular color-coded terrorist alerts

Secretary of State Colin Powell

• 2003 – February. Secretary of State Colin Powell gives false testimony at the U.N., asserting that Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and must be confronted.

• 2003 – March. The U. S. attacks Iraq based on lies.

• 2003-8 – Bush wages war on Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Homeland “security” leads to indefinite detention, black sites, torture, spying on Americans, the loss of Constitutional rights, etc.

• 2007 – February 10. Barack Obama, having been a U.S. Senator for 2 years 1 month announces he is running for president.

• 2008 – September. An international financial meltdown occurs. The government claims it was unforeseen. The Bush administration bails out the big banks and financial institutions.

• 2008 – November. A seriously inexperienced Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, comes out of nowhere to be elected president on a populist platform of “hope” and “change.” He receives more backing from Wall Street than his Republican rival. Liberals and progressives go wild for joy. Hope and change is proclaimed.

• 2009 – Lawrence Summers, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, takes up his position as head of Obama’s economic team. Timothy Geithner, former head of the New York Federal Reserve, whose father, Peter Geithner, oversaw the Ford Foundation’s programs in Indonesia developed by Obama’s mother (who also worked for another notorious CIA front, USAID) becomes Secretary of the Treasury. And Robert Gates, former CIA Director and George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense continues in that position for Obama.

• 2009 – March. Obama meets with the CEOs of fifteen big banks and tells them that “my administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks …. I’m not out there to go after you. I’m protecting you.”

• 2009 – Obama intensifies the war on Afghanistan.

• 2009 – October 9. Obama is given the Nobel Peace Prize.

• 2009 – December. Obama sends 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan, saying this “will bring this war to a successful conclusion.”

• 2010 – Obama vows to carry forward the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans.

• 2010 – and ongoing. Obama chooses his drone war kill list every Tuesday; says the killing of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki “is an easy one.”

• 2011 – Obama and partners attack Libya and brutally kill Muammar Gaddafi. Libya descends into chaos. Hilary Clinton exults.

• 2009 – and ongoing. Obama attacks Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, etc. Does nothing to stop the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians.  Supports and arms terrorists in Syria and other countries.  Engineers a coup d’etat in Ukraine and supports neo-Nazi forces attacking eastern Ukraine. Encircles Russia with NATO troops and military exercises. Starts a new Cold War. Maintains military commissions and indefinite detention. Prosecutes more whistleblowers than all previous American presidents combined, but does not prosecute any banksters or torturers. Charges Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake, Jeffrey Sterling, Chelsea Manning, John Kiriakou, et al of violating the 1917 Espionage Act. Acquiesces in the military coup against the democratically elected leader of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi and his subsequent imprisonment.  Spies on Americans and other countries. Maintains a national state of emergency and the Patriot Act with minor adjustments.  Prosecutes “the war on terror” initiated by George W. Bush.  Rules over a technological, computerized war of killing all over the globe and a technological, computerized spying apparatus here at home.  Spreads USAFRICOM throughout Africa, killing black Africans and undermining governments with Special Forces. And does all this and more with a smile.  Then, before leaving office he creates the fraudulent Russia gate story to continue the new Cold War and to undermine any possible cooling of US/Russians tensions under a possible Trump presidency.

• 2016 – Trump is elected President to the shock and awe of the Democrats and their supporters. Immediately, the undermining of Trump begins to make sure he doesn’t follow through on his promise to reduce nuclear tensions with Russia.

• 2017 – Donald Trump, the new reality-TV president, takes office and comes under incessant attack from the Democrats and the main stream media. He reneges on most of his campaign promises, including reconciliation with Russia, and tweets so many moronic messages that he plays into the Democrats’ hands. Propaganda expands exponentially as the game of personality politics plays on.  Meanwhile, the structures of oligarchic rule continue un-abated, both at home and abroad.  Trump continues Obama’s war policies, killing people around the world.

It should be clear from this small portion of events over the years that there is a connecting link, that there is a bloody thread running through them connecting key players and the obvious ongoing presence of a secret structure that recruits its team to maintain this oppressive system. To see it should be gutsy child’s play. It is not an issue of either/or; we can’t explain how we have come to this terrifying situation of rule by a murderous, militarized national security apparatus serving the wealthy elites by concentrating on either individuals or structures. People such as Barack Obama, the Bushes,Trump et al. don’t emerge from thin air (though in Obama’s case it seems that way, and some have speculated on his CIA links). These people grow out of a system that has cultivated and nurtured them.  They become spokesmen for the secretive and powerful moneyed forces some call the Deep State, the shadow government, the power elite, etc. (The scholar Peter Dale Scott sees a hidden link between the JFK assassination, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11.) Spokesmen, yes, they are that, but executive spokesmen; they are not innocent victims; they are free executive executioners, ordering death and destruction around the world and threatening a nuclear holocaust. People and ongoing structures are intertwined. Individuals count, but so do structures.

We are now living within a structure of non-stop and almost total propaganda that individuals, with the help of alternative structures of communication such as alternative media, can penetrate and understand, but only if they are willing to trudge through the forest of history that will allow for context and the connecting of dots. In the end, it takes desire and work. There are no excuses when, at least for now, the World Wide Web makes available so many voices for truth. Many individuals concluding alike can lead to change. Connect and be outraged. This is the path to true patriotism, a love of one’s home country and the world that is our home. We are not lost children without a way out of the forest of deception and fear.  Follow the knotted string to freedom. Add to it.

The psychiatrist Allen Wheelis once wrote a brilliant little book called, How People Change. His “childish” conclusion was that they change because they want to. Simple but true.

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

Featured image is from rouzer.house.gov.

Featured image: Mohammad Najibullah, Former President of Afghanistan

When in 1978 the 31-year old Afghan Communist politician-activist, Mohammad Najibullah, arrived in Tehran, “exiled” to neighboring Iran as Afghanistan’s Ambassador, I had just left Iran where I had worked throughout the year of 1977. Najibullah’s political party, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) had come to power in Kabul in April, 1978 in what is known as the Saur Revolution, the name of the month in the Afghan calendar when the Communist Revolution took place. Far from united, the PDPA was divided into two factions: the more revolutionary faction (Khalq-People’s) that first took power in Kabul in that crucial year of 1978 (crucial in both Afghanistan and Iran), preferred to have the charismatic Najibullah of the Parcham faction (Banner)of the PDPA far from the halls of power.

Moreover, the entire country was divided, much of it opposed to the Communist revolution. The chief resistance forces were the also divided,the U.S.-supported Mujahideen. One might conclude that the Afghan War was a proxy war, between the USSR and the USA, the USA to control these two contiguous countries near the top of the world, Iran and Afghanistan, both bordering the Islamic part of the Soviet Union; the Soviet Union to defend itself from incursions into its Islamic republics in Central Asia.

As subsequent history would show, Najibullah’s approach to resolving the civil war in Afghanistan was quite different from that of the PDPA faction heading the government which favored more rapid steps toward the realization of the socialist revolution. However, for the observer today, Najibullah’s more political National Reconciliation policy (which failed) between the government and the Mujahideen opposition and the clergy is a key to understanding not only contemporary Afghanistan but also Afghan-Soviet relations in general and the withdrawal of Soviet troops ordered by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989: the significance of the 10-year Soviet military presence in Afghanistan should not be underestimated.

Since 1979 the 110,000 Soviet troops had guaranteed the relative stability of the Afghan Communist PDPA government. Though the U.S.-backed Mujahideen guerrillas already controlled many parts of the country, they were unable to defeat government forces and dislodge the PDPA government in Kabul as long as Soviet troops were present. The Soviet leadership had to know that that stability would quickly break down when its last soldiers departed.

Things had begun changing with the arrival of Mikhail Gorbachev to power in Moscow in 1986. Though Soviet-controlled Afghanistan was a dangerous place to be, one of Gorbachev’s gravest mistakes was to pull his troops out of Afghanistan in 1989, leaving Najibullah and his government to face the growing firepower of the Mujahideen … and the threat of U.S. intervention. The then President Najibullah understood this quite well and did all in his power to convince Soviet authorities to leave their troops in place.

IRAN

Premier Mohammad Mossadegh (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Islamic Revolution in neighboring Iran—also in crucial 1978-79—resulted in the overthrow of the U.S.-supported Pahlavi dynasty at that time under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. The Iranian Revolution was a violent and widely popular overthrow of a ferocious U.S.-inspired regime installed after the CIA-organized overthrow of the democratically elected government led by Premier Mohammad Mossadegh on August 19, 1953. The initial success of the leftist forces in Iran’s Islamic revolution must have been an inspiration to Najibullah.

The oil boom in Iran of the 1970s had accelerated the gap between the rich and poor in both city and provinces. I had never seen such display of wealth as in the palatial mansions at the top of the city of Tehran where some the world’s richest people lived and whose excrements literally trickled down the stinking open sewage ditches running along the streets downhill to the poorest neighborhoods in the lower city …symbolic of the enormous disparity between rich and poor.

To be sure, as has been said time and again, inequality truly kills. Example: life expectancy in 1970 in pre-revolutionary Iran was 58%; today, 70%. In neighboring Syria, it was 70% in 1970. Moreover,adding to the widespread hate for the Shahinshah’s regime was the presence of tens of thousands of unpopular skilled foreign workers and foreign entrepreneurs like the one I was associated with in search of lucrative contracts in fields ranging from infrastructure construction to heavy industry, mining and even the production of tiles at which Persians were masters. Most Iranians were angered by the fact that the Shah’s family was the foremost beneficiary of the income generated by oil so that the line between state earnings and family earnings blurred. No one should believe that the last Pahlavi Shah was a benefactor of the Iranian people; he was a tyrant and, in effect, a U.S. puppet, a key part of U.S. efforts to control the entire region.

I was in Tehran during most of 1977 as an interpreter for a newly formed Italian company before being named its Iranian representative. Though I understand zilch about the business world I came to love Iran and its people and considered the proposed job an excellent short-term opportunity to learn the country. In that capacity I witnessed some of the demonstrations against the Shah that commenced in October 1977 since the hotel I lived in was in the lower town near Tehran University and foreign embassies, the area where major demonstrations took place. Marxist groups, primarily the Communist Tudeh Party and Fedaeen guerrillas, had been weakened considerably by the Shah’s repression. Despite this the leftist guerrillas played an important role in the final February 1979 overthrow of the Shah, delivering the coup de grace to the U.S. installed regime. Many of the most powerful guerrilla groups—the Mujahideen—were leftist but also Islamist even though they opposed the reactionary influence of the clergy.

Together with armed guerrilla of the People’s Fedaeen, remaining elements of the Tudeh Party, plus various Islamist groups and the powerful organization of the Bazaarists, the revolutionary movement developed from the general unrest in the country, widespread poverty and the terror of the notorious secret police, SAVAK. As protests grew in intensity in late 1977, I watched as people surrounded trucks carrying young army troops some of whom threw down their guns and jumped down to join the crowds. In other places instead a more hardened military opened fire and reports circulated of thousands of victims. At that point the company I was to work for collapsed and like many foreign entrepreneurs abandoned Iran.

I too returned to Rome from where I tried to follow events in Iran. The revolution itself emerged from the widespread civil resistance. Between August and December 1978 strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country. The Shah left Iran on January 16, 1979. Invited back to Iran by the transitional government, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was greeted on his return to Tehran by millions of Iranians. Shortly after, the royal reign ended definitively when rebels overwhelmed troops loyal to the exiled Shah, bringing Khomeini to power. Iran voted in a national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979.

At that time I knew little about the events underway in neighboring Afghanistan. I first became acquainted with the name Najibullah, when he headed the Communist Party in Kabul in the 1980s. With the support of the Soviet Union, he became President of Afghanistan in 1987… by the way the only period in my memory when any semblance of order existed in chaotic Afghanistan. Dr. Najibullah must have learned much from the Iranian Islamic Revolution.

KABUL

Though divided by internal conflict among the tribal peoples and by foreign intervention for centuries, Afghanistan had made some progress toward modernization by the 1950s and 60s, toward a more liberal and westernized lifestyle, but obligated to cater to the conservative factions. Exotic and Oriental Kabul at that time was an “in” place for the international elite who frequented Afghanistan to visit the soaring mountains of the Hindi Kush, the huge central area of Afghanistan, in a way truly the top of the world. After the assassination of his father, Mohammad Zahir Shah succeeded to the throne and reigned (not ruled) as monarch from 1933 to 1973. In 1964, he had promulgated a liberal constitution that produced few lasting reforms, but instead permitted the growth of unofficial extremist parties of both left and right. Because of the turbulence at home, the king went into exile in Italy in 1973 and lived in the Rome suburbs near my residence. I tried to get an interview with him but never got past his secretary-watch dog; he had allegedly survived an assassination attempt in 1991 so was extremely stingy with interviews.

Though officially neutral during the Cold War, Afghanistan was courted by both the USA and the Soviet Union: machinery and weapons from the USSR and financial aid from the USA.Progress was halted in the 1970s by a series of bloody coups and civil wars. One will be surprised that despite modernization, the average life expectancy for Afghans born in 1960 was 31.

Dr. Najib as Najibullah was called because he had a degree in medicine from Kabul University became the President of Afghanistan in 1987 at the age of 40. Born in 1947 in Gardiz, the son of a prominent Pashtun family, he joined the Parcham faction of the PDPA in 1965 at the age of 18, became an activist and was twice jailed for his militancy. His faction of the Communist PDPA was in disagreement with the Khalq over the proper path to Communism in Afghanistan, the Khalq favoring more rapid steps toward the realization of Socialism than the Parcham.

Since his return from exile in 1980, the longest and most important part of which was in Moscow, Dr. Najib headed the dreaded Khad, the secret police, during which time he personally acquired a reputation for brutality: torture and execution of the opposition was the norm, as its was in Iran, as in most of the world today. He had the close support—if not control—of the KGB. His Khad was modeled on the Soviet Committee of State Security (KGB), was militarized, grew in size to the point it allegedly had 300,000 troops, and was considered effective in the pacification of wide parts of the country.

MOSCOW

In an attempt to give the Afghan story a personal touch, I have added this curious historical coincidence. I moved to The Netherlands in 1978 where I broke into Dutch journalism with articles about Iran. As a result of published articles in the press and my stay in Tehran I somehow became an advisor to a prominent TV producer who at the time was working on a series of specials on Iran. Since I had studied Turkish at Munich University and had become interested in the Soviet Central Asian republics, the former Russian Turkestan, especially Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan which border northern Afghanistan, I proposed a series of colorful reportages on landmarks in the Central Asian republics such as Samarkand and Bokhara. So in late spring of 1978, armed with a stack of Dutch TV credentials I set out for Moscow.The plan was to interest Soviet television in a cooperative effort.

Najibullah giving a decoration to a Soviet serviceman (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

I finally met with a person at the Ostankino TV center and presented the idea of a cooperative production of Soviet and Dutch television about Soviet Central Asia. In retrospect I came to understand that Moscow TV people must have thought I was insane: an American representing Dutch television proposes a joint TV production about the vast area bordering with Afghanistan and the Soviet-backed Communist government in Kabul in a struggle with a U.S.-backed opposition. Ludicrous. Moreover, and unbeknownst to me, Najibullah was also present in Moscow lobbying for a Soviet intervention in his country to bolster the Communist government in Kabul while I was proposing a TV production about areas between Moscow and Afghanistan. Soviet TV people were not interested and I instead cut a ridiculous figure, while Dr. Najib’s contacts were extremely interested in his proposals and in him personally. His major sponsor was the powerful KGB, a relationship which lasted until the bitter end of his life.The documentary series I proposed was about the lands over which Soviet tanks and armored cars would pass not many months ahead  on their way to Afghanistan, accompanied also by the young Afghan political figure, Mohammad Najibullah.

KABUL

Once back in Kabul, Dr. Najib became the director of Khad, the secret police, which operated under Soviet control. Not only an intelligence organization, it was a military force. It had tanks, armored vehicles and helicopters. A state within the state, Khad was charged with both counter-intelligence activities and intelligence gathering to eliminate active and potential opponents and counterrevolutionaries. Dr. Najib might have taken his cue from Felix Dzerzhinsky, the founder of the Soviet Cheka, the predecessor of the KGB. On how to combat counter-revolutionaries, Dzerzhinsky said in 1918:

“Don’t think that I seek forms of revolutionary justice; we are not now in need of justice. It is war now—face to face, a fight to the finish. Life or death.”

That was also the belief of Che Guevara decades later. And that must have been the guideline for Mohammad Najibullah, who reigned with an iron fist over Khad from 1980 until he became head of the party and President of Afghanistan in 1987.

Once in power, Dr. Najib undertook his National Reconciliation policies. He eliminated the word Communist and references to Marxism from a new Constitution in 1990, labeled Afghanistan an Islamic Republic (as in Iran), introduced a multiparty system, freedom of speech and an independent judiciary. Yet the Mujahideen—which controlled wide parts of the country—refused to join in. With U.S. and western support the fanatical Taliban (religious students) emerged and conquered the country. When in 1992 they took Kabul, Dr. Najib found refuge in the United Nations compound where he lived until 1996. On September 27 the Taliban took Najibullah from his refuge, castrated him, dragged him behind a car over Kabul streets, finished him with a gunshot and hung his body from a traffic post.

In conclusion, some results of the Thirty Years War in Afghanistan are clear: the USA dream of control of these lands at the top of the world, in Afghanistan and Iran, was shattered. I tend to think of Iran and Afghanistan together. Twenty-five years of oppression and exploitation were too much for Iranians who rose up, made a revolution, and ousted America. Russia too lost something in Iran while Ayatollah Khomeini ruled; now that has been overcome and Russia and Iran are today allies … against aggressive Yankee imperialism. Iran was thus lost to the USA but Afghanistan seemed and perhaps in the minds of some

Neocons continues to be a promising alternative. No oil but lots of poppies and valuable land and location. Soviet Russia had dreamed of a Soviet-friendly progressive Afghanistan to protect and secure its vast Islamic regions extending from the Caucuses to the Far East. It failed to quell the ruly, untamable Afghans as Americans cannot still today. Though U.S.-supported Mujahideen could not defeat in battle the Soviet-supported government in Kabul in the 1980s, it at least convinced the Russians to abandon a lost mission and to leave, a lesson that the USA has continued to learn and unlearn for 16 years. On the flimsiest of excuses it too invaded indomitable Afghanistan in 2001 after 11 September … andis still there flailing at windmills, unable to completely abandon another lost war.

Dr. Najib is gone. The dream of a Communist Afghanistan is gone. The Soviet Union itself is gone. But a defeated America still hangs on in a tiny portion of the complex country of Afghanistan.

Gaither Stewart is a veteran journalist, his dispatches on politics, literature, and culture, have been published (and translated) on many leading online and print venues.

The increasingly globalised industrial food system that transnational agribusiness promotes is not feeding the world and is responsible for some of the planet’s most pressing political, social and environmental crises. Localised, traditional methods of food production have given way to globalised supply chains dominated by transnational companies policies and actions which have resulted in the destruction of habitat and livelihoods and the imposition of corporate-controlled, chemical-intensive (monocrop) agriculture that weds farmers and regions to a wholly exploitative system of neoliberal globalisation.

Whether it involves the undermining or destruction of what were once largely self-sufficient agrarian economies in Africa or the devastating impacts of soy cultivation in Argentina or palm oil production in Indonesia, transnational agribusiness and global capitalism cannot be greenwashed.

In their rush to readily promote neoliberal dogma and corporate PR, many take as given that profit-driven transnational corporations have a legitimate claim to be custodians of natural assets. There is the premise that water, seeds, land, food, soil and agriculture should be handed over to powerful, corrupt transnational corporations to milk for profit, under the pretence these entities are somehow serving the needs of humanity.

These natural assets (‘the commons’) belong to everyone and any stewardship should be carried out in the common interest by local people assisted by public institutions and governments acting on their behalf, not by private transnational corporations driven by self-interest and the maximization of profit by any means possible.

The Guardian columnist George Monbiot notes the vast wealth the economic elite has accumulated at our expense through its seizure of the commons. A commons is managed not for the accumulation of capital or profit but for the steady production of prosperity or wellbeing of a particular group, who might live in or beside it or who created and sustain it.

Unlike state spending, according to Monbiot, a commons obliges people to work together, to sustain their resources and decide how the income should be used. It gives community life a clear focus and depends on democracy in its truest form. However, the commons have been attacked by both state power and capitalism for centuries. In effect, resources that no one invented or created, or that a large number of people created together, are stolen by those who see an opportunity for profit.

We need only look at how Cargill captured the edible oils processing sector in India and in the process put many thousands of village-based workers out of work. Or how Monsanto conspired to design a system of intellectual property rights that allowed it to patent seeds as if it had manufactured and invented them. Or how India’s indigenous peoples have been forcibly ejected from their ancient forest lands due to state’s collusion with mining companies.

As Monbiot says, the outcome is a rentier economy: those who capture essential resources seek to commodify them – whether trees for timber, land for real estate or agricultural seeds, for example – and force everyone else to pay for access.

While spouting platitudes about ‘choice’, ‘democracy’ and ‘feeding the world’, the corporate agribusiness/agritech industry is destroying the commons and democracy and displacing existing localised systems of production.

“[Economies are being] opened up through the concurrent displacement of pre-existing productive systems. Small and medium-sized enterprises are pushed into bankruptcy or obliged to produce for a global distributor, state enterprises are privatised or closed down, independent agricultural producers are impoverished” (Michel Chossudovsky in The Globalization of Poverty, p16).

As described here, for thousands of years farmers experimented with different plant and animal specimens acquired through migration, trading networks, gift exchanges or accidental diffusion. By learning and doing, trial and error, new knowledge was blended with older, traditional knowledge systems. The farmer possesses acute observation, good memory for detail and transmission through teaching and story-telling. The same farmers whose seeds and knowledge were stolen by corporations to be bred for proprietary chemical-dependent hybrids, now to be genetically engineered

Large corporations with their proprietary seeds and synthetic chemical inputs have eradicated traditional systems of seed exchange. They have effectively hijacked seeds, pirated germ plasm that farmers developed over millennia and have ‘rented’ the seeds back to farmers. Genetic diversity among food crops has been drastically reduced, and we have bad food and diets, degraded soils, water pollution and scarcity and spiralling rates of poor health.

