Russia’s Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov has confirmed that President Vladimir Putin will arrive in Ankara on the 28th of September to meet with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The two leaders already spoke over the phone in the aftermath of the Kurdish separatism referendum in northern Iraq, a vote which Kurdish separatists said attained a 91% yes vote. The vote was boycotted by Arabs and Turkomen and widely condemned by the international community.

Prior to the controversial vote, Russia, urged Kurds to put the vote on hold in order for the provocative move to be replaced by dialogue. Russia continues to urge for a calm approach to the referendum’s aftermath.

The Russian Foreign Ministry released a statement, reading,

“The Russian party believes it to be of utmost importance to avoid anything that risk to further complicate and destabilise the Middle East, which is already overloaded by conflict situations”.

The Foreign Ministry added that Russia supports the territorial unity of Iraq and its neighbours and that the present crisis “can and should be resolved with constructive and respectful dialogue aimed at finding a mutual form of coexistence in a unified Iraqi state”.

Putin’s visit with Erdogan is expected to cover a cooperative approach to the Kurdish issue in Iraq. Turkey has vowed to implement a strict economic blockade of northern Iraq and has not ruled out full-scale military intervention.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Putin to Visit Erdogan in Turkey as Russia Supports a United Iraq

The Rise of the New McCarthyism

September 28th, 2017 by Robert Parry

Featured image: Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wisconsin, who led the “Red Scare” hearings of the 1950s.

Make no mistake about it: the United States has entered an era of a New McCarthyism that blames nearly every political problem on Russia and has begun targeting American citizens