The eradication of seed diversity went much further than merely prioritising corporate seeds: the Green Revolution deliberately sidelined traditional seeds kept by farmers that were actually higher yielding.

We have witnessed a change in farming practices towards mechanised industrial-scale chemical-intensive monocropping, often for export or for far away cities rather than local communities, and ultimately the undermining or eradication of self-contained rural economies, traditions and cultures. We now see food surplus in the West and food deficit areas in the Global South and a globalised geopoliticised system of food and agriculture.

In India, Green Revolution technology and ideology has merely served to undermine indigenous farming sectors centred on highly productive small farms that catered for the diverse dietary needs and climatic conditions of the country. It has actually produced and fuelled drought and degraded soils and has contributed towards illnesses and malnutrition, farmer distress and many other problems.

What really irks the corporate vultures which fuel the current industrial model of agriculture is that critics are offering genuine alternatives. They advocate a shift towards more organic-based systems of agriculture, which includes providing support to small farms and an agroecology movement that is empowering to people politically, socially and economically.

Agroecology: taking back power

Much has been written about agroecology, its successes and the challenges it faces (see this, this and this). A prominent strand of the agroecological movement regards this model of agriculture as a force for radical change. It offers a political-economical critique of modern agriculture and the vested interests that determine it.

In this respect, Food First Executive Director Eric Holtz-Gimenez argues that agroecology offers concrete, practical solutions to many of the world’s problems that move beyond (but which are linked to) agriculture. In doing so, it challenges – and offers alternatives to – the prevailing moribund doctrinaire economics and outright plunder of a neoliberalism that in turn drives a failing system of GM/chemical-intensive industrial agriculture.

The scaling up of agroecology can tackle hunger, malnutrition, environmental degradation and climate change. By creating securely paid labour-intensive agricultural work, it can also address the interrelated links between labour offshoring by rich countries and the removal of rural populations elsewhere who end up in sweat shops to carry out the outsourced jobs: the two-pronged process of neoliberal globalisation that has devastated the economies of the US and UK and which is displacing existing indigenous food production systems and undermining the rural infrastructure in places like India to produce a reserve army of cheap labour.

The Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology by Nyeleni in 2015 argued for building grass-root local food systems that create new rural-urban links, based on truly agroecological food production. It went on to say that agroecology should not become a tool of the industrial food production model but as the essential alternative to that model. The Declaration stated that agroecology is political and requires local producers and communities to challenge and transform structures of power in society, not least by putting the control of seeds, biodiversity, land and territories, waters, knowledge, culture and the commons in the hands of those who feed the world.

The more the power structures that shape modern agriculture are understood and the consequent devastating effects are made public, the more urgent the need becomes to establish societies run for the benefit of the mass of the population, and that means a system of food and agriculture that is democratically owned and controlled. This involves prioritising localised rural and urban food economies and small farms (both rural and urban) that should be shielded from the effects of rigged trade and international markets. It would mean that what ends up in our food and how it is grown is determined by the public good and not powerful private interests, which are driven by commercial gain and their compulsion to subjugate farmers, consumers and entire regions, while playing the victim each time campaigners challenge their actions.

There are enough examples from across the world that serve as models for transformation, from farming in socialist Cuba to grass-root movements centred on agroecology in Africa and India.

Agroecology must be regarded as a key form of resistance by food producers and both urban and rural communities to an increasingly globalised economic system that puts profit before the environment. Whether in Europe, Africa, India or the US, agroecology can protect and reassert the commons and is a force for grass-root change that should not be co-opted, diluted or subverted by the cartel of powerful biotech/agribusiness companies. This model of agriculture is already providing real solutions for sustainable, productive agriculture that prioritise the needs of farmers, consumers and the environment.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Voices from Syria, disappeared by Western corporate-state media messaging and the on-going apparatus of criminal war propaganda, are increasingly reinforced as Syria’s liberation from NATO terrorism continues.

Now that refugees are flooding back into the country that they love, the truths that contradict the Western lies are laid bare.

Western agencies that continue to propagate the lies – including book publishers – should be boycotted.

The truth that NATO terrorists engage in organ harvesting has now been reinforced by more primary-source evidence.

In 2016, Hossein Noufel, Director-General of Syria’s Coroner’s Office reported that

(b)ody organs of thousands of Syrian civilians have been sold in the international black markets over the past six years.1

Permanent Syrian resident Lilly Martin collaborated this evidence in a global Facebook posting. She reported that,

(t)he organ harvesting in Turkey is not limited to selling a part for cash. The majority of organ harvesting in Turkey is done by the terrorists, who are US supported. The terrorists take injured or kidnapped Syrians across the border to Turkey and instead of saving their life with medical care, the injured are shipped back to Syria with an explanation that they died in surgery, and couldn’t be saved. However, they always have clear signs of organ harvesting. In many cases, eyes were removed. This info comes from survivors of the Aleppo battles, who are now in Latakia. 2

Now, Professor Tim Anderson, recently returned from a trip to Syria, provides more evidence to establish what we already know.

Photo by Prof. Tim Anderson

Anderson describes the photo above as a “small hospital used for organ trafficking by FSA-Nusra. Burned to destroy records and evidence (Source L.H.)”

Whereas the truth leads to peace, engineered lies, such as those propagated by “Bana Inc.” create a foundation for more war and more misery.

Notes

1 “ Coroner’s Office: Body Organs of Over 15,000 Syrians Sold in Six Years.” FARS News Agency. 17 November 2016. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/body-organs-of-over-15000-syrians-sold-in-six-years-coroners-office/5557626). Accessed 8 October 2017.

2 Mark Taliano, “NATO Terrorism in Syria.” Global Research, 2 May 2017. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-terrorism-in-syria/5588236) Accessed 8 October, 2017.

Featured image: The Crossing. Egyptian forces moving across the Suez Canal en route to an assault on the “Bar Lev Line”.

Each of the full-blown wars between Israel and its Arab neighbours have carried a great measure of significance. The War of 1948 led to the creation of the modern state of Israel, a cause for euphoria among the world’s Jews in the post-Shoah-era, in contrast to the Nakba inflicted on the Arabs of Palestine.

The War of 1967, during which Israel routed three Arab armies in six days established Israel as a regional hegemon while its defeated Arab neighbours stewed in their humiliation and the Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Gaza came under occupation.

The Arab-Israeli War of 1973, known either as the “October War” or as the “Yom Kippur War”, is one which created the impetus for the Camp David Accords of 1978 which paved the way for the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of 1979. But the war that commenced on October 6, 1973, by the surprise attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria, is also worth examining because it provides a framework towards understanding what has changed and what remains unchanged so far as the dynamics of conflict in the Middle East is concerned.

1. The Preconception. The Israeli rout of Arab armies in the “Six Day War” of 1967 led to laxity borne of overconfidence and arrogance pertaining to Arab military capabilities. The prevailing view was that Arab armies would not attack Israel until they could develop the capability to match Israeli air power. Although hubris was widespread, criticism quickly focused on one person. Moshe Dayan, who had held the portfolio of minister of defence since that war, was largely held to blame for not predicting the Arab attack and the level of unpreparedness the attack exposed. Although a cunning and ruthless general, he was decidedly not a very competent peacetime administrator.

2. The failure of intelligence. Israel’s inability to predict the Arab attack was not simply because the Egyptians had successfully employed Russian-derived deception techniques enshrined in the military doctrine of Maskirovka. It had a lot to do with the monopolization of all-source intelligence by Israeli Military Intelligence. Added to that were a number of false warnings, including one given by Ashraf Marwan, an Egyptian Mossad spy who was the son-in-law of the late Egyptian president, Gamal Nasser. The astronomical costs involved with the mobilisation of the Israeli army may have also contributed to a psychological fatigue and caution in responding to continued warnings in the lead up to the actual attack.

3. The war was not intended to destroy Israel and liberate Palestine. As was the case with the wars of 1948 and 1967, the often propagandized danger of annihilation by combined Arab forces was not present. The armies of both Egypt and Syria had limited objectives. The former wished to breach the “Bar Lev Line” and retake territory across the Suez Canal, while the former hoped to to retake the Golan Heights lost to Israel during the “Six Day War”. There was no overarching plan to destroy Israel and proverbially “sweep the Jews into the sea”. The intended limited gains were simply to restore a degree of Arab pride and to use the war as leverage in negotiating the return of land occupied by Israel.

4. The oil crisis. Under the auspices of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Arab states enforced an embargo on oil sales to the United States and any country giving aid to Israel. A five percent reduction in oil production led to an increase in the cost of fuel and contributed to a period of economic stagnation in the West.  

5. The world may have come to the brink of nuclear catastrophe. The Soviet Union is claimed to have deployed Scud missile brigades armed with nuclear warheads, while Moshe Dayan is said to have ordered the preparation of at least one ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. In his book The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author Seymour Hersh wrote that Israel’s missive to the administration of President Richard Nixon requesting an arms airlift, was accompanied by the threat of deploying nuclear weapons onto the field. Although the recollections of Arnan Azarhayu, an Israeli political insider, portray a more restrained reference to recourse to nuclear weapons in cabinet discussions during the war, it is nonetheless established fact that the United States placed its Strategic Air Command, Continental Air Defense Command, European Command and the Sixth Fleet on DEFCON 3 alert because of fears that the Soviet Union might intervene in the conflict on the side of its Arab allies.

6. The war ended as a victory for Israel, although the Arabs declared it a victory. The Egyptians, protected by surface-to-air missiles, crossed the Suez Canal and breached the “Bar Lev Line”. They held onto their gains after the failure of an initial Israeli counter-attack. The Syrians also made gains on the Golan Heights. However, Israeli successes after a counter-attack in the Golan theatre of war meant that President Hafez Assad sent a missive to President Anwar Sadat requesting that the Egyptians attack further into Sinai so as to relieve the pressure on his army. A refusal on Sadat’s part would have left the Syrian front liable to collapse with the effect that the Israelis would have been able to redeploy a substantial portion of its armed forces against the Egyptians.

Meanwhile as the Israeli High Command mulled over the difficult decision of whether to attack across the canal, Mossad received a message from an informant indicating that three Egyptian paratroop brigades were planning to land at specific locations behind enemy lines. But the garbled transcript provided no decipherable information which provided a logical rationale for the Egyptians to make this military decision. However intelligence previously received from Marwan Ashraf filled in the gaps. Earlier in 1973, Marwan had sent his Mossad handlers an Egyptian Army war plan setting out that sending Egyptian special forces behind Israeli lines was to serve as the prelude to the crossing of the canal by attacking formations of armoured divisions.

An Egyptian attack meant that part of its army would need to come out of the protected ‘umbrella’ within which the Israeli Air Force was vulnerable to Russian-made surface-to-air missiles. It also meant that the Israelis could engage the Egyptians in a defensive action during which they would aim to significantly reduce Egyptian tank strength before launching an attack across the Suez. In the ensuing battles, the Egyptian Third Army became encircled and part of the east bank of Suez recaptured. The Israelis also proceeded with an attack across the canal. The Egyptian failure to hold on to much of their initial gains was offset by the slithers of territory they retained on the Eastern bank of the Canal. However, the war ended with Israeli forces about 80 kilometers from Cairo and approximately 40 kilometers from Damascus.

There are a number of matters to ponder.

A. The threat of nuclear war emanating in the Middle East. The Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973 were both fought by nations allied with the two main contestants of the Cold War. And each conflict, particularly the 1973 war, had the subtext of the threat of Soviet intervention if Israeli gains at the expense of its Soviet-backed Arab foes exceeded an acceptable threshold.

But the ending of the Cold War has not removed the spectre of nuclear war from the Middle East. Israel, a nation which for a long time has acquired a nuclear capability, but has not made itself subject to the international treaties and protocols covering nuclear proliferation, has in recent times continually argued that Iran’s nuclear programme poses an existential threat. This is inspite of the fact that Iran is a signatory state to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and has consented to the regime of inspections by the relevant regulatory authorities. Over and above that are the conditions placed on Iran’s programme by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action reached between Iran and the ‘Five Plus One’ countries. Moreover, the intelligence community in the United States and even Mossad have declared that no evidence exists of Iran’s nuclear programme extending to the development of weapons. There are those who argue that part of the rationale for manufacturing these concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme are a strategic ploy aimed at diverting attention from the question of a settlement of the Palestinian issue.

Today, the threat of nuclear confrontation emanating from the Middle East comes not from Iranian intentions, but from the delicate and intermittently strained relations between the United States and the Russian Federation over the Syrian conflict. The Russians are contributing to a military coalition of Shia powers in aid of the government of Bashar al-Assad against an insurrection by Sunni Islamist groups who are supported by America’s regional allies.

B. The question of Arab solidarity. The limited objectives of the war of 1973 demonstrated, as did the war of 1948, that Israel’s neighbours have consistently been more preoccupied with their own national interests than that of the Palestinian people. The Arab protagonists during the war of 1948 were concerned with acquiring territory and not with the creation of a Palestinian state. Jordan reached a secret agreement with representatives of the Jewish Agency not to attack the soon to be declared state of Israel after the expiry of the British Mandate. Jordan acquired the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip.

The Camp David agreement and the subsequent peace treaty between Israel and Egypt went counter to Palestinian interests. This is based on the logic that their ability to achieve statehood would be better assured within the context of a comprehensive agreement between Israel and all its neighbours rather than through separate agreements. Palestinian resistance to Israel has suffered because Arab opposition to Israel has been weakened by the policies followed by their leaders. After expulsion from Jordan in the early 1970s, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) suffered the same fate in Lebanon. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, it did so on the assurance from Arab states, other than Syria, that it would not be challenged in its quest to purge Lebanon of Palestinian guerillas. Today, the Arab League possesses neither the will nor the ability to break the blockade and sanctions against Gaza. It is also impotent or indifferent to the building of settlements on the West Bank.

It is also pertinent to note that Saudi Arabia has effectively renounced the idea of using an Arab embargo on oil sales as an option in the cause of Arab and Palestinian grievances. The terms attached to the embargo enforced in 1973 expressly referred to the restoration of the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people”. While some have subsequently written about the myth of the oil weapon and highlighted the drawbacks to its use, the malign effects of the joint Arab action was clear enough to see. That Saudi Arabia, in recent years, has seen fit to use it against Russia and Iran while disavowing its use as a bargaining device in relation to the Palestinian cause, is indicative of the lack of Arab solidarity.

C. A different coalition threatens Israel’s regional military hegemony. With the peace treaty with Egypt continuing to endure, Syria weakened by internecine strife, Jordan effectively a protectorate state of Israel, as well as the developed symbiotic relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Israel has less worry about the revival of the coalition of nations who fought her in the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973.

This is why its focus is on the perceived threat of Iran, which is allied to Bashar al-Assad’s secular government in Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. This arc of resistance to Israel domination is often referred to as the “Shia Crescent”. The destruction of the Syrian state would be welcomed by Israel on the grounds that none of the succeeding balkanised entities would be able to revive Syria’s claim to the Golan Heights.

Destroying Syria would also lead to the isolation of the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon which is the only military organisation in the Arab world capable of taking on the Israeli Defence Force. Indeed, it was Hezbollah, an organisation that grew out of Lebanese resistance to Israel’s brutal invasion and 18-year occupation, which forced Israel’s withdrawal in 2000 from southern Lebanon, an area Israel has long coveted because of the resource of the Litani River. In the war of 2006, Hezbollah outmanoeuvred Israel in the intelligence war, and held off Israeli ground incursions to the extent that Israel was eventually forced to withdraw its forces.  

D. Contemporary geopolitical circumstances. The Palestinian West Bank and the Syrian Golan Heights still remain under Israeli control. The West Bank continues to be colonised by the creation of Israeli settlements, which is gradually achieving the Zionist goal of a ‘Greater Israel’, a project undergirded by the belief that the territory encompasses that part of the ancient land of Israel known as Judea and Samaria. Continued expansion has meant that the Palestinian population continues to be squeezed into increasingly smaller enclaves. The Golan Heights, which was illegally annexed by Israel in 1981, was recently declared by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to be permanently and irrevocably under Israeli sovereignty.

Examining the 1973 war and comparing the circumstances of the present to the past provides an idea of what has changed and what has not. Hezbollah’s alliance with Iran, some would argue, has meant that the dynamic of the region has evolved from an Arab-Israeli conflict to an Iranian-Israeli conflict, albeit one so far fought on behalf of Iran by a ‘proxy’ army in the form of Hezbollah.

But what has not changed from all the wars dating back to the one of 1948, is the matter that forms the historical basis of Arab antagonism towards Israel: the plight of the Palestinian people. And with the prospects of statehood diminishing with every expansion of illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank, the issue of Palestine remains a festering wound at the heart of the Middle East.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

The following video documents the training of Spanish Police Forces under the auspices of Israel.

“They teach us useful procedures” to be used against civilians, namely the same procedures as those used by Israel against Palestinians.

Two weeks in Israel for a crash course in Homeland Security.

Israel has become a laboratory for the development of techniques of repression directed against civilians in urban areas.

Made in Israel:

“We have learn a lot during our two weeks in Israel”

“We have learnt things that really work”.

To be used against civilians in Catalonia? 

(M.Ch, GR editor, October 8, 2017)

One week after the historic Catalan Independence Referendum vote reopened Europe’s populist Pandora Box of nationalist secession movements, tens of thousands of people took to the streets of Catalonia’s capital Barcelona on Sunday to express their opposition to any declaration of independence from Spain, which according to Reuters showed “how divided the region is on the issue.”

Last Sunday, more than 90% of the 2.3 million people who voted backed secession, according to Catalan officials. But that turnout represented only 43 percent of the region’s 5.3 million eligible voters as many opponents of independence stayed away. Now its the others’ turn to be heard.

5.
– Long live Spain/Cat.
– I am Spanish
– Jail for Puigdemont
– THIS is the people of Catalonia@lasvocesdelpuepic.twitter.com/BIig4ol1Oe

— The Spain Report (@thespainreport) October 8, 2017

The protesters rallied in central Barcelona, waving Spanish and Catalan flags and banners saying “Catalonia is Spain” and “Together we are stronger”, as politicians on both sides hardened their positions in the country’s worst political crisis for decades.

1. Big march in Barcelona this morning. Rally point already full of Spanish and Catalan flags.@emilialandalucepic.twitter.com/jRzd4F09ag

— The Spain Report (@thespainreport) October 8, 2017

As is typically the case, estimates of the crowd size varied enormously, with the range given as between 350,000 up to a million.

So now we have three estimates for crowd size this morning:
– 350,000
– 950,000
– "more than a million"

— The Spain Report (@thespainreport) October 8, 2017

According to Reuters, the demonstration in Barcelona was organized by the anti-independence group Catalan Civil Society under the slogan “Let’s recover our senses” to mobilize what it believes is a “silent majority” of citizens in Catalonia who oppose independence.

“The people who have come to demonstrate don’t feel Catalan so much as Spanish,” said 40-year-old engineer Raul Briones, wearing a Spanish national soccer team shirt. “We like how things have been up until now and want to go on like this.”

Cries of "THAT's our police!" from crowd waving Spanish flags outside police HQ in central Barcelona.
Via @RTLbcnpic.twitter.com/mMhO2fWsjh

— The Spain Report (@thespainreport) October 8, 2017

It was a second day of protests after tens of thousands of people gathered in 50 cities across Spain on Saturday, some defending Spain’s national unity and others dressed in white and calling for talks to defuse the crisis.

Leading Barcelona march today:
Montserrat (PP, Health Minister)
Enric Millo (PP)
Albiol (PP)
Rivera (Cs)
Arrimadas (Cs)
Mario Vargas Llosa pic.twitter.com/bxDzsGNmFm

— The Spain Report (@thespainreport) October 8, 2017

Meanwhile, in an interview with El Pais newspaper, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said he will consider taking the so-called “nuclear option” – the dramatic measure of suspending Catalonia’s autonomous status – as Catalan leaders escalate threats to declare independence from the country, which could culminate with a parliamentary announcement as soon as Monday.

Asked if he was ready to trigger article 155, Rajoy told El Pais newspaper: “ I am not ruling out anything that the law says. What I have to do is do things at the right time, which is the most important thing right now. The ideal situation would be to not have to take drastic solutions, but for that to happen there would have to be rectifications.”

Until this weekend, Rajoy has remained vague on whether he would use article 155 of the constitution  which enables him to sack the regional government and call a local election.

Reverting back to a hardline stance, the conservative prime minister ruled out using mediators to resolve the crisis – something Puigdemont has said he is open to – and said the issue would not force a snap national election. The Prime Minister also added the government would “prevent any declaration of independence from materializing in anything”. “Spain will continue being Spain,” he said.

Rajoy reiterated that until the regional government abandons its intention to proclaim independence, no talks can take place.

“As long as it does not go back to legality, I certainly will not negotiate,” Rajoy said, adding that while the Spanish government appreciates proposals to mediate between the national and Catalan governments, it will have to reject them. “I would like to say one thing about mediation: we do not need mediators. What we need is that whoever is breaking the law and whoever has put themselves above the law rectifies their position.”

Rajoy’s position is understandable: losing Catalonia – Spain’s wealthiest region – is unthinkable for the Spanish government.  It would deprive Spain of about 16% of its people, a fifth of its economic output and more than a quarter of its exports. Catalonia is also the top destination for foreign tourists, attracting about a quarter of Spain’s total.

“We are going to stop independence from happening. On that, I can tell you with absolute frankness, that it will not happen. It is evident that we will take whatever decision that we are permitted to by law, in view of how things are unfolding,” Rajoy told El Pais. He also called on “moderate” Catalans to “come back” and move away from “extremists, radicals” as well as the Popular Unity Candidacy party (CUP) spearheading the movement. It is the first time he has reached out to the Catalan people since the referendum.

Rajoy also slammed the independence bid as part of a current wave of populism sweeping across Europe, pointing to the rise of far-right parties in France, Germany and the UK. “Another form of populism, without doubt, is this nationalist populism that we are experiencing, which violates the fundamental principles of the European Union, goes against the rule of law, against law enforcement, and so it is a problem also from Europe.

“And that’s why Europeans have stuck up for us and all the governments have supported the Spanish constitution and the upholding of the law.”

Actually, the reason why European have stuck with Spain, is because if Catalonia achieves independence it will unleash a waterfall sequence of copycat referendums, where other independence movements will pursue their own secession dreams. 

It remains unclear just how the current Spain crisis is resolved: the past week in Catalonia has been nothing short of chaotic. Madrid responded to the vote with force, sending thousands of police to the region to shut down the vote. Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont has threatened to declare independence early next week, and hundreds of thousands of Catalan protesters marched in favor of splitting from Spain this week.

Below is a live feed from the Barcelona anti-independence protest:

Featured image: Marie Braun of WAMM

Twin Cities-based Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) is honored to be one of 25 U.S. organizations that are partners in the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize on October 6. (There are 456 partner groups in ICAN in 101 countries around the world working to abolish nuclear weapons). ICAN was given the award for its international advocacy in helping to bring about the historic UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

In its Nobel acceptance speech, ICAN credited grassroots participation of activists like those in WAMM with recognition of “the tireless efforts of many millions of campaigners and concerned citizens worldwide who, ever since the dawn of the atomic age, have loudly protested nuclear weapons…By harnessing the power of the people, we have worked to bring an end to the most destructive weapons ever created — the only weapon that poses an existential threat to all humanity.”

Nuclear weapons were a focus of WAMM when it was founded in 1982. Today, WAMM is among the ICAN’s partner organizations that have been acting in support of international efforts to negotiate a legally binding treaty to ban nuclear weapons. In the fall of 2016, WAMM initiated its Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons and has since obtained 7,500 signatures on a petition to be presented to the ten members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation later this month and has sent hundreds of postcards from individuals to Senators Franken and Klobuchar asking them to publicly support the treaty.. The WAMM campaign has also held discussions and talks, shown films, distributed fact sheets and literature at community venues and churches, and held picket signs opposing nuclear weapons at the Lake Street/Marshall Avenue Bridge Vigil on Wednesdays.

“As citizens of this nation, the only nation to have used nuclear weapons on another nation’s population, we believe that we have a special responsibility to speak out and act to ensure that these weapons are never used again,” says Marie Braun, who initiated the WAMM Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons. “While the nuclear nations have stated that they will not sign the treaty, the hope is that a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons will strengthen the global norm against their use and possession and will establish a powerful new international legal standard, stigmatizing nuclear weapons and compelling nations to take action on disarmament.”

WAMM is sponsoring its 33rd Annual Silent Auction on Sunday, October 8, from 5:00 – 8:00 pm at St. Joan of Arc Church, 4537 Third Avenue South in Minneapolis. Marie Braun and other WAMM members will be available for interviews at that time or at another time that is convenient.

Radio Free Asia, a media organization publicly funded by the US government through the Broadcasting Board of Governors, alleged in a now-viral report last week that China was forcing Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang to hand over their Qurans and prayer mats under the threat of punishment. They also quoted the so-called “World Uighur Congress” which allegedly confirmed this as well. China struck back over the weekend, however, when Deputy Chief of Mission at the Chinese Embassy in Islamabad Zhao Lijian wrote on Twitter that

“This is totally baseless. Muslims in China enjoy good life. Radio Free Asia is anti-China. World Uyghur Congress is a separatist group”.

The diplomat was right on all four counts, as the only basis for this fake news report was the separatist “World Uyghur Congress” whose claims were disseminated to global media by means of the anti-China Radio Free Asia, thus making the accusation totally baseless and refuting the Mainstream Media-driven assertion that Muslims don’t enjoy a good life in China.

That’s what’s important to focus on here – the way in which this story rose to global attention – because it says a lot about how the fake news industry is weaponized by government-affiliated outlets for geostrategic purposes. To be clear, there’s a difference between publicly funded organizations and state-run ones, as the former is editorially independent while the latter isn’t, but Radio Free Asia is operating in this context more along the lines of a state-run outlet than a free one.

The reason for thinking this is because the company republished unproven but very serious accusations against the Chinese government which came from an untrustworthy source, the “World Uighur Congress”, which has a self-interest in discrediting Beijing and provoking Muslims all across the world to rise up against it in Xinjiang in the New Cold War just like they did against the USSR in Afghanistan during the Old Cold War.

One might be inclined to chalk this up to professional incompetency had it not been for the fact that this narrative perfectly aligns with the unstated one being pursued by American intelligence organizations, which want to damage China’s soft power standing in the global Muslim community – or “Ummah” – in order to slow down the speed with which Beijing’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity is being implementing in Central Asia, South Asia, and the Mideast.

In addition, while it can’t be known for sure, it convincingly seems like this was a coordinated media offensive given how fast the story was picked up and spread across different information outlets all across the world, most of which didn’t adequately (key word) inform their readers that it was based entirely on an unverified claim by a self-interested separatist-terrorist organization’s reports to the publicly financed US media outlet “Radio Free Asia”.

At the end of the day, this entire story was nothing more than a fake news infowar attack cooked up by the US “deep state” through two of its anti-Chinese proxies, but it wasn’t by any means the first, and certainly won’t be the last.

The post presented is the partial transcript of the CONTEXT COUNTDOWN radio program on Sputnik News, aired on Friday Oct 6, 2017:

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

Featured image is from the author.

A lot of nonsense has been written about the role of Putin’s Russia in subverting “our democracy.” As though our democracy had been functioning perfectly (even reasonably) well, until these shadowy Russian forces purchased a few Facebook ads that sent us all into the streets. It’s a laughable concept. I’m sorry, did Putin acquit George Zimmerman or Jason Stockley?

Did Putin shoot 12-year-old Tamir Rice? Russia did not carry out the drug war against African Americans or implement policies of mass incarceration, or pass voter ID laws in the U.S. – all of which have contributed to disenfranchising millions of African Americans over the years. The U.S. has a lot to answer for with regard to systematically denying the democratic rights of African Americans and this is not the first time they’ve tried to deflect criticism for that by blaming Russia. As a student of history I’ve mostly just rolled my eyes this time around while the Democrats attempt to make red-scare tactics that are very old, new again. But a recent entry in this canon of “Black activists are pawns of Moscow” writing is so insulting and patently false, that, as we approach the hundredth anniversary of the Russian Revolution, it seems very important to reply.

Last week an author named Terrell Jermaine Starr wrote a piece for The Root entitled, “Russia’s Recent Facebook Ads Prove the Kremlin Never Loved Black People.”

I’ve enjoyed entries from The Root before, particularly in chronicling racist attacks against African Americans that are underreported in the mainstream media. But their willingness to toe the Democratic Party line, uncritically in most circumstances, has been noted.

Starr’s piece is supposedly historical in scope but is premised upon a huge, glaring, historical fallacy: that of conflating the Russian Federation with the Soviet Union. In one sentence, Starr describes the two as essentially the same (showing you the level of material historical analysis he’s interested in engaging in) and then for the rest of the article proceeds to whitewash the history of Black communism, using the favorite arguments deployed by racists – that Blacks who supported socialism did so because they were duped, and that the Soviet Union was only interested in Black liberation insofar as it meant spiting their enemies in the White House.

These assertions deny the agency of African Americans, many of whom were amongst the most prominent Black intellectuals of their time, who looked to the Soviet system as an alternative to American racism and exploitation. This interpretation also denies the real solidarity and support that the Soviet Union expressed in their assistance to liberation movements of many Black, brown and oppressed people all over the world. Since anti-communist propaganda is easily promulgated without evidence in this country, allow me to present some of the evidence that exposes these racist lies for what they are.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was birthed via a revolution in 1917 and overthrown via counter-revolution in 1991. While Russians were in the majority of the population, the USSR itself was actually an extremely diverse and vibrant society for all of its existence. The Soviet Union spanned 14 time zones and comprised many independent nationalities and ethnic groups, such as Tajiks, Kazakhs, Lithuanians, Tartars – all of whom spoke different languages, practiced different religions – and suffered terrible racist oppression under the Tsar. The triumph of the socialist revolution and the very existence of this unique political formation was the result of a revolution carried out by united oppressed peoples, who rose up as one and took control of society away from their Tsarist and capitalist exploiters.

The Bolsheviks always took the task of uniting oppressed people and elevating their struggle very seriously. This was a key to their success and a guiding principle in their work. It was Lenin who pioneered communist opposition to imperialism and he who changed the Marxist formulation, “Workers of the World Unite” to “Workers and oppressed people of the world unite” as an expression of the priority they placed on the struggle of colonized people against imperialism.

“People of Africa will overpower the colonizers!” – 1960 propaganda poster by Kukryniksy

Around the world, the 1919 triumph of Lenin and the Bolsheviks was greeted by the imperialists with great dismay and by oppressed/colonized peoples with great enthusiasm, inspiration and hope. In America, 1919 was an infamous year, known for its “Red Summer” of intense lynchings, race riots and gruesome violence against African Americans at the hands of white mobs.

The Black American political movement had entered a new era of militancy, as veterans returning from WWI were less inclined to submit to Jim Crow and more inclined to fight for their dignity, wages and rights. A new wave of radical Black intellectuals all but took over the Black political scene, many from the Caribbean and mostly based in Harlem in the 1920s and 30s. These men and women were considered some of the premier thinkers and writers of their time and of the majority of these radical African American leaders–regardless of political orientation– held the Russian Revolution in very high esteem.

According to historian Winston James, in his work Holding Aloft the Banner of Ethiopia, the appeal of the Russian Revolution to Black people in America at the time lay not in their having been “recruited” by Russia as the Root article asserts, but in their own independent evaluation of the Bolshevik government and where it stood with regard to equality for oppressed and colonized people.

James wrote about three major factors that attracted Black people to Bolshevism in the 1920s and 1930s. The first was the domestic policies promoting national minorities and oppressed groups that were put in place almost immediately after the triumph of the revolution. After the revolution the Bolshevik government undertook what can be described as the most far reaching and thorough affirmative action plan that any government has ever attempted, dedicating much in the way of their limited resources towards raising the standard of living for groups who had been historically oppressed and creating conditions that could facilitate greater equality for those groups.

To Black Americans, the most convincing example was the swiftness and seriousness with which the Soviets began redressing historical inequality suffered by the Jews, including immediately outlawing discrimination against them and putting an end to the violent pogroms that had plagued them under the Tsar. In 1923 Claude McKay, the young Black intellectual, writer and poet wrote:

“For American Negroes the indisputable and outstanding fact of the Russian Revolution is that a mere handful of Jews, much less in ratio to the number of Negroes in the American population, have attained, through the Revolution, all the political and social rights that were denied to them under the regime of the Czar (166).”

The other two factors explored by James were the “uncompromising rhetoric of anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism, and the right of self-determination for oppressed nations (165)” espoused by the Bolshevik government and the creation of the Third Communist International, an international body that openly encouraged colonized (often Black or Brown) people to rise up against their (mostly European) exploiters all over the world.

At a point when the U.S. government had systematically ignored the pleas of Black people to pass even one federal law against lynching, when city and state governments all over the country were colluding in lynchings, race riots and allowing whites who attacked Blacks to go free, or even reap rewards – it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why many Black thinkers were genuinely excited that such a different kind of government, one that spoke to them and had taken action to support and defend its own national minorities, had come into the world.

Black and white (film)

Langston Hughes was a Black intellectual of this generation, this being the same generation that we associate with the Harlem Renaissance and the New Negro. Of all the insults buried in that heinous Root article, the disrespect to Langston Hughes, inarguably one of the greatest American writers of the 20th century, is one of the most difficult to endure.

Starr paints Hughes as a dupe, someone “recruited” to champion the Soviet Union, as if the man had not traveled all over the world, studied and written extensively and was not capable of genuinely supporting a government that he believed to be on the right track. We revere Hughes’ poetry that celebrates Black beauty, he is the jazz poet laureate of Black America and we love to recite his words that affirm our deep history and continued struggle in the face of white American racism. But what about his poetry celebrating the Soviet Union? Here’s a link to a poem that he wrote praising Lenin. Did they break that one out at your school’s Black history month event? Probably not. But that doesn’t change the fact that Langston Hughes was extremely sympathetic to the Soviet Union, as is abundantly evident in his autobiographical writing, including in the chapter of I Wonder As I Wander, “Moscow Movie.”

Langston Hughes in Turkmenistan

The Root provides perhaps the most cynical and shallow reading of this chapter possible, though I hesitate to affirm that that author of that piece has even actually read it. “Moscow Movie” tells an important story about a time in 1932 when Langston Hughes was invited to the Soviet Union by the government, to work on a major film production. This film was called “Black and White” and it was supposed to highlight the struggle of Black workers in the South and give an international showcase to the racism and oppression experienced by Black people in America. According to Langston Hughes, it was “intended to be the first great Negro-white film ever made in the world (80),” though unfortunately it did not come to fruition.

Hughes accompanied a delegation of 22 young African Americans who were supposed to star in the film, though it was odd that most in that group were not actors or performers by trade. Starr erroneously attributes this casting to racism, saying that Hughes determined that the Soviets were so racist that they assumed that all Black people could sing and dance (and play sports?) and so didn’t bother to check the backgrounds of the people they hired for the film.

In fact, Hughes said nothing of the sort. He addressed the peculiar composition of the delegation early in the chapter, stating,

“That most of our group were not actors seems to have been due to the fact that very few professional theater people were willing to pay their own fares to travel all the way to Russia to sign contracts they had never seen. Only a band of eager, adventurous young students, teachers, writers and would-be-actors were willing to do that, looking forward to the fun and wonder of a foreign land as much as to film-making. There were a few among them who wanted to get away from American race prejudice forever, being filled up with Jim Crow (70).”

It’s important that Hughes highlighted their motives as traveling to seek a reprieve from American racism. So high was the esteem for the Soviet Union in the group, that

“When the train stopped beneath this banner for passports to be checked, a few of the young black men and women left the train to touch their hands to Soviet soil, lift the new earth in their palms, and kiss it (73),” according to Hughes.

In his accusations of racism what Starr may be referring to is where Hughes says at one point,

“Europeans as well as Americans, seem to be victims of that old cliche that Negroes just naturally sing (80).”

That is hardly an indictment of any particularly Russian racism and more of a complaint on how African Americans are represented on the world stage.

Lack of specific cultural knowledge about African Americans was a problem throughout the film’s production and that is what Hughes believes ultimately damned the film. Hughes was given an early copy of the script and let them know that he did not think it was usable because there were so many errors with regard to what racism and working class struggle actually looked like in the American South. Hughes said that the author of the script was well intentioned but had never been to America. He also said that information from or by Black Americans was rarely translated into Russian in those days. Even with these critiques, it’s nearly impossible to interpret Hughes as being at all bitter or resentful at the Soviets for their attempt at making this film. On the contrary, Hughes wrote with unmistakable good humour throughout the chapter and also repeatedly mentioned that they were all paid in full and well taken care of, even when it became clear the film wouldn’t be made.

The reception that the students received in Moscow is really remarkable, especially considering the historical context – none of which The Root brings up, of course. The students were “wined and dined” in Hughes’ own words, they were put up in the most lavish hotels and treated to free tickets to the theater, the opera, the ballet and dinners and parties with dignitaries and important people, almost every night. They were official guests of the state and treated with the highest honors. No Black delegation has ever been received in America with such grace. Hughes says that they were always introduced as “representatives of the great Negro people (82)” and after describing the incredible amenities at one of the elaborate resorts they were housed in, he adds “I had never stayed in such a hotel in my own country, since, as a rule, Negroes were not then permitted to do so (93).”

On their reception by ordinary Soviet citizens, Hughes writes:

“Of all the big cities in the world where I’ve been, the Muscovites seemed to me to be the politest of peoples to strangers. But perhaps that was because we were Negroes and, at that time, with the Scottsboro Case on world-wide trial in the papers everywhere, and especially in Russia, folks went out of their way there to show us courtesy. On a crowded bus, nine times out of ten, some Russian would say, “Negrochanski tovarish – Negro comrade – take my seat!’ On the streets queueing up for newspapers or cigarettes, or soft drinks, often folks in line would say, “Let the Negro comrade go forward.” (74)

This is in 1932! Nowhere in America were Black people treated like this in 1932. Hell, many of us could not get that treatment today, if our lives depended on it (and they sometimes do). This account echoes many others by African Americans who visited or moved to the Soviet Union. In William Mandel’s Soviet but Not Russian, Muhammad Ali is quoted as saying of his 1978 visit to the Soviet Union:

“I saw a hundred nationalities. No such thing as a Black man, or a white man, or ‘you nigger,’ or get back. People say, ‘Oh well, they just showed you the best.’ You mean all of those white folks rehearsed, said: ‘Muhammad Ali’s coming!’ .. ‘All hundred nationalities, pretend you get along. Muhammad Ali’s coming!’…’The just took you where they wanted to go.’ I know that’s a lie. I got in my car and told my driver where to go. Lying about the Russians.. I jogged in the mornings in strange places where they hardly ever saw a Black man. I ran past two little white Russian ladies who were walking to work. They didn’t look around and ask what I was doing. I can’t go jogging in some streets in America in the morning in a white neighborhood.” (85)

The Root tries to paint a picture of a USSR where the same racism that existed in Jim Crow America infected everyone there, but there simply is not enough evidence to say that was the case. They cite the experiences of one Black American man (Robert Robinson), thoroughly. But what about the experiences of the estimated 400,000 African students who were educated for free in the Soviet Union between 1950-1990? These Black youth attended technical schools, Lumumba University and the special Lenin school for leadership, they lived and traveled all over the Soviet Union and upon graduation, they would return to their homelands with skills necessary to aid in the new independence governments. Mandel interviewed quite a few Black Soviets for his book, including other African Americans who moved to the Soviet Union- and the picture they paint is very different from the one in Robinson’s account. Providing no evidence, Starr also asserts that interracial relationships would naturally be a problem in the Soviet Union, saying “both Russian and white American men weren’t cool with their women messing with black men.” Since he introduced the term “bullshit” just before that line, I’m going to call bulls…t on that.

Langston Hughes’ account features many stories of the men in his group dating Soviet women and not a word about anyone batting an eye at such pairings – which in 1932, would have gotten someone lynched in the United States. Please stop projecting American racism onto the Soviet Union, when you just don’t have the evidence to back that up. As W.E.B. Dubois wrote on his third visit to the USSR in 1949, “of all countries, Russia alone has made race prejudice a crime; of all great imperialisms, Russia alone owns no colonies of dark serfs or white and what is more important has no investments in colonies and is lifting no blood-soaked profits from cheap labor in Asia and Africa.” The material basis for widespread Jim Crow style racism just wasn’t there.

Hughes was aware that the western press celebrated the failure of the movie and spread many rumours that they knew to be false concerning the Soviet government maneuvering against the Black students. He writes that Western journalists, who saw them spending money and carousing in Moscow nightclubs, filed stories in the U.S. about how they were going unpaid and neglected.

Hughes wrote that some in his group suspected that the movie was scrapped because the Soviets were sacrificing the Black struggle to appease the American government – but Hughes himself did not believe that. He was one of the only members of the group who saw the script and he was unequivocal in stating that more than anything else, it was the script that caused the project’s failure. Hughes also repeatedly mentioned the context of the international campaign in defense of the Scottsboro Boys, a Black struggle that was most certainly not being dropped by the Soviets, as all this was going on.

The Root miscasts this excerpt from the life of Langston Hughes to support their conclusion that “the Soviets’ attempts to curry favor with the black struggle” was “insincere and downright fraudulent.” I would counter that this anti-communist propaganda is actually “insincere and downright fraudulent” but allow me to present further evidence on the genuine solidarity expressed by the Soviet Union. Sticking with the theme, let’s keep talking about film.

Focus on Africa in film

In the book Focus on African Film, noted film scholar Josephine Woll describes “The Russian Connection” between the Soviet Union and African film, an invaluable alliance in making postcolonial African cinema a reality. As alluded to in the previous section, the Soviet Union expended a lot of resources on aid and development for African nations, who were in the process of throwing off their own colonial oppressors and beginning their independence after World War II. These countries were severely underdeveloped, as chronicled by Walter Rodney and the Soviet Union was a key ally in providing material support, education and technology to allow these countries to thrive without being beholden to their former colonial masters. It’s worth noting that the greatest victory for Black liberation to occur in my lifetime, the fall of apartheid in South Africa, involved a great deal of material and political support from the Soviet Union, which was integral to the success of that movement.

Film was another area in which the Soviet Union provided Africans with crucial foundational support. Ousmane Sembene of Senegal, widely considered the “father of African film” was educated in the Soviet Union. This was also the case for other pioneering African filmmakers, like Souleymane Cissé of Mali and Abderrahmne Sissako of Mauritania/Mali and Sarah Maldoror, the French daughter of immigrants from Guadeloupe who made many films about African liberation. In addition to technical know-how, the Soviet Union also provided the essential film and production equipment, distribution and promotion, to bring African cinema onto the world stage.

Dr. Woll seems to believe that the motives of the Soviets were clearly political, but also genuine. Woll wrote:

“The Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath, radically altered how, why, and for whom films were made. Financial profit still mattered but it competed with other goals: educational, political, promotional. The new regime in post-tsarist Russia, like the new leaders of post-colonial African nations, willingly allocated part of its budget to subsidizing cinema because it recognized how effective the medium could be as an instrument of propaganda; and most Soviet filmmakers in the 1920s, though they had individual and often compelling aesthetic agendas, readily supported the politics of revolution (225).”

In the U.S. we tend to be very cynical of the word “propaganda” but in revolutionary times, propaganda is necessary and the Africans needed aid in producing theirs. Ousmane Sembene clearly agreed; he was adamant about telling compelling political stories through his films and he fully recognized the potential for his films to “help decolonize Africa (225).”

The Soviet Union trained and equipped these African directors, so that they could bring the beauty and the struggle of their people to the world stage. The work of these revolutionary African filmmakers can be seen as a happy ending to the saga that was begun with “Black and White.” While we never got the Soviet sponsored film about Black struggle in the U.S. that they wanted to produce, we have since seen a variety of films out of different African countries that highlight their struggle in similar, but undoubtedly much more accurate, ways.

Conclusion

I realize that this was a lot to write in response to a small article that was probably not even this carefully considered by the author himself. But the legacy of the Soviet Union with regard to Black struggle is unique and inspiring and should be celebrated, not horrifically distorted and denied. In Paul Robeson Speaks, the great Black American actor says:

“Mankind has never witnessed the equal of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. . . . Firstly, because of the significance it has for my people generally. Everywhere else, outside of the Soviet world, black men are an oppressed and inhumanely exploited people. Here, they come within the provisions of Article 123 of Chapter X of the Constitution, which reads: “The equality of the right of the citizens of the U.S.S.R. irrespective of their nationality or race, in all fields of economic, state, cultural, social, and political life, is an irrevocable law. Any direct or indirect restriction of these rights, or conversely the establishment of direct or indirect privileges for citizens on account of the race or nationality to which they belong, as well as the propagation of racial or national exceptionalism, or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.” (1978, 116)

Paul Robeson in the USSR

While our current President appoints KKK members to the Department of Justice and calls Nazi murderers “very fine people,” while his opponent Hillary Clinton called our children “super predators” and campaigned for them to be locked up en masse- we have to appreciate how significant it is that a national government – in 1919 – put laws on the books like ones described above. They outlawed racism. They invested heavily in Black education and Black artistic expression. They gave guns to those fighting imperialists and fascists all over the world. What more could you want? Terrell Jermaine Starr and The Root may be confused about which government cares about Black people, but I can’t say that I am. I’m proud to be a socialist and I’m proud of the legacy of friendship between my people and the USSR.

As I mentioned in the start of this article, calling Africans who fight for their liberation “Commies” or “dupes” is nothing new. John Hope Franklin referred to this in From Slavery to Freedom, saying that the response to Black self-defense against race riots in 1919 caused such speculation:

“Many American whites freely suggested that foreign influences – especially … Bolshevik propaganda after the 1917 Russian Revolution — had caused blacks to fight back. Perhaps there is some truth to that… However, black Americans all along the political spectrum (from conservative, to moderate, to radical left) ridiculed the claim that their new assertiveness was the result of ‘outside agitation.’ American blacks needed no outsiders to awaken their sense of the tremendous contradiction between America’s professed beliefs and its actual practices (362)”.

That remains as true today as it was when written. Additionally, I’ll close with one more statement from that time, which also remains true, for myself at least. The militant Black Harlem publication The Crusader, under the leadership of fiery Black Communist Cyril Briggs declared in 1919: “If to fight for one’s rights is to be Bolshevists, then we are Bolshevists and let them make the most of it!”

Sources

Hughes, Langston. (1984). I wonder as I wander: An autobiographical journey. New York: Hill and Wang.

Robeson, Paul. (1978). Paul Robeson speaks: Writings, speeches, interviews 1918-1974, ed. by P.S. Foner. New York: Citadel.

This article was originally published by Liberation School.

Melbourne.

“Be careful, you might get run over.” So squawks an administrator from the local RMIT University as she dashes towards Princess Park, Melbourne. The need for this jet propulsion enthusiasm is clear: a gathering is being organised in the park, amongst other venues, in a national day of action. The bogeyman? The Indian monster mining concern, Adani.

Across some 45 venues in Australia, protestors gathered, banners flown, speeches given. “I have a two-year old daughter,” exclaimed Bondi surf life saver Simon Fosterling at the Sydney end of the protest on Saturday, “and I don’t want to have a conversation with her in 10 years time and the mine’s gone ahead and she says to me ‘dad, why didn’t you do something’.”[1]

Adani is one of many examples how a world after democracy works, with a country’s functionaries – in this case Australia’s – no better than bureaucrats pushing the agenda of the unelected, giving funeral orations on sovereignty. Exit democracy; welcome lobbies and sweetheart deals.

When members of parliament enthusiastically extend their hands to a company which has little intention of being left to the predations of the free market, we know that the world has been inverted. Natural economic selection might be what is promoted by the free-traders, but the practice is a fiction.

Behind many a significant Australian politician is a staffer, a lobbyist, or an obscure official with some profane tie to the natural resource industry. (Think Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and Adani lobbyist and Bill Shorten’s former chief of staff Cameron Milner.[2])

In Australia, those against market intervention, coddling and backing fortunate “winners” against unfortunate losers, don different hats when to comes to certain industries. In those instances, parliamentarians become socialists for the corporation, divvying up tax dollars for those engaged in sacred pursuits, especially those renting the earth.

Be it a fawning Labor government in Queensland (water rights and royalty concessions) or the accommodating Conservative government in Canberra (a huge loan), Australian politicians have been salivating at every chance to throw money at the Indian concern. This is rampant corporate colonialism, and the natives have arms widely stretched in almost treasonous welcome.

Source: Climate Change Moreland

The glowing achievement of this effort will be a near billion dollar loan for the company, footed by the Australian tax payer via the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. The money will subsidise a proposed railway line from the mine site in the Galilee Basin to Abbot Point coal port.

The effort is all the more impressive in its soiled quality given the steadfast refusal by the banking sector to fork out anything for the corporation. Adani’s efforts have so far failed to convince any major bank that their Australian coal venture is a sound one. Coal is seeing its last days, and only the dinosaurs continue worshipping at its shrine.

The impetus for some of the organisers behind the Saturday protest came from the juicy outlining of Adani’s exploits in the ABC’s Four Corners program, though Stop Adani and a range of groups have been busy documenting the company’s exploits for some years. The court record of the company, spanning employment, environmental and criminal law, is thick.

The ABC team did much in revealing the nature of Adani’s corrupt modus operandi while also receiving a disconcerting welcome at the hands of police whilst being detained in an Indian hotel. But it also revealed a stunned former Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, who could barely believe that Australia’s public purse was being allied to the company’s venture.

“I’m very, very surprised that the Australian government, uh, for whatever reason, uh, has uh, seen it fit, uh, to all along handhold Mr Adani.”[3]

A central fear about its proposed operations is what will happen to the environment, most notably the already imperilled Great Barrier Reef. Ravaged by coral bleaching and climate change, the reef’s fragile existence is further threatened an Indian family’s private interests. Imagine, for instance, a repeat of the 2011 oil spill off the coast of Mumbai, where an unseaworthy vessel carrying 60,054 metric tonnes of Adani coal found its way to the bottom of the ocean.

Added to that the company’s reluctance in pursuing cleaning up operations, and the picture gets gloomier, given that 60 million tones of coal could be passing through the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area.

The company’s operations over the years reveal a persistent track record of ecological criminality and despoliation, thinning out tourism industries, destroying beaches and poisoning rivers. To this can be added contentious and patently dangerous employment practices, some involving child labour.

To add a delightful rounder to the resume, Adani is also adept in its book keeping. Evading taxation is one of its fortes, with Environmental Justice Australia and Earthjustice noting how “13 of the 26 Adani subsidiaries registered in Australia are ultimately owned in the Cayman Islands.”[4] This must surely be the more ironic, if fiendishly brilliant endeavour: to avoid paying tax while receiving tax funds.

Saturday saw the release by the Stop Adani group of polling figures by ReachTEL that 56 percent of Australians were against the mine. (This, of course, is hardly overwhelming opposition, but counts as something.)

The movement against Adani has found public voice, and gathering momentum. Environmental prudence is finally finding steam, supported by apocalyptic visions of poisoned reefs and river beds. The political agents of mismanagement are, however, ready to do their worst. Mining fundamentalism remains in charge.

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

Notes

To say that the U.S. public don’t care if ‘news’media lie, is shocking, but I shall here present evidence that it actually is true — not in some mere theory, but in empirical fact.

A typical example of Americans not caring about the truthfulness, nor even about the honesty, of their sources of alleged ‘news’, is that, during the period of October 3rd through the 5th, there were two news-reports both of which were true, but which, when taken together, display the total disconnect between newsmedia-honesty, on the one hand, and the confidence that the American people have in the nation’s ‘news’media, on the other.

One of these two news-reports was published on October 5th by the anonymous blogger who has come to be, amongst readers who closely follow and investigate the war in Syria, the most-trusted source of reporting on it, and the article was headlined, “Russia Issues Third Warning Against U.S. Cooperation With Terrorists”, and it provided links to each of the three recent instances in which the U.S. Government was cooperating with ISIS to defeat Syria and its defender Russia, in Syria. It summarily described the ways in which the U.S. had been exposed (but not by U.S. ‘news’media) as having been providing vital intelligence and other crucial assistance to ISIS, in ISIS’s efforts to overthrow and replace the existing Syrian Government (headed by Bashar al-Assad). That report should be read by anyone who proceeds further here, because it covers events that were certainly of top international importance and that might even precipitate war between the U.S. and Russia, but which were reported little if at all in U.S. ’news’media.

Of course, it would be very bad for U.S. ’news’media to allow the U.S. to become involved in a nuclear war against Russia and to have hidden, from the American public, the U.S. Government’s provocations which had produced such a war. The U.S. here was helping ISIS kill Russian and Syrian soldiers in Syria, who are trying to eradicate ISIS and all other jihadist groups there (including Al Qaeda etc.). Obviously, ISIS is not popular amongst the American public; and, for the United States to be constantly condemning ISIS in public, while secretly assisting ISIS to kill Russian troops and Syrian Government troops inside Syria (whose Government had invited Russia into the war to assist it to survive the onslaughts from ISIS and from the other U.S.-backed fundamentalist-Sunni jihadist groups who are backed also by Saudi Arabia and by some other fundamentalist-Islamic Sunni governments, as well as by the U.S. Government), would be disapproved of by the American people, if they were to have been informed of it. Some Americans would even be disturbed to recognize that the U.S. and its allies in Syria are all invaders there, very unlike those Russian troops are, because Russians are allies of the existing government — quite the opposite of invaders (such as the U.S. and its allies there). Some Americans dislike not only ISIS, but invaders and invasions, on basic principle. But American ‘news’media are very supportive of all of the U.S. Government’s invasions — Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. So, that was a very important article about very important matters that are being hidden from the U.S. public by the U.S. ‘news’ media.

The other news-report was from Reuters, and it headlined, on October 3rd, “The press, branded the ‘enemy’ by Trump, increasingly trusted by the public: Reuters/Ipsos poll”.

The report about the three warnings from Russia, proves (as do many other evidences) the deceit, the selective covering-up of crucial facts, by the U.S. press. It’s not a “press” in the democratic sense, but instead a pro-invasion propaganda-operation — it is a propaganda-operation (as that October 5th article proved, and I have documented also many times, such as here, here, and here). However, Reuters reports that “The poll of more than 14,300 people found that the percentage of adults who said they had a “great deal” or “some” confidence in the press rose to 48 percent in September from 39 percent last November.”

How much sheer lying has been exposed (but not by the press) about America’s press, during that time? I, and many others who are not in the press, or who are no longer in the press, have reported plenty of it (such as I’ve linked-to here, and others are, in turn, additionally linked-to in each one of those articles about our scandalous American press-institution). Here, then, are a few of my own recent reports about important context for accurately interpreting this Reuters article, which is intentionally not mentioned (but is instead hidden) by Reuters:

One, just a few weeks ago, headlined “U.S. Near Bottom In Public Trust Of Newsmedia” and reported that:

“According to the most extensive study ever done of the public’s usages of, and trust in, the newsmedia in their country — a study that (in late January early February) scientifically sampled thousands of people in each one of 36 different industrialized countries — the United States scored #28, which was in the bottom 22% of all 36 nations, regarding the public’s trust of the newsmedia.”

“Irish people under the age of 35 are more likely to pay for online news, according to the latest Oxford Reuters Digital News Report published today. The report notes that, despite growing up with free online entertainment, younger people have developed the habit of paying for some media. In Ireland, the 18-24 and 25-34 age groups are most likely to pay for online news, at 12 per cent and 13 per cent respectively. Irish people have a strong interest in news and have higher levels of trust in the news media than the international average, according to the report.” 

And, my news-report on it pointed out that the Reuters study showed far below-average public confidence in the ‘news’media by Americans as opposed to the global average. But when, just a few months later, Reuters did a story which showed that Americans’ trust in the ‘news’media had increased, that merited a Reuters news-story to the general press, even though their global study, which had been published just months earlier, and which showed widespread distrust by Americans of the ‘news’media as compared to the publics in other countries, Reuters informed only PR agencies and ‘journalism’ corporations and professors about that study, and without any indication ever to anyone that the distrust of the press by the publics in a few countries, such as France and America, was very high (and that it was astronomically high in Greece and in Korea — only 23% trust in each). The ‘news’media hide their rottennesses, instead of investigating and reporting them.

Obviously, the press does a big cover-up job on its own rottennesses, which are institutional, and not merely “a few bad apples.”

Other news-reports that I have done on this subject include, for example,  a report about how the press hid from the public the fact that when George W. Bush said on 7 September 2002 that the IAEA had found that Saddam Hussein was only six months from having a nuclear bomb, the press hid from the public the IAEA’s prompt and repeated statements that they had never issued any such finding or report at all. The invasion was based on such lies and cover-ups. After commonly repeated instances such as that, going on for so many years, and always hiding that the U.S. Government is lying in order to invade some country or other, why doesn’t the U.S. public yet recognize that the U.S. press is what one finds in a dictatorship such as the U.S. has been proven to be, and not an authentic journalistic institution at all. If the Greeks and Koreans have a 23% level of trust in their ‘news’media, is the only reason for Americans’ having a 38% level of trust (as shown on page 21) the U.S. media’s greater effectiveness at fooling its public?

This news-report will (as I routinely do) be submitted to all U.S. national ‘news’media for publication. How many do you think will publish it? And, how many of those will be major ‘news’media? Just google the headline here, “U.S. Public Don’t Care if ‘News’media Lie”, in order to find out which the honest few actually are. But don’t trust Google, either. The entire media-institution is rotten. And, it’s not because of errors. It’s because of the lies and the cover-ups, which are systematic, and which pump things to support the ideology that’s called “neoliberalism” in economics, and “neoconservatism” in foreign policies. It used to be called simply: “imperialism.” It’s the modern ideology of dictatorship. It’s the ideology of the American press, and that’s an overwhelmingly documented fact — no mere hypothesis, at all.

The U.S. ‘news’media drown the public in neoliberal-neoconservative propaganda. And that’s the reason why online-searching for this headline won’t find this article at the New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, CNN, Slate, etc. — not at any of the ‘news’ media that pumped in 2002 and 2003 for invading Iraq. Nothing has changed about the U.S. press during at least the past 15 years. And the American public just don’t much care that they’re being constantly lied-to by the major ‘news’media and are voting on that deceived basis.

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

This article was originally published by Strategic Culture Foundation where the featured image was sourced.

Featured image: Masoud Barzani (Source: The Kurdish Project)

Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region announced that it would hold a referendum on independence on Monday, Sept. 25, 2017. The realization of Kurdistan Regional Independence means the beginning of the disintegration of the countries of the region and the comprehensive security crisis in the countries of the region.

• The Iraqi Kurdistan Region is only the part of the country known as “the Kurdistan Region” with a certain level of autonomy and its capital is Erbil. The region has an independent parliament, judiciary, and security force. However, the Iraqi central government has legal authority over issues related to foreign policy and also the distribution of oil revenues.

• This referendum is opposed by the Iraqi central government and all the countries of the region. The United States is also opposed to the time of the referendum in the current situation in the region, not with the principle of independence. England‏ is more interested in this referendum and the declaration of independence from any other country.

• In real position, Turkey in spite of close economic, energy and security ties with Masoud Barzani has posed serious threats against Erbil. Turkey’s direct access to Kurdistan’s energy sources is very beneficial for the country. The Turks have faced the stark choice in a contradiction between their economic interests and their security and political interests.

Israel is the only regime that frankly supports independence for the Kurdistan region of Iraq, because:

• It considers the independence in line with the advancement of its interests.

• The breakdown of the countries in the region is the greatest geopolitical advantage for the country.

• Masoud Barzani knows well that neither Iraq nor the region is prepared to accept an Independent Kurdistan at the present time, but why does he seriously play with this card? If we accept that the final goal of the referendum is to form an Independent Kurdish State, but Masoud Barzani, knowing that it would not be accepted by the countries in the region, has used the referendum as a lever to gain more advantage from Baghdad for the Iraqi parliamentary elections in 2018 and also an excuse to escape from the domestic political crisis in the region.

Any kind of conscious and unconscious move towards Iraq’s disintegration is opposed by the governments in the region. If we pass on the description of different dimensions of Kurdistan independence referendum, it will be desirable to pay attention to the point.

The time of CIA support of religious extremism under cover of al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIL and Al-Nusra Front has passed. This can NOT be an effective method to serve America’s interests in the Middle East and even the European Union.

The endless separatism in Islamic countries and the support of separatist movements as the effective oppositions have been one of the old methods of controlling governments’ behavior and providing America’s interests. Therefore, Trump era may have been called the time of using the endless separatism technique to serve America’s interests in the Middle East.

Israeli forces continued with systematic crimes in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) for the week of 28 September – 04 October 2017.

6 Palestinian civilians, including 3 children, were wounded in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Shooting:

During the reporting period, Israeli forces wounded 6 Palestinian civilians, including 3 children, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  In the Gaza Strip, Israeli naval forces continued to chase Palestinian fishermen in the Sea.

In the West Bank, 28 September 2017, a Palestinian child in Beit Sorik village, northwest of occupied Jerusalem, was hit with several bullets.  However, his condition is so far unknown as the Israeli forces arrested him.

On 29 September 2017, A Palestinian civilian was hit with a rubber-coated metal bullet when Israeli forces moved into the areas of Jabal al-Mawaleh and Wadi Shahin in Bethlehem. Meanwhile, dozens of children and young men gathered in Shahin area and threw stones and empty bottles at the Israeli vehicles.  The Israeli soldiers in response opened fire at them.

On 03 October 2017, 3 civilians, including a child, were wounded when Israeli forces moved into Sho’afat refugee camp, north of occupied Jerusalem, to arrest some of the camp’s residents.  A number of children and young men gathered to throw stones and empty bottles at the Israeli soldiers, who chased them and then randomly fired sound bombs, tear gas canisters and rubber-coated metal bullets in the area.  As a result, the three civilians were wounded.

In the Gaza Strip, the border areas witnessed protests against the ongoing unjust closure on the Gaza population.  During the protests, the Israeli forces used force against the protestors and opened fire in order to disperse them.  As a result, a child sustained shrapnel wounds to the neck.

In the pretext of targeting Palestinian fishermen in the Sea, on 01 October 2017, Israeli gunboats sporadically opened fire at the Palestinian fishing boats, northwest of Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip and chased them.  The shooting recurred in the same area in the morning.

On 29 September 2017, Israeli gunboats sporadically opened fire at the Palestinian fishing boats, west of al-Soudaniya, west of Jabalia in the northern Gaza Strip, and chased them.  The shooting recurred in the same morning and on 30 September.  During all those incidents, no casualties were reported; however, the fishermen were forced to flee for fear of being wounded, arrested or their boats being confiscated.

Collective Punishment Measures:

For the second consecutive week, Israeli forces continued to close the northwestern side of occupied Jerusalem, by closing all the roads to this area.  The closure included 16 Palestinian villages.  Those restrictions came after Nemer al-Jamal carried out a shooting attack at the entrance to “Har Adar” settlement and killed 3 Israeli soldiers.  The closure disrupted the school year in around 50 schools with 4000 students in addition to completely hindering the daily life in the area.  The Israeli forces also denied ambulances, journalists, and international organizations access to the area.  Moreover, Israeli forces totally isolated Beit Iksa village from the nearby villages and banned all civilians from leaving or entering the village.

On 03 October 2017, Israeli forces handed Nemer al-Jamal’s family a house demolition notice and gave them 72 hours to implement the demolition. The notice included evacuating their house and submitting an appeal before the Israeli court within this period.

Settlement Activities and Settlers’ Attacks against Palestinian Civilians and their property:

As part of restrictions imposed on Palestinian farmers during the olive harvest season, on 01 October 2017, Israeli forces forced farmers from ‘Azoun village, east of Qalqilya, to go home when the later were on their way to harvest olives from their lands near “Ma’ale Shomron”settlement, north of the abovementioned village. A number of farmers said that when they headed to Khelet al-Romanah and Khelet Abu Zeinah areas, Israeli soldiers arrived at the areas and expelled them so that they return to their lands after 16 October 2017.

Restrictions on movement:

Israel continued to impose a tight closure of the oPt, imposing severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem.

The illegal closure of the Gaza Strip, which has been steadily tightened since June 2007 has had a disastrous impact on the humanitarian and economic situation in the Gaza Strip.  The Israeli authorities impose measures to undermine the freedom of trade, including the basic needs for the Gaza Strip population and the agricultural and industrial products to be exported. For 9 consecutive years, Israel has tightened the land and naval closure to isolate the Gaza Strip from the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem, and other countries around the world. This resulted in grave violations of the economic, social and cultural rights and a deterioration of living conditions for 2 million people.  The Israeli authorities have established Karm Abu Salem (Kerem Shaloum) as the sole crossing for imports and exports in order to exercise its control over the Gaza Strip’s economy.  They also aim at imposing a complete ban on the Gaza Strip’s exports. The Israeli closure raised the rate of poverty to 65%. Moreover, the rate of unemployment increased up to 47% and youth constitutes 65% of the unemployed persons.  Moreover, 80% of the Gaza Strip population depends on international aid to secure their minimum daily needs. These rates indicate the unprecedented economic deterioration in the Gaza Strip.

In the West Bank, Israeli forces continued to suffocate the Palestinian cities and village by imposing military checkpoints around and/or between them. This created “cantons” isolated from each other that hinders the movement of civilians. Moreover, the Palestinian civilians suffering aggravated because of the annexation wall and checkpoints erected on daily basis to catch Palestinians.

Demonstrations in protest against the annexation wall and settlement activities

West Bank:

• Following the Friday prayer, 29 September 2017, dozens of Palestinian civilians and Israeli and international human rights defenders organized protests in Bil’in and Ni’lin villages, west of Ramallah; al-Nabi Saleh village, northwest of the city. Israeli forces forcibly dispersed the protesters, firing live and rubber-coated metal bullets, tear gas canisters and sound bombs. They also chased protesters into olive fields and between the houses. As a result, some of the protesters suffered tear gas inhalation while others sustained bruises as Israeli soldiers beat them up.

Gaza Strip:

• At approximately 14:30 on Friday, 29 September 2017, about 30 Palestinian youngsters made their way to the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel, east of al-Buraij refugee in the central Gaza Strip, in protest against the Israeli closure imposed on the Gaza Strip. The youngsters gathered near the security fence and set fire to tires. They also raised banners and flags and threw stones at the Israeli soldiers stationed along the border fence. The soldiers sporadically fired live bullets and tear gas canisters for an hour and a half at the protestors and agricultural lands located to the west of the abovementioned border fence. As a result, a 16-year-old child sustained a live bullet shrapnel wound to the neck while others suffered tear gas inhalation. The wounded child was transferred to Shuhadaa’ al-Aqsa hospital in Deir el-Balah. His wounds were classified as minor.

(PCHR keeps the name of the wounded child)

Collective punishment:

• On Thursday, 28 September 2017, for the third consecutive day, Israeli forces continued to close the northwestern area of occupied Jerusalem, which includes 16 Palestinian villages. They closed all roads to the area after the attack in “Har Adar” settlement carried out by Nemer Mahmoud al-Jamal, killing 3 Israeli soldiers.

The closure included the Tunnel Road that leads to Badou village, Beit ‘Anan-Beit Laqia Road in addition to the internal roads between the villages. The Israeli forces continued their incursions, suppression and detention of families in Beit Surik village, which is Nemer al-Jamal’s hometown. They also distributed a statement to the village residents, ordering them not to move outside their homes, “and whoever does so, he will be shot.” Moreover, the Israeli forces arrested Rami al-Jamal from Beit Surik village in the morning. They also raided the condolences house of al-Jamal and fired tear gas canisters and sound bombs. They then confiscated dozens of vehicles from Beit Surik and Badou villages.

The closure disrupted the school year in about 50 schools that include more than 4000 students in addition to hindering the daily life in general in the area. In the same time, the Israeli forces issued several orders to stop construction-works and threatened to demolish the unlicensed buildings. They also permanently seized houses belonging to al-Jamal family in Beit Surik village. They banned ambulances, media crews and international organizations from entering the area. Beit Eksa village was also isolated from the nearby villages, and the Israeli forces prevented civilians from entering and leaving the village.

On Thursday evening, the Israeli forces raided and searched several houses in Badou village amidst an intensive firing of live bullets. They arrested 3 children namely Hamadah Jamal Abu ‘Eid (17), Walid Reyad al-Dali (14), and Yazid Hamdan (15).

In the early hours on Tuesday, 03 October 2017, Israeli forces moved into Beit Surik village, northwest of occupied Jerusalem. They raided and searched a house belonging to the family of Nemer al-Jamal, who carried out the “Har Adar” settlement attack. They handed the family a demolition notice and gave them 72 hours to carry out the demolition. The notice included evacuating the house or filing an appeal to the Israeli court within the mentioned period.

Efforts to Create Jewish majority

Israeli forces escalated their attacks on Palestinian civilians and their property. They have also continued their raids on al-Aqsa Mosque and denied the Palestinians access to it:

• Arrests and Incursions:

• At approximately 06:00 on Monday, 02 October 2017, Israeli forces moved into Silwan village, south of occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City. They raided and searched a house belonging to Fo’ad Ahmed al-Qaq (20) and handed him a summons to refer to the Israeli Intelligence Service in Salah al-Deen police center in the center of occupied East Jerusalem.

• At approximately 04:00, Israeli forces moved into Beit Sorik village, northwest of occupied Jerusalem. They raided and searched a house belonging to Ameer al-Ghazawi and arrested him.

• At approximately 01:00 on Tuesday, 03 October 2017, Israeli forces moved into Sho’fat refugee camp, north of occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City. They raided and searched dozens of houses from which they arrested Sa’ied al-Dabit, Mo’min al-Debis, Khadir al-Debis, ‘Odai al-Dabit, Tahseen al-Rajbi, and Iyyas al-Rajbi. A group of Palestinian young men gathered and threw stones and empty bottles at the Israeli forces, who indiscriminately fired sound bombs, tear gas canisters, and rubber-coated-metal bullets at them. As a result, an 11-year-old child was hit with a metal bullet to the eye, while another young man and an elderly man were hit with 2 rubber-coated metal bullets to the limbs. They were then taken to hospital to receive medical treatment.

• At approximately 01:00 on Wednesday, 04 October 2017, Israeli forces moved into Hizmah village, northeast of occupied Jerusalem. They raided and searched a house belonging to Kifah Saleh Badran al-Khatib and arrested him.

• At approximately 04:00, Israeli forces moved into Silwan village, south of occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City. They raided and searched a house belonging to Loai Sami al-Rajabi (22) and arrested him.

• At approximately 07:00 on Wednesday, Israeli forces moved into occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City. They raided and searched a house belonging to Abed al-Rahman al-Hashlamoun (13) and arrested him.

• Settlement activities and attacks by settlers against Palestinian civilians and property

 Israeli forces’ attacks:

• At approximately 08:00 on Sunday, 01 October 2017, Israeli forces ordered Palestinian farmers from ‘Azoun village, east of Qalqiliyia, to go back to their houses while harvesting olives near “Ma’ale Shamron” settlement, north of the village. The heirs of late Khalil Amer, late Abdul Rahman Amer Suwaidan and Rafiq Rashid Suwaidan went to Khellet al-Rummaneh area. The Israeli forces then arrived at the area and expelled all of them, telling them that they are allowed to come to the area after 16 October 2017. The Israeli forces also expelled Hasan Rasem Shubitah, Adam Ahmed Badwan, Mahmoud Yousef Abu Zahra, Ali Wajeeh ‘Odwan, Monther Hasan Jadou’, and Sa’ied Mahmoud Badwan from their lands in Khellet Abu Zinah.

Hasan Rasen said to PCHR’s fieldworker that:

“At approximately 08:00 on Sunday, 01 October 2017, on my holiday, I headed to my agricultural land in Khellet Abu Zinah in order to pick olives along with my relative and farmers, who own agricultural lands in the same area.  We usually go together to our lands as they are located near settlements.  We try as fast as we can to pick the olives due to the security situation in the area. In the first day when we arrived, a group of Israeli forces came and expelled us. In the next day, we came back, and a large force of Israeli soldiers came and expelled us as well. An Israeli officer told us that we are allowed to come to the area after 16 October 2017.”

Israeli settlers’ attacks:

• At approximately 01:00 on Thursday, 28 September 2017, dozens of buses carrying Israeli settlers entered Joseph’s Tomb in Balatet al-Balad village, east of Nablus, under the Israeli forces’ protection. Dozens of Palestinian young men gathered in the vicinity of Joseph’s Tomb and at the entrances to Balatah and ‘Askar refugee camps. The youngsters threw stones and empty bottles at Israeli soldiers, who fired live bullets, rubber-coated metal bullets, sound bombs and tear gas canisters at them. The Israeli forces also chased them in the camps’ streets and alleys. In the morning, after the Israeli settlers performed their Talmudic prayers, the Israeli forces withdrew and no casualties were reported.

Recommendations to the International Community

PCHR warns of the escalating settlement construction in the West Bank, the attempts to legitimize settlement outposts established on Palestinian lands in the West Bank and the continued summary executions of Palestinian civilians under the pretext that they pose a security threat to the Israeli forces. PCHR reminds the international community that thousands of Palestinian civilians have been rendered homeless and lived in caravans under tragic circumstances due to the latest Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip that has been under a tight closure for almost 10 years. PCHR welcomes the UN Security Council’s Resolution No. 2334, which states that settlements are a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions and calls upon Israel to stop them and not to recognize any demographic change in the oPt since 1967.  PCHR hopes this resolution will pave the way for eliminating the settlement crime and bring to justice those responsible for it. PCHR further reiterates that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are still under Israeli occupation in spite of Israel’s unilateral disengagement plan of 2005.  PCHR emphasizes that there is international recognition of Israel’s obligation to respect international human rights instruments and international humanitarian law.  Israel is bound to apply international human rights law and the law of war, sometimes reciprocally and other times in parallel, in a way that achieves the best protection for civilians and remedy for the victims.

1. PCHR calls upon the international community to respect the Security Council’s Resolution No. 2334 and to ensure that Israel respects it as well, in particular point 5 which obliges Israel not to deal with settlements as if they were part of Israel.

2. PCHR calls upon the ICC in 2017 to open an investigation into Israeli crimes committed in the oPt, particularly the settlement crimes and the 2014 offensive on the Gaza Strip.

3. PCHR Calls upon the European Union (EU) and all international bodies to boycott settlements and ban working and investing in them in application of their obligations according to international human rights law and international humanitarian law considering settlements as a war crime.

4. PCHR calls upon the international community to use all available means to allow the Palestinian people to enjoy their right to self-determination through the establishment of the Palestinian State, which was recognized by the UN General Assembly with a vast majority, using all international legal mechanisms, including sanctions to end the occupation of the State of Palestine.

5. PCHR calls upon the international community and United Nations to take all necessary measures to stop Israeli policies aimed at creating a Jewish demographic majority in Jerusalem and at voiding Palestine from its original inhabitants through deportations and house demolitions as a collective punishment, which violates international humanitarian law, amounting to a crime against humanity.

6. PCHR calls upon the international community to condemn summary executions carried out by Israeli forces against Palestinians and to pressurize Israel to stop them.

7. PCHR calls upon the States Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC to work hard to hold Israeli war criminals accountable.

8. PCHR calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions to fulfill their obligations under article (1) of the Convention to ensure respect for the Conventions under all circumstances, and under articles (146) and (147) to search for and prosecute those responsible for committing grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions to ensure justice and remedy for Palestinian victims, especially in light of the almost complete denial of justice for them before the Israeli judiciary.

9. PCHR calls upon the international community to speed up the reconstruction process necessary because of the destruction inflicted by the Israeli offensive on Gaza.

10. PCHR calls for a prompt intervention to compel the Israeli authorities to lift the closure that obstructs the freedom of movement of goods and 1.8 million civilians that experience unprecedented economic, social, political and cultural hardships due to collective punishment policies and retaliatory action against civilians.

11. PCHR calls upon the European Union to apply human rights standards embedded in the EU-Israel Association Agreement and to respect its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights when dealing with Israel.

12. PCHR calls upon the international community, especially states that import Israeli weapons and military services, to meet their moral and legal responsibility not to allow Israel to use the offensive in Gaza to test new weapons and not accept training services based on the field experience in Gaza in order to avoid turning Palestinian civilians in Gaza into testing objects for Israeli weapons and military tactics.

13. PCHR calls upon the parties to international human rights instruments, especially the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to pressurize Israel to comply with its provisions in the oPt and to compel it to incorporate the human rights situation in the oPt in its reports submitted to the relevant committees.

14. PCHR calls upon the EU and international human rights bodies to pressurize the Israeli forces to stop their attacks against Palestinian fishermen and farmers, mainly in the border area.

Fully detailed document available at the official website of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.

Featured image is from IMEMC News.

Global Research strives for peace, and we have but one mandate: to share timely, independent and vital information to readers across the globe. We act as a global platform to let the voices of dissent, protest, and expert witnesses and academics be heard and disseminated internationally.

We need to stand together to continuously question politics, false statements, and the suppression of independent thought.

Stronger together: your donations are crucial to independent, comprehensive news reporting in the ongoing battle against media disinformation. (click image above to donate)

*     *     *

Nuclear Weapons, ICAN and the Nobel Prize

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, October 08, 2017

Few times in history show the remarkable gulf between international civic action and international political constipation. The will of approaching a world without nuclear weapons has been matched every step of the way with the desire and wish to acquire or keep them.

Challenging the Dollar: China and Russia’s Plan from Petroyuan to Gold

By Federico Pieraccini, October 08, 2017

If we were to identify what uniquely fuels American imperialism and its aspirations for global hegemony, the role of the US dollar would figure prominently. An exploration of the depth of the dollar’s effects on the world economy is therefore necessary in order to understand the consequential geopolitical developments that have occurred over the last few decades.

Britain to Criminalize Reading Online Extremist Content

By Stephen Lendman, October 07, 2017

The latest civil rights abuse came from hardline home secretary Amber Rudd. She’s spearheading a Tory effort to criminalize readership of so-called extremist content online – punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

An Honest Witness: John Pilger on Truth-Telling in the Era of Mainstream Media ‘Fake News’

By Michael Welch and John Pilger, October 07, 2017

Journalists in the truest sense of the word are truth-tellers. They break down artifice and propaganda and keep the powerful on their toes. To quote the aphorism: they comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

Few people on the planet have upheld this principle as long, as diligently and as consistently as John Pilger.

The Six ‘Secret’ Tactics of Empire

By Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin, October 07, 2017

The 6 ‘secret’ tactics of empire are strategies of change used by governments, usually covertly, to attain political or military ends through means not normally acceptable to the populace as a whole.

Trump and ‘His Generals’ on Collision Course over Iran

By Daniel McAdams, October 06, 2017

In what must be a relatively uncommon if not unprecedented move, President Trump’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff —  the country’s senior-most military officer — Gen. Joseph Dunford told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that Iran is complying with the agreement and that the United States would suffer negative consequences if it pulled out of the deal.

The Voice of America reports that on Thursday, Trump met with US military leaders to discuss Iran and North Korea, then staged a photo opportunity with them. He asked the journalists,

“You guys know what this represents? . . . Maybe it’s the calm before the storm.”

What storm?

“You’ll find out.”

Trump has menaced North Korea with “fire and fury” and is now said to be determined to decertify Iran on compliance with the nuclear deal (the International Atomic Energy Agency, which inspects Iran’s nuclear facilities, says Iran is in compliance).

Trump is a blowhard and you can’t pay too much attention to his bluster or you’d never get any sleep.

But what is worrying is that Trump’s poll numbers are cratering in a way unprecedented for any modern president, as a just-released Associated Press poll makes clear:

In March, 42 percent of respondents approved of Trump’s handling of his job.

In late September, only 32 percent said they approved of Trump’s job performance.

67 percent or over 2/3 say they disapprove. Let’s just underline that a 2/3 majority is required in Congress to impeach a president.

Even among Republicans, his approval numbers fell from 80 percent last spring to 67 percent today. (Two-thirds of Republicans apparently wouldn’t care if Bozo the Clown was president as long as he said he was a Republican).

The conjuncture of these two pieces of news– Trump making cryptic but dire threats and Trump’s astonishing unpopularity–creates the threat of a wag the dog scenario.

Americans rally around the flag when the US goes to war, and presidents know this. The 1997 dark comedy film directed by Barry Levinson, “Wag the Dog,” gave its name to this strategy (in the movie, a phony war with Albania is used as a means of distracting the public from a candidate’s sex scandal).

George W. Bush was widely viewed as a buffoon before 9/11 and the Iraq War, and only in 2006 did the buffoon image return to some extent. The war likely saved his presidency, and that may be one of the reasons Bush launched it.

Trump is having the kind of fall from grace politically that typically tempts presidents into some sort of military action.

And that is why we should take his “calm before the storm” threat seriously.

The Turkish President Erdogan announced the start of a Turkish operation in Idleb province of Syria. Idelb has been for years under the control of al-Qaeda in Syria, currently under the label Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

In the talks in Astana, Turkey, Russia and Iran agreed on a deescalation zone in Idelb to be supervised by all three of them. But the fight against al-Qaeda, aka HTS, would continue. Turkey is supposed to control the western part of the province including the city of Idleb. But the Turkish government is afraid to go there.

During the last days there have been many reports and lots of pictures of Turkish force movements along the north-western Syrian border. But Turkey made no attempt to enter the country and it is doubtful that it will.

Erdogan’s announcement needs some parsing:

“There’s a serious operation in Syria’s Idlib today and it will continue,” Erdogan said in a speech to his AK Party, adding that Turkey would not allow a “terror corridor” on its border with Syria.”For now Free Syria Army is carrying out the operation there,” Erdogan said. “Russia will be protecting outside the borders (of the Idlib region) and we will handle inside,” he said.

“Russia is supporting the operation from the air, and our armed forces from inside Turkey’s borders,” he added.

“[F]rom inside Turkey’s borders” means of course that the Turkish army will not (again) enter Syria. At least not now.

Turkey has transferred some 800 of its “Turkmen” mercenaries from the “Euphrates Shield” area north-east of Aleppo [green] to the western border next to Idleb. “Euphrates Shield” was a fight against the Islamic State with the aim of interrupting a potential Kurdish “terrorist” corridor from north-east Syria to the north-western Kurdish enclave Afrin [beige]. Turkey lost a bunch of heavy battle tanks and some 70 soldiers in that fight. Erdogan was criticized in Turkey for the somewhat botched operation.

The Turkish proxy fighters now sent into Idleb belong to the Hamza Brigade, Liwa al-Mutasem and other Turkish “Free Syrian Army” outfits. They will have to go in without tanks and heavy weapons. Some Turkish special forces with them might be able to call up artillery support from within Turkey. But no Turkish air support will be available as Syria and Russia insist of staying in control of the airspace.

A recent video shows a group of HTS maniacs attacking an outpost like professional soldiers. They are equipped with AT-4 anti-tank missiles, 60mmm mortars, light machine guns and Milkor grenade launcher. They have good uniforms, fairly new boots and ammo carrier belts. This is not equipment captured from the Syrian army or second hand stuff from some former eastern-block country. It is modern “western” stuff. These folks still have some rich sponsor and excellent equipment sources.

Russia has in recent weeks extensively bombed al-Qaeda positions in Idleb. Turkish intelligence may have helped with that. But AQ still has a very decent fighting force. The Turkish supported forces are likely no match for well equipped and battle hardened al-Qaeda fighters.

Turkey had for nearly six years supplied and pampered al-Qaeda in Syria. The group has many relations and personal within Turkey. The Astana agreement now obligates Turkey to fight HTS. Erdogan sits in a trap he set up himself. Should it come to a conflict between HTS and Turkish forces in Syria, the fight would soon cause casualties in Ankara and Istanbul.

Erdogan might still believe that he can somehow domesticate HTS. The government controlled Anadolu agency does not even mention the al-Qaeda origin of the group nor its long control of the area. It is trying to paint a somewhat rosy picture of HTS as an anti-American outfit:

Tahrir al-Sham, an anti-regime group, has come to the forefront with increasing activity in Idlib recently. Tahrir al-Sham has not made a direct statement against the deployment of Turkish troops to the region.On the other hand, the group and some opponents oppose the entry of various Free Syrian Army groups to Idlib, which are prepared to come from the Euphrates Shield Operation Area.

The group justifies the opposition, saying that other groups expected to arrive in the region get support from the United States.

The Turkish paper Hurriyet is less sensible with Erdogan’s needs:

Idlib is largely controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), spearheaded by a former al-Qaeda affiliate that changed its name last year from the Nusra Front.HTS is not party to a deal brokered by Russia, Turkey and Iran for the safe zone in the province, one of four such “de-escalation” zones nationwide.

Ousting HTS forces from the area will be needed to allow the arrival of Iranian, Russian and Turkish forces to implement a de-escalation zone.

In Astana Erdogan was given the task to clean up the mess he earlier created in Idleb by supporting the Jihadis. Erdogan does not like the job but has no choice.

If the de-escalation fails because HTS stays in control, Syria and its allies will move into Idleb. Turkey will then have to cope with thousands of battle seasoned Jihadis and a million of their kinfolk as refugees. If Erdogan moves Turkish forces into the Idleb area it will become a very costly fight and he will soon be in trouble in his own realm. Making peace with HTS is not an option. HTS rejected all offers to “change its skin” and to melt away. Iran, the Astana agreement and a number of UN Security Council Resolutions also stand against that.

It will be difficult for Turkey to untangle that knot.

President Trump’s bellicose speech to the United Nations General Assembly last month sparked a crisis for the behind-the-scenes diplomacy that was then reaching out to North Korea and Iran, with Trump’s comments jeopardizing not only the talks but the credibility of the intermediaries, according to a source familiar with those efforts.

Trump essentially pulled the rug out from under the intermediaries by insulting North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as “Rocket Man,” threatening to “totally destroy” Kim’s nation of 25 million people, and calling for regime change in Iran. Trump’s bluster on Sept. 19 also deepened internal tensions with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who was privately supporting the secret diplomacy.

The next day, when one of the intermediaries complained about the harm that Trump’s speech had caused, the President glibly explained that he liked to “zigzag” in charting his foreign policy, the source said.

The immediate consequences of Trump’s U.N. speech included ratcheting up nuclear-war tensions on the Korean peninsula and torpedoing a possible diplomatic breakthrough with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. A proposed meeting between Rouhani and Trump around the Iranian president’s trip to the U.N. sank under Trump’s barrage of insults, the source said.

Trump’s “zigzag” approach to foreign policy has similarities to President Richard Nixon’s infamous “madman theory,” in which Nixon pretended to be crazy enough to launch a nuclear strike against North Vietnam in a ploy to gain concessions from Hanoi and its allies during the Vietnam War.

In Trump’s depiction of his business negotiating style, he has hailed the value of coming on tough to soften up a rival. But one problem of this approach in foreign policy is that Trump’s zigzagging left the U.S. government’s middlemen in the uncomfortable position of appearing to have misled senior North Korean and Iranian officials regarding what U.S. intentions were. The source said no one was in physical danger but apologies had to be made and the credibility of the initiatives suffered a severe blow.

In the case of North Korea, the backchannel goal had been to tamp down the heated rhetoric between Washington and Pyongyang and to persuade the North Koreans to begin talks with South Korea about the possibility of some loosely formed confederation that could then lead to the gradual withdrawal of U.S. military forces and a reduction in overall tensions.

Leaving Intermediaries in the Lurch

However, by using his maiden U.N. speech to personally insult North Korea’s leader and to threaten to annihilate the country, Trump left his intermediaries in the unenviable spot of trying to explain to North Korean officials the chasm between the U.S. administration’s private overtures and the President’s public outburst.

That was the context behind Secretary of State Tillerson’s public acknowledgement last Saturday that the administration was engaged in direct communications with the North Korean government. In effect, Tillerson was trying to bolster the credibility of the intermediaries by putting the backchannel contacts into the public light.

“We are probing, so stay tuned,” Tillerson said. “We ask, ‘Would you like to talk?’ We have lines of communications to Pyongyang — we’re not in a dark situation, a blackout.”

Tillerson added,

“We have a couple, three channels open to Pyongyang.”

Tillerson even went out of his way to specify that these were American channels, not indirect contacts through China or some other third-party government.

“We can talk to them,” Tillerson said. “We do talk to them.” The Secretary of State then rebuffed a suggestion that he was referring to Chinese intermediaries. Shaking his head, Tillerson said, “Directly. We have our own channels.”

But Trump was not done with his administration’s zigzagging. On Sunday, he belittled the idea of a dialogue with North Korea by tweeting out that “I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man.”

“Save your energy Rex,” Trump added, before slipping in another thinly veiled threat of a military strike: “we’ll do what has to be done!”

However, despite Trump’s truculence, the source said the behind-the-scenes contacts with North Korea have resumed although they remain fragile amid concerns that Trump may again take to Twitter with more threats and insults – and again put the intermediaries in a no-man’s-land facing angry North Koreans leaders doubting the honesty and integrity of individuals supposedly representing the U.S. government.

The source said Trump has been apprised of this danger and supposedly has agreed not to undercut these intermediaries again.

But Trump lacks enough sophistication about international relations to understand the complexities of the global chessboard and the risks involved in his erratic behavior. He is also susceptible to having his head turned by the last person who speaks with him, particularly if that person is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Some people around Trump traced the President’s destructive U.N. speech, in part, to Netanyahu’s insistence that Trump get in line behind the Israeli policy of continued hostility toward Iran and Syria.

When Trump was delivering the address to a mostly stone-faced General Assembly – with many delegates clearly distressed listening to crude threats of war at the podium of an institution created to achieve peace – one of the few visibly happy people in the building was Netanyahu as Trump embraced neoconservative war policies, albeit behind “America First” rhetoric.

Trump has continued to toe Netanyahu’s line in the President’s current threats to refuse certification that Iran is abiding by the 2015 nuclear-weapons accord even though senior administration officials and international inspectors have confirmed that Iran is in compliance.

So, the fate of Tillerson’s backchannel diplomacy may ultimately rest on whether the troublemaking Netanyahu pulls Trump’s chain again or whether President Zigzag wakes up at 3 a.m. with an itchy Twitter finger and a desire to look tough.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

The USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier along with a guided-missile cruiser and a nuclear-powered submarine are on their way to the Korean Peninsula to prepare for a potential war with North Korea, while Pyongyang reportedly plans new missiles tests.

“There are no right hands for the wrong weapons.” – Beatrice Fihn, ICAN Executive Director, Oct 6, 2017

Few times in history show the remarkable gulf between international civic action and international political constipation. The will of approaching a world without nuclear weapons has been matched every step of the way with the desire and wish to acquire or keep them.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons hardly sounds like the paragon of coherence, even if its purpose is crystal and unmistakable. It flies in the face of the Machiavellian world order; it speaks of an aspiration that seems, in a world of 15,000 nuclear weapons, charmingly foolish yet paramount.

ICAN’s purpose has certainly been bolstered by various international documents that take strong issue with the continued existence of nuclear weapons. The final document of the 2010 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference referenced those “catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” while affirming the need “for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.”[1]

The Noble Prize Committee was likeminded, feeling that ICAN deserved the award “for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons.”[2]

In the words of Nobel committee chairwoman Berit Reiss-Andersen,

ICAN “has been a driving force in prevailing upon the world’s nations to pledge to cooperate… in efforts to stigmatise, prohibit an eliminate nuclear weapons.”[3]

Those punting on the usual surprises from the committee would have been left disappointed, though it did surprise ICAN’s executive director Beatrice Fihn, who was left reeling in the wake of the announcement. “This. Is. Surreal.” There was no scandal to be found, no war criminal turned noble to identify. (The resume of the Noble Peace Prize winner can be a bloody one.) The winner, in short, was not one customarily tarnished.

Perhaps the ICAN would not have won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2017 had it not been for the potential danse macabre between the petulant US President Donald J. Trump and North Korea’s defiant Kim Jong-un. The times, in other words, demand it.

The organisation is one of Australia’s better humanitarian exports. In 2007, it assumed a tangible presence in its official launch in Vienna, becoming a poster child of international mobilisation, engaging some 468 non-governmental organisations across 101 countries involving peace, environmental, development and rights groups. It is as much an entity as a sentiment.

This sentiment sometimes assumes the power of objective force. ICAN members tend to take it as a given that the nuclear scourge is a form of existentially threatening criminality, the use of which would be nothing less than the gravest of international crimes.

“Nuclear weapons,” states Fihn emphatically, “is illegal. Having nuclear weapons, possessing nuclear weapons, developing nuclear weapons, is illegal, and they need to stop.”

Nuclear-armed states, however, continue to act on a presumptive basis that nuclear weapons are needed, that their role remains, within a certain space of international conduct, desirable. To remove them would be to hobble sovereignty.

Possession, in of itself, is a matter of political necessity, not black letter legality. Even the problematic 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice suggested that “an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament” did not constitute a prohibition.[4] The central premise can be found in the NPT process itself, which is described, tiringly, as the “grand bargain” between nuclear powers (the haves) and those yet, or never, to acquire them.

The treaty privileged five official nuclear powers as of January 1, 1967, while promising states not in possession of such weapons under Article VI to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures” towards nuclear disarmament. Article IV also enclosed an undertaking to facilitate the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes for those who had missed out on this particular military lottery.

The very fact that this gulf grew, closing only with the next state’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, suggests the built-in contradiction of the nuclear dilemma in international relations. Even former British Prime Minister Tony Blair would insist that the NPT “makes absolutely clear” that a country such as the United Kingdom “has the right to possess nuclear weapons.” Hardly a ringing endorsement for illegality.

Left with prime ministers, premiers and presidents with fingers on the nuclear trigger and secret key codes to world annihilating arsenals, ICAN is left to muster the frontal assault on apathy and indifference that has become the norm in the world of nuclear speak. More to the point, the NGO movement has been left to nurture a consciousness that finds such weapons revolting, and those who entertain their use dangerous and ill.

Its greatest effort, arguably, is encouraging the UN General Assembly to consider a treaty that prohibits nuclear weapons altogether, a legal instrument that effectively takes a stab at the acquiescent and the unclear regarding nuclear weapons. States with nuclear weapons who join the treaty can undertake a process by which they can eliminate nuclear weapons in a verified, irreversible manner.

When sessions on concluding such a treaty ended in June 2017, 122 states were found to be in favour. 69 were not, including, unsurprisingly, the nuclear weapons states. The Netherlands, while not supporting it for its lack of toothier provisions, explained that it “placed nuclear disarmament in the limelight and created a broad momentum for disarmament.”[5]

The gap between the abolitionist movement, and states wishing to partake in the abolition program, is best illustrated by Australia itself. The country that produced the budding inspiration of ICAN has shown a profound unwillingness to ratify the fruits of ICAN’s efforts. As one of Washington’s client states and a commodities power, the temptation to keep the door open to matters nuclear is never far away, despite official opposition. The legal gap, and with it, the dangers of acceptability and use, remain.

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

Notes

Article initially published in May 2015

A new study from the Pew Research Center shows that more than four-fifths of US metropolitan areas have seen household incomes decline in the new century. The research is based on data from urban centers that are home to three-quarters of the US population.

Pew’s America’s shrinking middle class shows that middle-class household income has declined throughout the population, while at the same time the gap between low- and upper-income households has grown, demonstrating a significant increase in income inequality across the US. A major contributor to economic decline and inequality has been the plunge in manufacturing jobs and wages.

The study analyzed data from 229 of the 381 metropolitan areas in the US, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These areas accounted for 76 percent of the US population in 2014, those that could be identified in US Census Bureau data with statistics available for both 2000 and 2014.

Middle-income households are defined as those with incomes of about $42,000 to $125,000, adjusted for a household of three. Pew found that the share of middle-income households fell in 203 of 299 metropolitan areas from 2000 to 2014. With household income falling in the middle-income tier in these areas, the shares of upper- and lower-income tiers have correspondingly grown.

Based on US Census figures, the share of middle-income adults also fell nationwide, while the shares in the lower- and upper-income tiers have increased. The national share of middle-income adults decreased, from 55 percent in 2000 to 51 percent in 2014. At the other poles of society, the share of adults in the upper-income tier increased from 17 percent to 20 percent, and the share of adults in the lower-income tier increased from 28 percent to 29 percent.

US metropolitan areas with the lowest household incomes are mainly located in the South. Areas with the highest household incomes are concentrated along the Northeast corridor and mid-Atlantic, from Boston to the District of Columbia, and in Northern California, representing the proliferation and profits of the tech, insurance and finance industries, as well as high-paid government employees and politicians.

Midland, Texas, which benefited from the rise in oil prices from 2000 to 2014, saw both a shrinking middle class, which fell from 53 percent to 43 percent, as well as a decline in lower income households, falling from 28 percent to 21 percent. The recent drop in oil prices is not reflected in these figures.

In nearly half of the metropolitan areas studied, the lower-income share of households increased. The 10 metropolitan areas with the greatest losses in overall economic status—the change in the share of upper-income adults minus the change in the share who were lower-income—have one thing in common: a greater than average reliance on manufacturing.

These include the Rust Belt areas of Springfield, Ohio, and Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, Michigan, as well as two North Carolina areas: Rocky Mount and Hickory-Lenoir-Morgantown.

In Springfield, which saw the biggest decline in economic status, a 16 percent drop, the truck assembly plant owned by Navistar employs thousands fewer workers than it did in its heyday.

The Detroit metropolitan area has seen a dramatic decline in auto jobs, as well as a drastic drop in wages through two-tier systems introduced in large part as a result of the Obama administration’s auto bailout with the collaboration of the United Autoworkers Union.

The Hickory-Lenoir-Morgantown area, once a thriving center of furniture manufacturing, has seen the demise of this industry, with an accompanying decline in household incomes and an increase in poverty.

A brief from the UC Berkeley Labor Center documents the impact on incomes of declining manufacturing wages and the proliferation of temporary staffing agencies. Producing Poverty: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Production Jobs in Manufacturing charts the increasing numbers of manufacturing workers who are forced to rely on government programs, such as Medicaid and food stamps, to survive.

The study shows that wages in manufacturing are falling to the levels of those in the fast-food industry and at big-box retailers. In 2013, the typical manufacturing production worker made 7.7 percent below the median wage for all occupations. The median wage of these production workers was $15.66, with a quarter making $11.91 or less.

The National Employment Law Project (NELP) also found that since 1989 there has been a significant increase in the hiring of frontline production workers through temporary staffing agencies. Frontline workers are defined as non-supervisorial production workers who work at least 27 hours per week in the manufacturing industry or those highly associated with it.

The Berkeley study found that high utilization of government programs by manufacturing workers was primarily due to low wages as opposed to inadequate work hours. Economic Policy Institute researchers found that as manufacturing wages have declined, manufacturing labor productivity grew by an average of 3.3 percent a year from 1997 to 2012, nearly one-third greater than in the private, nonfarm economy as a whole.

This means that the manufacturing industry is sucking more and more productivity out of workers, while catapulting them out of the “middle class” and into poverty through low wages.

There has been a dramatic growth in low-paying temporary positions, which now account for 9 percent of frontline manufacturing jobs—a nine-fold increase from 25 years ago. Temporary workers earn a median wage of $10.88 an hour, compared to $15.03 for those hired directly by manufacturers.

Nearly half of all manufacturing workers hired through staffing agencies are enrolled in at least one public assistance program, just below the 52 percent of fast-food workers who rely on these programs.

Ken Jacobs, chair of the Labor Center and co-author of the report, toldBerkeley News, “Manufacturing has long been thought of as providing high-paying, middle-class work, but the reality is the production jobs are increasingly coming to resemble fast-food or Walmart jobs, especially for those workers employed through temporary staffing agencies.”

Fascist Franco may have been dead for more than four decades, but Spain is still encumbered with his dictatorial corpse. A new paradigm has been coined right inside the lofty European Union, self-described home/patronizing dispenser of human rights to lesser regions across the planet: “In the name of democracy, refrain from voting, or else.” Call it democracy nano-Franco style.

Nano-Franco is Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, whose heroic shock troops were redeployed from a serious nationwide terrorist alert to hammer with batons and fire rubber bullets not against jihadis but … voters. At least six schools became the terrain of what was correctly called The Battle of Barcelona.

Extreme right-wingers even held a demonstration inside Barcelona. Yet this was not shown on Spanish TV because it contradicted the official Madrid narrative.

The Catalan government beat the fascist goons with two very simple codes – as revealed by La Vanguardia. “I’ve got the Tupperware. Where do we meet?” was the code on a prepaid mobile phone for people to collect and protect ballot boxes. “I’m the paper traveler” was the code to protect the actual paper ballots. Julian Assange/WikiLeaks had warned about the world’s first Internet war as deployed by Madrid to smash the electronic voting system. The counterpunch was – literally – on paper. The US National Security Agency must have learned a few lessons.

So we had techno power combined with cowardly Francoist repression tactics countered by people power, as in parents conducting sit-ins in schools to make sure they were functional on referendum day. Some 90% of the 2.26 million Catalans who made it to the polls ended up voting in favor of independence from Spain, according to preliminary results. Catalonia has 5.3 million registered voters.

Roughly 770,000 votes were lost because of raids by Spanish police. Turnout at around 42% may not be high but it’s certainly not low. As the day went by, there was a growing feeling, all across Catalonia, all social classes involved, that this was not about independence any more; it was about fighting a new brand of fascism. What’s certain is there’s a Perfect Storm coming.

No pasarán

The “institutional declaration” of overwhelming mediocrity nano-Franco Rajoy, right after the polls were closed, invited disbelief. The highlight was a mediocre take on Magritte: “Ceci n’est pas un referendum.” This referendum never took place. And it could never take place because “Spain is a mature and advanced democracy, friendly and
tolerant”. The day’s events proved it a lie.

Rajoy said “the great majority of Catalan people did not want to participate in the secessionist script”. Another lie. Even before the “non-existent” referendum, between 70% and 80% of Catalans said they wanted to vote, yes or no, after an informed debate about their future.

Crucially, Rajoy extolled the “unwavering support of the EU and the international community”. Of course; unelected EU “elites” in Brussels and the main European capitals are absolutely terrorized when EU citizens express themselves.

Yet the top nano-Franco lie was that “democracy prevailed because the constitution was respected”.

Rajoy spent weeks defending his repression of the referendum by invoking “the rule of law such as ours”. It’s “their” law, indeed. The heart of the matter are Articles 116 and 155 of a retrograde Spanish constitution, the first one describing how states of alarm, exception and siege work in Spain, and the latter applied in “order to compel the [autonomous community] forcibly to meet … obligations, or in order to protect the … general interests.”

Well, these “obligations” and “general interests” are defined by – who else, Madrid and Madrid only. The Spanish Constitutional Court is a joke – it couldn’t care less about the principle of separation of powers. The court congregates a bunch of legalistic Mafiosi/patsies working for the two parties of the establishment, the so-called “socialists” of the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party) and the medieval right-wingers of Rajoy’s People’s Party (PP).

Few outside Spain may remember the failed coup of February 23, 1981 – when there was an attempt to hurl Spain back into the long dark Francoist night. Well, I was in Barcelona when it happened – and that vividly reminded me of the South American military coups in the 1960s and 1970s. Since the coup, what passes for “justice” in Spain never ceased to be a mere lackey to these two political parties.

The Constitutional Court actually suspended the Catalan referendum law, arguing that it was violating the – medieval – Spanish constitution. This disgraceful collusion is crystal-clear for most people in Catalonia. What Madrid is essentially up to amounts to a coup as well – against the Catalan government and, of course, against democracy. So no wonder the immortal civil-war mantra was back in the streets of Catalonia: “¡No pasarán!” They shall not pass.

Brussels does demophobia

Rajoy, thuggish, mediocre and corrupt (that’s another long story), lied even more when he said he keeps the “door open to dialogue”. He never wanted any dialogue with Catalonia – always refusing a referendum in any shape or form or transferring any powers to the Catalan regional government. Catalonia’s regional president, Carles Puigdemont, insists he had to call the referendum because this is what separatist parties promised when they won regional elections two years ago.

And of course no one is an angel in this hardcore power play. The PDeCaT (the Democratic Party of Catalonia), the main force behind the referendum, has also been mired in corruption.

Catalonia in itself is as economically powerful as Denmark; 7.5 million people, around 16% of Spain’s population, but responsible for 20% of gross domestic product, attracting one-third of foreign investment and producing one-third of exports. In a country where unemployment is at a horribly high 30%, losing Catalonia would be the ultimate disaster.

Madrid in effect subscribes to only two priorities: dutifully obey EU austerity diktats, and crush by all means any regional push for autonomy.

Catalan historian Josep Fontana, in a wide-ranging, enlightening interview, has identified the heart of the matter: “What, for me, is scandalous is that the PP is whipping up public opinion by saying that holding the referendum means the secession of Catalonia afterwards, when it knows that secession is impossible. It is impossible because it would mean that the Generalitat would have to ask the Madrid government to be so kind as to withdraw its army, Guardia Civil and National Police from Catalonia, and to meekly renounce a territory that provides 20% of its GDP … so why are they using this excuse to stir up a climate reminiscent of a civil war?”

Beyond the specter of civil war, the Big Picture is even more incandescent.

The Scottish National Party is sort of blood cousins with Catalan separatists in its rejection of a perceived illegitimate central authority, with all the accompanying negative litany. SNP members complain they are forced to cope with different languages; political diktats from above; unfair taxes; and what is felt as outright economic exploitation. This phenomenon has absolutely nothing to do with the EU-wide rise of extreme right-wing nationalism, populism and xenophobia – as Madrid insists.

And then there’s the silence of the wolves. It would be easy to picture the EU’s reaction if the drama in Catalonia were happening in distant, “barbarian” Eurasian lands. The peaceful referendum in Crimea was condemned as “illegal” and dictatorial while a violent attack against freedom of expression of millions of people living inside the EU gets a pass.

The demophobia of Brussels elites knows no bounds; the historical record shows EU citizens are not allowed to express themselves freely, especially by using democratic practices in questions related to self-determination. Whatever torrent of spin may come ahead, the silence of the EU betrays the fact Brussels is puling the strings behind Madrid. After all the Brave New Euroland project implies the destruction of European nations to the profit of a centralized Brussels eurocracy.

Referenda are untamable animals. Kosovo was a by-product of the amputation/bombing into democracy of Serbia by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; a gangster/narco mini-state useful as the host of Camp Bondsteel, the largest Pentagon base outside of the US.

Crimea was part of a legitimate reunification drive to rectify Nikita Khrushchev’s idiocy of separating it from Russia. London did not send goons to prevent the referendum in Scotland; an amicable negotiation is in effect. No set rules apply. Neocons screamed in vain when Crimea was reunited with Russia after shedding tears of joy when Kosovo was carved out of Serbia.

As for Madrid, a lesson should be learned from Ireland in 1916. In the beginning the majority of the population was against an uprising. But brutal British repression led to the war of independence – and the rest is history.

After this historic, (relatively) bloody Sunday, more and more Catalans will be asking: If Slovenia and Croatia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the tiny Baltic republics, not to mention even tinier Luxembourg, Cyprus and Malta, can be EU members, why not us? And a stampede might be ahead; Flanders and Wallonia, the Basque country and Galicia, Wales and Northern Ireland.

All across the EU, the centralized Eurocrat dream is splintering. It’s Catalonia that may be pointing toward a not so brave, but more  realistic, new world.

Featured image is from EUObserver.

Featured image: Embassy of Cuba in Washington (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Frosty bilateral relations got frostier. In August, on the pretext of harmful physical symptoms experienced by US embassy personnel in Havana, the Trump administration expelled two Cuban diplomats from the country’s embassy in Washington.

At the time, Cuba’s Foreign Ministry stressed its government “has never, nor would it ever, allow that the Cuban territory be used for any action against accredited diplomatic agents or their families.”

It reiterated “its willingness to cooperate in the clarification of this situation.” Cuba justifiably objects being lectured to by the world’s leading aggressor/human rights abuser about its diplomatic obligations, human rights or anything else.

“The United States is not in a position to give us lessons,” its Foreign Ministry said. It objected to the expulsion of its citizens.

Add 15 more to their numbers. On Tuesday, the Trump administration expelled them, following Washington’s move to cut its Havana embassy staff by a proportional number, allegedly in response to a mysterious illness Cuba had nothing to do with.

Irresponsibly blaming its government along with expelling its diplomats further sours relations.

Neocon Senator Marco Rubio applauded the move, deplorably calling it “the right decision.”

On Monday, AP News reported the following:

“…US spies were among the first and most severely affected victims. Though bona fide diplomats have also been affected, it wasn’t until intelligence operatives, working under diplomatic cover, reported bizarre sounds and even stranger physical effects that the United States realized something was wrong, several individuals familiar with the situation said.”

Last week, the Trump administration warned Americans to stay away from Cuba, falsely saying they risked being attacked in Havana, the warning targeting the country’s travel industry.

The State Department said Cuba’s ambassador to Washington was informed of the expulsions Tuesday morning by telephone. Affected diplomatic staff must leave in seven days.

Rex Tillerson issued a statement, saying Cuban personnel were expelled because their government “fail(ed) to take appropriate steps to protect our diplomats in accordance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention. (T)his order will ensure equity in our respective diplomatic operations.”

Cuba did nothing to make US diplomatic staff ill. Washington earlier admitted it, calling what happened “incidents,” avoiding the word “attacks.”

Last week, things changed, the Trump administration claiming what happened was deliberate, offering no evidence proving it.

Cuba wasn’t accused of complicity in what happened, Tillerson saying

“(w)e continue to maintain diplomatic relations with Cuba, and will continue to cooperate with Cuba as we pursue the investigation into these attacks.”

What caused the illnesses remains a mystery. There’s nothing mysterious about US hostility toward Cuba for nearly 60 years – because of its anti-imperialism and sovereign independence.

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: Venezuela’s opposition-controlled National Assembly swore in a “parallel” Supreme Court on July 21, 2017. (Source: asambleanacional.gov.ve)

The Organization of American States (OAS) is preparing to swear in a “parallel” Venezuelan Supreme Court on October 13, members of the de facto judicial body have reported. 

“We will be able to issue pronouncements addressed to government and authorities so they open investigations against (Venezuelan) officials who may have committed crimes against humanity, drug trafficking, or money laundering,” declared prospective judge Pedro Troconis, who will be sworn in as part of the de facto court’s penal appeal tribunal. 

The move comes months after the opposition-held National Assembly (AN) swore in 33 new Supreme Court justices on July 21, claiming that the sitting judges are “illegitimate”.

Institutional standoff 

The Supreme Court and the AN have been locked in a tense standoff since July 2016 when the latter defied a court order and swore in three legislators under investigation for voter fraud. The parliament has refused to heed the high court ruling and has consequently had all its actions declared “null and void” since that date.

The AN has repeatedly attempted to unseat the justices on the grounds that they were allegedly appointed illegally in December 2015 by the outgoing Chavista-controlled parliament. However, the motions were blocked by the then ombudsman and current attorney general, Tarek William Saab, who found no legal justification for the judges’ dismissal.

The institutional crisis escalated in the context of violent anti-government protests demanding early presidential elections, which erupted following a controversial Supreme Court ruling authorizing the judiciary to exercise certain legislative functions.

In the midst of nearly four months of street mobilizations that led to the deaths of at least 126 people, the AN went ahead and unilaterally swore in its own Supreme Court justices as part of a bid to form an internationally recognized “parallel government” in opposition to the elected Maduro administration.

The de facto justices were declared “usurpers” by the national government and were immediately subject to arrest, while others fled the country.

OAS backing 

In August, OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro invited the 33 de facto justices to the organization’s headquarters in Washington where he recognized them as “legitimate” and pledged his support.

Recibí a Magistrados del TSJ designados x @AsambleaVE a quienes expresé mi reconocimiento x trabajo en defensa de Estado de Derecho #Vzlapic.twitter.com/NVxGAxKvYv

— Luis Almagro (@Almagro_OEA2015) August 24, 2017

Tweet reads: “I received TSJ judges designated by the Venzuelan National Assembly to whom I expressed my recognition for their work in defense of the rule of law”.

Meanwhile this past week, one of the judges, Antonio Marval, appeared in photos with Almagro and far right Florida Senator Marco Rubio, claiming that the “parallel” Supreme Court would soon be set up in the OAS.

“Preparations are already underway at the OAS for the establishment of the legitimate TSJ (Supreme Court),” he said, as reported by Miami-based El Venezolano Tv.

Magistrado Antonio Marval “Estamos viviendo un momento inédito para la historia contemporánea de Venezuela”.#27Septiembrepic.twitter.com/Rlm5lJgtQd

— EVTV Miami (@EVTVMiami) September 27, 2017

Tweet reads: Judge Antonio Marval “We are living an unprecedented moment in the contemporary history of Venezuela”.

“Our measures will be of an international character and compliance will be obligatory for the Venezuelan state,” he continued.

According to Troconis, the de facto justices chose the OAS as the site for their “parallel” court because they consider it an “impartial organization with a considerable number of states (represented)”.

The OAS has, however, yet to confirm that it will swear in the judges next week. It remains unclear if OAS Secretary General Almagro possesses the authority to go forward with such a move without the approval of the body’s Permanent Council, which contains numerous Venezuelan allies.

Caracas has likewise yet to respond to the announced swearing in. Nonetheless, the Venezuelan government has long been at odds with the OAS chief, whom it has accused of pushing US-led intervention in the South American country.

Last month, Almagro issued a fourth report on Venezuela, calling for “increasingly severe sanctions” and demanding Caracas be slapped with the OAS Democratic Charter.

Earlier this year, Venezuela initiated the two-year withdrawal process from the OAS, alleging pro-US bias on the part of Almagro and the Washington-based regional body.

Uncertain US position

While the Trump administration has not yet taken a public position regarding the de facto Supreme Court at the OAS, in August the State Department issued a statement rejecting the establishment of a “parallel” opposition government.

“We don’t necessarily recognize parallel or separate governments. We respect the official government of Venezuela and President Maduro at this moment,” said the US State Department deputy assistant secretary for South America, Michael Fitzpatrick, during an August 1 interview.

At the time, the declaration was interpreted as a vindication of more moderate sections of the Venezuelan opposition committed to participating in regional elections.

Nonetheless, Fitzpatrick’s statement has been followed by escalating US actions targeting Caracas, including financial sanctions, a travel ban against Venezuelan officials, and threats of military intervention.

As seen in my previous article, US military power is on the decline, and the effects are palpable. In a world full of conflicts brought on by Washington, the economic and financial shifts that are occurring are for many countries a long-awaited and welcome development.

If we were to identify what uniquely fuels American imperialism and its aspirations for global hegemony, the role of the US dollar would figure prominently. An exploration of the depth of the dollar’s effects on the world economy is therefore necessary in order to understand the consequential geopolitical developments that have occurred over the last few decades.

The reason the dollar plays such an important role in the world economy is due to the following three major factors: the petrodollar; the dollar as world reserve currency; and Nixon’s decision in 1971 to no longer make the dollar convertible into gold. As is easy to guess, the petrodollar strongly influenced the composition of the SDR basket, making the dollar the world reserve currency, spelling grave implications for the global economy due to Nixon’s decision to eliminate the dollar’s convertibility into gold. Most of the problems for the rest of the world began from a combination of these three factors.

Dollar-Petrodollar-Gold

The largest geo-economic change in the last fifty years was arguably implemented in 1973 with the agreement between OPEC, Saudi Arabia and the United States to sell oil exclusively in dollars.

Specifically, Nixon arranged with Saudi King Faisal for Saudis to only accept dollars as a payment for oil and related investments, recycling billions of excess dollars into US treasury bills and other dollar-based financial resources. In exchange, Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries came under American military protection. It reminds one of a mafia-style arrangement: the Saudis are obliged to conduct business in US dollars according to terms and conditions set by the US with little argument, and in exchange they receive generous protection.

The second factor, perhaps even more consequential for the global economy, is the dollar becoming the world reserve currency and maintaining a predominant role in the basket of international foreign-exchange reserves of the IMF ever since 1981. The role of the dollar, linked obviously to the petrodollar trade, has almost always maintained a share of more than 40% of the Special Drawing Right (SDR) basket, while the euro has maintained a stable share of 29-37% since 2001. In order to understand the economic change in progress, it is sufficient to observe that the yuan is now finally included in the SDR, with an initial 10% share that is immediately higher than the yen (8.3%) and sterling (8.09%) but significantly less than the dollar (41%) and euro (31%). Slowly but significantly Yuan currency is becoming more and more used in global trade.

The reason why the United States has been able to fuel this global demand for dollars is linked to the need for other countries to own dollars in order to be able to buy oil and other goods. For example, if a Bolivian company exports bananas to Norway, the payment method requires the use of dollars. Norway must therefore own US currency to pay and receive the goods purchased. Similarly, the dollars Bolivia receives will be used to buy other necessities like oil from Venezuela. It may seem unbelievable, but practically all countries until a few years ago used US dollars to trade amongst each other, even countries that were anti-American and against US imperialist policies.

This continued use of the dollar has had some devastating effects on the globe. First of all, the intense use of the American currency, coupled with Nixon’s decisions, created an economic standard based on the dollar that soon replaced precious metals like gold, which had been the standard for the global economy for years. This has led to major instability and to economic systems that have in the proceeding years created disastrous financial policies, as seen in 2000 and 2008, for example. The main source of economic reliability transferred from gold to dollars, specifically to US treasury bills. This major shift allowed the Federal Reserve to print dollars practically without limit (as seen in recent years with interests rates for borrowing money from the FED at around 0%), well aware that the demand for dollars would never cease, this also keeping alive huge sectors of private and public enterprises (such as the fracking industry). This set a course for a global economic system based on financial instruments like derivatives and other securities instead of real, tangible goods like gold. In doing this for its own benefit, the US has created the conditions for a new financial bubble that could even bring down the entire world economy when it bursts.

The United States found itself in the enviable position of being able to print pieces of paper (simply IOU’s) without any gold backing and then exchange them for real goods. This economic arrangement has allowed Washington to achieve an unparalleled strategic advantage over its geopolitical opponents (initially the USSR, now Russia and China), namely, a practically unlimited dollar-spending capacity even as it accumulates an astronomical public debt (about 21 trillion dollars). The destabilizing factor for the global economy has been Washington’s ability to accumulate enormous amounts of public debt without having to worry about the consequences or even of any possible mistrust international markets may have for the dollar. Countries simply needed dollars for trade and bought US treasures to diversify their financial assets.

The continued use of the dollar as a means of payment for almost everything, coupled with the nearly infinite capacity of the of FED to print money and the Treasury to issue bonds, has led the dollar to become the primary safe refuge for organizations, countries and individuals, legitimizing this perverse financial system that has affected global peace for decades.

Dollars and War: The End?

The problems for the United States began in the late 1990s, at a time of expansion for the US empire following the demise of the Soviet Union. The stated geopolitical goal was the achievement of global hegemony. With unlimited spending capacity and an ideology based on American exceptionalism, this attempt seemed to be within reach for the policymakers at the Pentagon and Wall Street. A key element for achieving global hegemony consisted of stopping China, Russia and Iran from creating a Eurasian area of integration. For many years, and for various reasons, these three countries continued to conduct large-scale trade in US dollars, bowing to the economic dictates of a fraudulent financial system created for the benefit of the United States. China needed to continue in its role of becoming the world’s factory, always having accepted dollar payments and buying hundreds of billions of US treasury bills. With Putin, Russia began almost immediately to de-dollarize, repaying foreign debts in dollars, trying to offload this economic pressure. Russia is today one of the countries in the world with the least amount of public and private debt denominated in dollars, and the recent prohibition on the use of US dollars in Russian seaports is the latest example. For Iran, the problem has always been represented by sanctions, creating great incentives to bypass the dollar and find alternative means of payment.

The decisive factor that changed the perception of countries like China and Russia was the 2008 financial crisis, as well as growing US aggression ever since the events in Yugoslavia in 1999. The Iraq war, along with other factors, prevented Saddam from starting an oil trade in euro, which threatened the dollar’s financial hegemony in the Middle East. War and the America’s continued presence in Afghanistan stressed Washington’s intentions to continue encircling China, Russia and Iran in order to prevent any Eurasian integration. Naturally, the more the dollar was used in the world, the more Washington had the power to spend on the military. For the US, paying a bill of 6 trillion dollars (this is the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) has been effortless, and this constitutes an unparalleled advantage over countries like China and Russia whose military spending in comparison is a fifth and a tenth respectively.

The repeated failed attempts to conquer, subvert and control countries like Afghanistan, Georgia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Donbass, North Korea, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Venezuela, have had significant effects on the perception of US military power. In military terms, Washington faced numerous tactical and strategic defeats, with the Crimean peninsula returning to Russia without a shot fired and with the West unable to react. In Donbass, the resistance inflicted huge losses on the NATO-supported Ukrainian army. In North Africa, Egypt is now under the control of the army, following an attempt to turn the country into a state under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya, after being destroyed, is now divided into three entities, and like Egypt seems to be looking with favorable regard towards Moscow and Beijing. In the Middle East, Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq are increasingly cooperating in stabilizing regional conflicts, where needed they are backed by Russian military power and Chinese economic strength. And of course the DPRK continues to ignore US military threats and has fully developed its conventional and nuclear deterrent, effectively making those US threats null and void.

Color revolutions, hybrid warfare, economic terrorism, and proxy attempts to destabilize these countries have had devastating effects on Washington’s military credibility and effectiveness. The United States finds itself being considered by many countries to be a massive war apparatus that struggles to get what it wants, struggles to achieve coherent common goals, and even lacks the capability to control countries like Iraq and Afghanistan in spite of its overwhelming military superiority.

No One Fears You!

Until a few decades ago, any idea of straying away from the petrodollar was seen as a direct threat to American global hegemony, requiring of a military response. In 2017, given the decline in US credibility as a result of triggering wars against smaller countries (leaving aside countries like Russia, China, and Iran that have military capabilities the likes of which the US has not faced for more than seventy years), a general recession from the dollar-based system is taking place in many countries.

In recent years, it has become clear to many nations opposing Washington that the only way to adequately contain the fallout from the collapsing US empire is to progressively abandon the dollar. This serves to limit Washington’s capacity for military spending by creating the necessary alternative tools in the financial and economic realms that will eliminate Washington’s dominance. This is essential in the Russo-Sino-Iranian strategy to unite Eurasia and thereby render the US irrelevant.

De-dollarization for Beijing, Moscow and Tehran has become a strategic priority. Eliminating the unlimited spending capacity of the FED and the American economy means limiting US imperialist expansion and diminishing global destabilization. Without the usual US military power to strengthen and impose the use of US dollars, China, Russia and Iran have paved the way for important shifts in the global order.

The US shot itself in the foot by accelerating this process through their removal of Iran from the SWIFT system (paving the way for the Chinese alternative, known as CIPS) and imposing sanctions on countries like Russia, Iran and Venezuela. This also accelerated China and Russia’s mining and acquisition of physical gold, which is in direct contrast to the situation in the US, with rumors of the FED no longer possessing any more gold. It is no secret that Beijing and Moscow are aiming for a gold-backed currency if and when the dollar should collapse. This has pushed unyielding countries to start operating in a non-dollar environment and through alternative financial systems.

A perfect example of how this is being achieved can be seen with Saudi Arabia, which has represented the crux of the petrodollar.

De-dollarize

Beijing has started putting strong pressure on Riyadh to start accepting yuan payments for oil instead of dollars, as are other countries such as the Russian Federation. For Riyadh, this is an almost existential issue. Riyadh is in a delicate situation, dedicated as it is to keeping the US dollar tied to oil, even though its main ally, the US, has pursued in the Middle East a contradictory strategy, as seen with the JCPOA agreement. Iran, the main regional enemy of Saudi Arabia, was able to have sanctions lifted (especially from Europeans countries) thanks to the JCPOA. In addition, Iran was able to pursue a historic victory with its allies in Syria, gaining a preeminent role in the region and aspiring to become a regional powerhouse. Riyadh is obliged to obey the US, an ally that does not care about its fate in the region (Iran is increasingly influential in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon) and is even competing in the oil market. To make matters worse for Washington, China is Riyadh’s largest customer; and considering the agreements with Nigeria and Russia, Beijing can safely stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia should Riyadh continue to insist on receiving payment only in dollars. This would badly hurt the petrodollar, a perverse system that damages China and Russia most of all.

For China, Iran and Russia, as well as other countries, de-dollarization has become a pressing issue. The number of countries that are beginning to see the benefits of a decentralized system, as opposed to the US dollar system, is increasing. Iran and India, but also Iran and Russia, have often traded hydrocarbons in exchange for primary goods, thereby bypassing American sanctions. Likewise, China’s economic power has allowed it to open a 10-billion-euro line of credit to Iran to circumvent recent sanctions. Even the DPRK seems to use cryptocurrencies like bitcoin to buy oil from China and bypass US sanctions. Venezuela (with the largest oil reserves in the world) has just started a historic move to completely renounce selling oil in dollars, and has announced that it will start receiving money in a basket of currencies without US dollars. (This is not to mention the biggest change to have occurred in the last 40 years). Beijing will buy gas and oil from Russia by paying in yuan, with Moscow being able to convert yuan into gold immediately thanks to the Shanghai International Energy Exchange. This gas-yuan-gold mechanism signals a revolutionary economic change through the progressive abandonment of the dollar in trade.

In the next and last article, we will concentrate on how successful Russia, Iran and China have been in forging a multipolar world order with the goal of peacefully containing the fallout from the collapsing American empire, and how this alternative world order is opening up a new geopolitical landscape for America’s allies and other countries.

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies.

This article was originally published by Strategic Culture Foundation where the featured image was sourced.

Featured image: MP Amber Rudd (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Like America, Britain is unfit and unsafe to live in – both countries police states, serving privileged interests exclusively, allied in waging wars OF terror in multiple theaters, along with abolishing fundamental homeland freedoms.

The latest civil rights abuse came from hardline home secretary Amber Rudd. She’s spearheading a Tory effort to criminalize readership of so-called extremist content online – punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

The same holds for anyone publishing content Tories call extremist, especially about Britain’s military, intelligence services and police that could be considered related to preparing terrorist acts.

“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,” Rudd blustered, adding:

“There is currently a gap in the law around material (that) is viewed or streamed from the Internet without being permanently downloaded.”

“This is an increasingly common means by which material is accessed online for criminal purposes and is a particularly prevalent means of viewing extremist material such as videos and web pages.”

A Home Office analysis showed thousands of online ISIS tweets and other material over the past year.

Unmentioned was US and UK support for the terrorist group, recruiting, arming, funding, training and directing its fighters, using them as imperial foot soldiers in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

The way to end extremist online content from ISIS and likeminded terrorist groups is by no longer supporting them, combating their fighters instead of using them.

Most important is ending US-led imperial wars in multiple theaters. ISIS and likeminded terrorist groups were created to serve as imperial ground forces, aided by Pentagon-led terror-bombing.

Changes Rudd proposed aim to strengthen Britain’s 2000 Terrorism Act. It authorizes civil liberties-destroying police powers, including repressive stop-and-searches ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

It criminalizes being a member of, supporting, or wearing clothing arousing suspicion of involvement with a proscribed group. Dozens named are nearly all Muslim ones.

Current UK law applies only to downloaded and saved extremist material. Proposed changes criminalize reading it online.

Commenting on the proposed measure, Law Professor Jonathan Turley noted that

“civil libertarians have warned that Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state.”

Tories aren’t “satiated by their ever-expanding criminalization of speech. They now want to criminalize even viewing sites on the Internet.”

“As always, officials are basically telling the public to ‘trust us, we’re the government.’ “ Criminalizing readership of online content amounts to “an anti-civil liberties campaign.”

A previous article discussed Prime Minister Theresa May wanting greater government control of the Internet. If readership of material Tories call unacceptable is criminalized, what’s next?

Thought control? Criminalizing legitimate criticism of government policies? Public protests against government policies? Banning free expression on any topics online or in public spaces altogether?

Turley quoted from Orwell’s 1984 as follows:

“We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.”

“The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives.”

“They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal.”

“We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end.”

“One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

America, Britain and other Western nations are heading toward instituting full-blown tyranny.

Perhaps another state-sponsored 9/11-type incident will assure it.

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

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

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

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

Syrian government forces are struggling to retake the city of al-Qaryatayn from ISIS sleeper cells and their supporters. The army has retaken Jabal Hazm al-Abyad west of the city and few points in its eastern entrance. Local sources report that artillery units hit terrorist positions inside it.

The Hezbollah media wing in Syria has released a statement saying that members of Liwa Shuhada al-Qaryatayn and Liwa Shuhada Mahin [two groups described by the US-led coalition as moderate opposition] are among ISIS units operating in the area. However, the media outlet released no photos or videos to confirm this claim.

ISIS terrorists also continued their efforts to encircle the strategic town of Sukhna at the Palmyra-Deir Ezzor highway and even captured Jabal Tuntur. However, the army reportedly repelled the ISIS attack on the part of the highway between Sukhna and Palmyra. ISIS actively uses mobile assault groups supported by technical vehicles in the area. An intense fighting is ongoing.

In the Euphrates Valley, government forces reached al-Ba’um village 2km north of the ISIS stronghold of Mayadin city. Local sources report multiple artillery and airstrikes on ISIS in Mayadin area. Russian submarines even launched Kalibr cruise missiles on ISIS there.

However, it is not clear if the army has capabilities to storm this fortified point amid a complicated situation at the Palmyra-Deir Ezzor highway.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) continued their advance against ISIS in the center of Raqqah city. Clashes are reportedly ongoing in Nahdah and Kurdan districts.

Earlier reports appeared that ISIS conducted a large counter-attack and retook the blood bank building, al-Rasheed park, al-Rasheed high school and other positions around the national hospital in the city center. Nonetheless, a lack of photo and video evidence from the both sides does not allow to confirm or deny these reports.

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

One, an ex-Conservative Party chairman who was forced to resign amid allegations of bullying and who was returned to the back-benches years ago, and is now reported to have the insolence to try to unseat Theresa May in order to try to install himself as Prime Minister!

Shapps, Fox and Johnson are three somewhat stained politicians, any of whom, as Prime Minister, would make the UK a laughing stock in both Europe and America, never mind in Britain.

That’s probably why the British electorate want a government headed by a political leader of unquestioned integrity. Jeremy Corbyn would, according to public opinion, certainly fit the bill, or possibly, Jacob Rees-Mogg.

If Britain does indeed need a new Prime Minister, which is debatable, then it must be the democratic choice of the people, not that of a disaffected Tory MP with ambitions way above both his qualifications and his unsavoury history.

Our thanks to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee for awarding its 2017 Prize to ICAN – the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

Undoubtedly nuclear disarmament and, ultimately, nuclear abolition is a major – if not the major – goal of humankind. There can be no lasting peace with these weapons and there exists no goal, the achievement of which would legitimate the use of this type of weapons.

Even when not used, nuclear weapons cause problems, distrust, risks and pretext for wars – think Russia-NATO, Iraq, the nuclear deal (JCPOA) with Iran, US-North Korea, Israel, India-Pakistan – and documented technical malfunctions, human failures, and accidents with nuclear weapons.

Secondly, this year’s award honours the UN Charter, Article 1 of which states the essentially important norm that peace shall be brought about by peaceful means.

It is also in clear support — as was emphasized by the Committee’s chairwoman, Berit Reiss-Andersen, herself a lawyer — of the NPT of 1970, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The NPT states the long term goal of general and complete disarmament, that the countries who possess nuclear weapons shall, in good faith, negotiate them away as a quid pro quo for others who may want to acquire nuclear weapons abstain from doing so. That is, possession is as important to abolish and a key to secure non-proliferation. Regrettably, all those who possess nuclear weapons have done the opposite of negotiating them away.

Thus, this year’s prize is a very important support for international law and the UN – our basic common normative system and foundations of international law that has been ignored (also by the media) and violated time and again during the last 20-30 years.

Third, it is of tremendous importance that this year’s award goes to a civil society organisation and not to a government representative. World peace is a massive citizens’ desire anywhere, whereas governments (with few exceptions) conduct such policies that trample upon this desire.

Fourth – and no less important than the above, this year’s Award honours the essential criteria of Alfred Nobel’s will. Importantly, this was emphasized by Reiss-Andersen. Given some of the recent awardees non/anti-peace work, there is a reason to congratulate not only ICAN but also the Committee for getting it absolutely right this year.

May it be the beginning of a new drive on the road toward peace with no more accidents in the ditch.

Those of us who, since 2007, have been engaged in a public information campaign about the Committee’s non-adherence, in a number of cases, to Alfred Nobel’s will, feel good today.

The Nobel Committee calls it “the world’s most prestigious prize” and it is essential that it be awarded only to people whose work falls clearly within the criteria of the will. It is neither a human rights, humanitarian, women’s or general do-good prize. It’s for everything that has to do with reducing warfare, risks of it, militarism. It is for disarmament, reduction of forces, negotiated solutions to conflicts, peace conferences and international sister- and brotherhood.

Most media do not seem to know that – also not that lots of nominations this year too were totally irrelevant no matter their other, non-peace qualities.

Finally, it is hardly unreasonable to view this year’s choice is a mild kick to the countries who have worked against the BAN Treaty that ICAN’s work has helped so efficiently to bring about – NATO in particular.

All NATO countries have ignored the BAN Treaty (as has the other nuclear countries Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel). This only goes to show how important the BAN Treaty is.

But the US is known to have put pressure on NATO members and others such as Sweden with direct threats to them should they sign the BAN Treaty (NATO countries’ mainstream media haven’t told you much about that whereas they fill you with so far non-documented rumours of Russian interference in other countries).

It’s high time to encourage, as the Nobel Committee chair emphasized, all those who possess (or store) nuclear weapons to change their policies and join humanity. They have no right and have never been given a mandate to possess these weapons and thereby threaten, potentially, the survival of humanity.

It’s all a matter of political will and moral courage. None of them base their possession of nuclear weapons on laws. The NATO Treaty doesn’t mention them at all.

The nomination of ICAN can be seen on the Nobel Peace Prize Watch here.

Jan Oberg is a peace researcher, art photographer, and Director of Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF) where this article first appeared. Reach him at: [email protected]. Read other articles by Jan.

Featured image is from ICAN Facebook.

Featured image: “We witnessed a People’s Intervention that forced the climate costs of Energy East to the forefront of the pipeline review,” said Aurore Fauret, Tar Sands Campaign coordinator at 350.org. (Photo: Pax Ahimsa Gethen/Flickr/cc)

In what environmentalists are calling a major victory for pipeline opponents and the planet, TransCanada announced Thursday that it is abandoning its Energy East pipeline project, which would have carried over a million barrels of crude oil across Canada per day.

Oil Change International (OCI) estimated in an analysis earlier this year that Energy East would produce an additional 236 million tons of carbon pollution each year. For this reason and many others, OCI applauded TransCanada’s decision to nix the project, which was first proposed in 2013.

“This is an important day in the fight against climate change in Canada,” Adam Scott, senior advisor at OCI, said in a statement on Thursday. “Energy East was a disaster waiting to happen. The pipeline and tanker proposal scheme was utterly incompatible with a world where we avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”

Aurore Fauret, Tar Sands Campaign coordinator at 350.org, echoed Scott’s celebration and highlighted the grassroots mobilization that brought the pipeline into public view and ultimately helped ensure its defeat.

“We witnessed a People’s Intervention that forced the climate costs of Energy East to the forefront of the pipeline review,” Fauret said. “Over 100,000 messages were sent to the National Energy Board (NEB) demanding it consider all the emissions the project would generate. Close to 2,000 people applied as intervenors, citing climate change as one of their reasons. Two years later, after the NEB accepted to review the climate costs of the pipeline, TransCanada is calling it quits.”

So much gratitude today for Indigenous resistance & people power. Thank you to the thousands who called for a #climate test for #EnergyEast. https://t.co/fqBdTjyq5f

— 350 Canada (@350Canada) October 5, 2017

A huge victory for everyone who stood up! Time for Libs to stop spending political capital on pipelines that don't even make economic sense. https://t.co/JHPuQTmmmC

— Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) October 5, 2017

Another one bites the dust–Transcanada terminates Energy East pipeline project from the tarsands https://t.co/rqUmOpMKR3

— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) October 5, 2017

TransCanada also announced Thursday that it is ditching the Eastern Mainline pipeline project in the face of critical scrutiny from Canadian energy regulators.

Both projects from their inception faced fierce opposition from Indigenous groups and climate activists, who often referred to Energy East as a “ticking time bomb” that posed a tremendous threat to sacred lands and the water supply.

“It simply is not worth the risk,” Maude Barlow, honorary chairperson with the Council of Canadians, concluded in 2014.

But while the downfall of both Energy East and Eastern Mainline was welcomed by those who worked tirelessly for years to guarantee their defeat, activists issued an urgent reminder that the fight against pipelines in both Canada and the United States has only just begun.

“The end of Energy East shows that extreme energy projects are part of our past not our future,” Barlow said in a statement on Thursday. “For all of our sakes, Kinder Morgan, Line 3, Line 10, and Keystone XL must face the same fate.”

Grand Chief Serge Simon of the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake agreed, arguing Thursday that “it will be a hollow victory” if any of the many other pipelines under consideration “are allowed to steamroll over Indigenous opposition and serve as an outlet for even more climate-killing tar sands production.”

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

The 6 ‘secret’ tactics of empire are strategies of change used by governments, usually covertly, to attain political or military ends through means not normally acceptable to the populace as a whole. The strategies are as follows:

1. False Flag Attacks
2. Coercive Engineered Migration
3. Colour Revolutions
4. Humanitarian Intervention
5. Proxy Armies
6. Fake News

The relationship of the state or a political force to the various strategies depends on the political aim. Sometimes there is a direct and openly admitted relationship to the strategy and sometimes it is fervently denied. The outcome of any such strategy is never guaranteed and, indeed, may even have the opposite effect to that intended.

This makes the strategies of change high-risk ventures for the participants as well as those for whom the strategy is hoped to benefit. In some cases these strategies of change seem to be perceived as the only way to change a situation, or at least the most expedient. Their role is to manipulate public opinion on a particular government, state or upcoming political movement to suit the actions, thoughts or desires of another internal or external political force. Like a good magician, the perpetrator of the strategy must make people conscious of the ends but not the means. If the people support a changed environment brought about by strategies of change without realizing or understanding why, then the result can be seen as ‘successful’.

1. False Flag Attacks

 False Flag Attack
Triptych – Oil on canvas – (60cm x 180cm / 23.6 in x 70.6 in)

False flag attacks are actions carried out covertly to look like another group, nation or state were responsible. While in theory false flags are secret, some public individuals have openly called for false flag operations to be implemented to serve as a basis for initiating war against another country perceived to be an enemy. The history of false flags, however, is not secret and information about many past successful and proposed attacks is freely available on the internet.

2. Coercive Engineered Migration

​​Blue Skies, Blue Seas, Blue Gloves
​Triptych – Oil on canvas – (60cm x 180cm / 23.6 in x 70.6 in)

Coercive engineered migration is a strategy which acts to overwhelm another country’s capacity to cope with a large influx of refugees or migrants. This pressure can affect competing political interests and thereby change the behavior of the target country.

3. Colour Revolutions

Colour Blind: Orange Revolution – Ukraine, Green Revolution – Iran,
Jeans Revolution – Belarus
Triptych – Oil on canvas – (60cm x 180cm / 23.6 in x 70.6 in)

Colour revolutions are a form of nonviolent resistance utilizing social media, demonstrations and strikes as a protest against governments especially in changing their geopolitical outlook from one radically different in their past. Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and students have been involved organizing creative non-violent resistance and usually pick a color or a flower as a symbol of their movement.

4. Fake News

Green Screen
Triptych – Oil on canvas – (60cm x 180cm / 23.6 in x 70.6 in)

Fake news is a type of news that often uses disinformation to propagate ideas for political advantage through the broadcast media or social media via the internet. It is used to discredit serious media coverage of an event. For example, video footage of riots in one city were used on the news by one network to portray a city in a completely different country in a negative light.

5. Humanitarian Intervention [R2P]

Humanitarian Warfare
Triptych – Oil on canvas – (60cm x 180cm / 23.6 in x 70.6 in)

Humanitarian warfare is an ironic term describing military interventions which give human rights reasons such as protecting a population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity as the basis for their actions.

6. Proxy Armies

Proxy Army
Triptych – Oil on canvas – (60cm x 180cm / 23.6 in x 70.6 in)

A proxy army is an army funded and armed by a foreign opposing power who cannot for political or social sensitivities at home fight directly with the country at war.

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country at http://gaelart.blogspot.ie/.

All these paintings are from the author.

Featured image: PM Mariano Rajoy (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Pre-election polls and referendum results showed Catalans overwhelming want independence from Spain – the Mariano Rajoy regime a “political dictatorship”, much like Francisco Franco’s military one.

Madrid-sponsored police state violence against Catalan voters last Sunday unified popular secessionist support. The UN Charter and other international laws affirm the right of self-determination.

Catalan President Carles Puigdemont said he’d support the will of the people, indicating he’d declare independence with parliamentary support within 48 hours of Sunday’s vote.

Six days later, he’s yet to act or convene parliament. Spain’s Constitutional Court, the nation’s highest judicial body, defied international law.

It suspended the Catalan parliament’s Monday session – a majority of MPs expected to declare the autonomous region’s independence, their legal right.

Puigdemont rescheduled the session for Tuesday. If he, his government and majority parliamentarians for independence back down, they’ll be bowing to Madrid tyranny, betraying 90% of Catalans supporting independence in last Sunday’s referendum.

The final vote count showed 92.01% for independence, 7.99% against, the ayes overwhelmingly supporting secession.

Puigdemont and parliamentarians are obliged to declare it. That’s what democracy is all about.

Threats by Madrid to seize control of Catalonia’s government, send thousands of national police, civil guards and soldiers to its streets, likely clashing with independence supporters, arresting pro-secession officials, and undermining freedom should be challenged by popular resistance – officials together with millions of Catalans refusing to sacrifice their rights to Madrid.

A full-scale constitutional crisis looks set to worsen, the worst in Spain in decades.

Pro-independence Catalan MP Carles Riera said

“(w)e are in talks about a text, with paper and pencil, on the declaration that we want the regional parliament to accept on Tuesday.”

“Nobody has put forward any scenario of delay, ambiguity or confusion. We are not working on that scenario.”

Catalonia’s head of foreign affairs Raul Romeva indicated a decision on independence is coming, saying

“(p)arliament will discuss. Parliament will meet. It will be a debate, and this is important.”

On Saturday and Sunday, Catalans are expected to mass on Barcelona streets, overwhelmingly calling for independence, urging their government to act, supporting what they voted for.

Madrid refused talks with Catalan officials unless they abandon support for independence.

Yielding to Rajoy tyranny would constitute betrayal. Self-determination is a universal right. Declaring it is the next step.

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.

Eliot Higgins is a “non-resident senior fellow” with the Atlantic Council whose functions appear to include seeking to discredit any reporting or analysis and documentation that conflicts with the DC-based think tank’s interventionist agenda. Higgins’ agenda dovetails closely with his employer’s funders in NATO as well as Atlantic Council backers like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey — the states that have also bankrolled Syrian Salafi insurgents.

Higgins flew into an online rage as soon as I published my article at AlterNet on the allegations of a sarin attack in Khan Sheikhoun. Although the article shows that a conventional airstrike in Khan Sheikhoun did cause large numbers of dead and injured, I also exposed evidence of a deception mounted by al Qaeda’s local Syrian affiliate to convince the world that the regime had carried out a sarin attack from the air in Khan Sheikhoun. These revelations were anathema to Higgins, who supports the official U.S.-NATO version of events against any critical examination, and to an almost religious degree.

Higgins launched an all-out attack on the article consisting of dozens of tweets, none of which has actually challenged the evidence presented in the article.  In his initial volley, he sought to portray my use of the term “building” for a two-story structure connected to the others but clearly distinct from them as a serious prevarication.

On the other hand, Higgins betrayed no pang of conscience over defending a position that is clearly at odds with the facts. When I asked Higgins in a tweet how he explained the complete absence of the pieces of a weapon that should have been found near the crater, he responded as though he had no need for any explanation: “I prefer not to speculate.”

The brunt of Higgins’s attack was aimed at my detailed case that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) based its overall conclusion of a government sarin attack on test results of biomedical and environmental samples that either could have been manipulated — or that OPCW simply failed to consider an alternative explanation that was consistent with the actual results.

Higgins did not contest any of the points that I documented, including the fact that two scientists with ties to OPCW acknowledged in e-mails that the OPCW test for IMPA —  the main break-down product of sarin in the body — could produce a false positive.  All that al Qaeda’s local operatives would need to do fool the OPCW test would be to administer the subject giving a biomedical sample a dose of IMPA, a harmless compound sold by major chemical companies.

At the same time, Higgins claimed to be scandalized that I would dare to assert that al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise authorities could have planted sarin in the environmental samples and fooled the OPCW’s test for IMPA in biomedical samples.

Higgins demanded to know from whom al Qaeda obtained the sarin. He did not make the same demand in regard to the IMPA, the availability of which can be easily documented.

The real issue is not whether we know from whom, where and when Nusra Front officials obtained sarin, but whether the OPCW test results represent incontrovertible evidence, as Higgins insists. OPCW itself has in the past taken the formal position that they do not and cannot rely on samples that could have been tampered with. As I documented in my report, the OPCW itself adopted a rule in 2013 that neither biomedical or environmental samples could be used as evidence for any conclusion about the use of chemical weapons unless the organization had a complete, reliable chain of custody for the samples — meaning that that the OPCW staff would have to be directly involved in the collection of the samples.

But in the case of Khan Sheikhoun, the OPCW collected no environmental or biomedical samples in Khan Sheikhoun, because it never set foot in the city. Instead it accepted environmental samples collected by the White Helmets — a civilian and de facto media arm of the Al Qaeda-tied rulers of Idlib — along with biomedical samples collected by the Idlib Health Directorate and a private pro-rebel Syrian-American organization that operates field hospitals in Idlib. The OPCW then reported on the positive results for sarin as evidence in support of its conclusion that a sarin attack had caused the deaths and injuries.  In doing so, the OPCW massively and shamefully violated its most fundamental protocols, and nullified the validity of its conclusion.

Higgins’s Twitter rant asserted also that the sarin in question could definitely be linked to the Syrian government. In two paired tweets, he wrote,

“The Sarin was found with hexamine and other byproducts… This matches with other samples which would link it to the Syrian government’s Sarin.”

But his argument is false and misleading. It is, in fact, based on a French “National Evaluation” published on April 27 that was clearly aimed at making a political splash at the expense of the truth. The French government determined that the sarin in the environmental samples it obtained from Khan Sheikhoun had the same elements as those that it obtained from the site of an apparent chemical attack in Saraqeb in northern Idlib province in April 2013.  According to that same French document, the French government had concluded from the sarin found in an unexploded grenade that the Syrian government had manufactured sarin by a process that utilized hexamine.  On the basis of that conclusion, the French government insisted that the Syrian government must have carried out sarin attacks in both Saraqeb and Khan Sheikhoun.

In fact, however, the evidence of a government sarin attack in Saraqeb was highly questionable. Videos and photographs taken at the site of the attack in Saraqeb showed a tiny white polymer canister with a fly-off handle and four holes distributed evenly around its surface, each of which had marks around them.  A chemical weapons specialists who examined the photos and videos noted that it did not appear to have delivered sarin, which would not have left such marks around the holes. Higgins should remember that testimony, because it was Higgins who interviewed the specialists for his “Brown Moses” blog.

A little more than three weeks before the attack, photographer Jeff Ruigendijk had photographed an al-Nusra Front cadre with that same white canister hanging from his jacket.  After the attack, Die Welt correspondent Alfred Hackensberger interviewed Nusra Front fighters in the Aleppo area who showed him similar canisters in their equipment and described them as smoke grenades that had been captured from government depots.

Those canisters were the only ones filmed or photographed in the immediate aftermath of both the alleged sarin attacks in Saraqeb and Sheikh Maqsoud. Only four years later did the French government publicize details of the unexploded grenade said to have been found in Sarqeb that contained sarin announced its analysis of its constituent elements.  Yet even through the governments of France and United Kingdom brought the incident to the attention of the U.N. mission, the mission’s report notes it was “not able to collect any primary information on munitions” — meaning that it was not given access to the grenade holding sarin.

And the grenade is not shown in the photographs and videos of the spot where the French paper said it was found. These facts suggest that the grenade was introduced by local officials in Idlib only later. Contrary to Higgins and the French government, therefore, it does not constitute proof that a sarin-filled bomb was dropped on Saraqeb by Syrian government.  The sarin in the environmental samples from Khan Sheikhoun may indeed be from the same source as the sarin found in the grenade obtained by the French government, but it doesn’t prove that it was deployed from Syrian government weapons.

Higgins has argued that the presence of hexamine in the sarin incriminates the government, because the government turned over supplies of hexamine under the 2013 agreement that prompted it to give up its entire stock of chemical weapons.  But Ake Sellstrom, the head of the U.N Mission that investigated the Saraqeb and other cases from 2013, doesn’t agree. Sellstrom wrote to MIT Professor Theodore Postol on June 18, 2014 that hexamine is “a product simple to get hold of and in no way conclusively points to the government.”

Higgins’s aggressive tweetstorm betrayed a weak hand. Desperate to defend the narrative he is employed to enforce, he let loose a heavy barrage of smoke but proved that he doesn’t have the facts to support his attack.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specializing in U.S. national security policy. His latest book is Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare (Just World Books, 2014).

Featured image is from the author.

Surrounded by top military leaders at the White House Thursday evening, US President Donald Trump ominously described the current world situation as “the calm before the storm.” While he refused to be more specific, Trump’s menacing remark—almost certainly directed against North Korea—is another warning that the US is on the brink of launching a catastrophic war.

Far from being off-the-cuff, Trump made the comments to a hastily-convened photo-op before a dinner with “the world’s greatest military people” and their wives. Defence Secretary James Mattis, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Joseph Dunford and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly were all present.

The US president, who had just met with the generals, brushed aside subsequent repeated questions from reporters asking: “What storm?” Trump finally declared: “You’ll find out.”

In his opening remarks to the earlier meeting, Trump directed his most threatening remarks at North Korea, declaring: “We cannot allow this dictatorship to threaten our nation or our allies with unimaginable loss of life. We will do what we must do to prevent that from happening.”

Trump underscored the last point by adding: “And it will be done, if necessary—believe me.”

In reality, it is the Trump administration, not the North Korean regime, which is chiefly responsible for the extremely tense situation on the Korean Peninsula. Trump who is commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful military apparatus has repeatedly threatened the small, economically backward country with annihilation.

Trump followed up his fascistic speech at the UN last month, warning North Korea faced “total destruction,” by tweeting that North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un “won’t be around much longer.” He has effectively ruled out negotiations with North Korea, publicly rebuking US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson last weekend for “wasting his time” by exploring the possibility of talks with Pyongyang.

The extreme danger of war with North Korea is exacerbating divisions within ruling circles in Washington and the White House itself. The differences are tactical in character. Tillerson, Defence Secretary Mattis and National Security Adviser McMaster have all warned North Korea that “the military option is on the table.” At the same time, they have emphasised the need for a diplomatic solution to the confrontation.

All three of Trump’s top advisers have also supported the 2015 agreement reached with Iran to severely limit its nuclear programs. Trump, on the other hand, has slammed the deal as one of “the worse and most one-sided transactions” that the US has ever struck. He is reportedly poised to decertify the agreement next week—a move that will lead to escalating tensions with Tehran and also with Washington’s European allies that support the deal.

Under these conditions, Trump’s meeting on Thursday with his top generals appears aimed at ensuring full support, above all, for his reckless and aggressive preparations for war with North Korea. In his remarks before the discussion, Trump declared he expected those assembled to provide him “with a broad range of military options… at a much faster pace.” He made clear the generals were in charge, declaring he was relying on them “to overcome the obstacles of bureaucracy.”

What is at stake in a US war with North Korea was underscored yesterday by Democrat congressman Ted Lieu. He warned that a conflict with North Korea would be “unbelievably bloody.” While condemning the Pyongyang regime as “an absolute danger and threat,” he said there were “no good military options.” Lieu is a former Air Force officer who was stationed on Guam in the 1990s and participated in war games designed to prepare for conflict with North Korea.

Lieu and Congressman Ruben Gallego wrote to Defence Secretary Mattis on September 26, declaring it was “wrong to use military force without first exhausting all other options, including diplomacy.” They requested answers to a series of questions centred on “the best- and worst-case casualty estimates [American, South Korean and Japanese] for the North Korean conventional and nuclear responses to a US military attack.”

“Before this administration leads America down the dark, bloody and uncertain path of war with North Korea, the American people and their representatives in Congress deserve answers to the critical questions list above,” the letter concluded.

Lieu was at pains to stress yesterday he is not opposed to war. Indeed, he has been a vocal supporter of the McCarthyite witch-hunt against “Russian influence” in the 2016 federal elections and over the Trump administration. This faction of the American ruling elite favours a confrontation and, if necessary, war with Russia first, rather than with North Korea and by implication China.

In comments to the Los Angeles Times last month, retired Air Force brigadier-general Rob Givens warned:

“Too many Americans have the view that it [a US war with North Korea] would be like the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, or like combat operations in Libya or Syria, but it wouldn’t remotely resemble that.”

Givens bluntly declared:

“There is only one way that this war ends. With North Korea’s defeat—but at what cost?”

Givens, who served on the Korean Peninsula, reported that the Pentagon has estimated 20,000 South Koreans would die every day, even before the use of nuclear weapons.

There is every indication that the Trump administration, in a bid to forestall any North Korean retaliation, is preparing a massive military attack with conventional and/or nuclear weapons to destroy its military apparatus, industry and top leadership.

Military analyst Daniel Pinkston told the Los Angeles Times that any attempt to destroy North Korea’s nuclear arsenal “has a high likelihood that you are going to unleash the very thing that you are trying to prevent”—namely nuclear war.

In that event, a report released yesterday by the 38 North monitoring group based at Johns Hopkins University estimated that as many as 3.8 million people in Tokyo and Seoul alone could die in North Korean nuclear attacks. While the group made no estimate of the wider death toll, millions more would die in American nuclear attacks on North Korea, even if a broader war with nuclear-armed China and Russia were initially avoided.

The political divisions in Washington and the White House make a US attack on North Korea more likely, rather than less likely, as Trump desperately seeks a means of shoring up his administration and projecting the acute social tensions in the United States outward against a foreign foe.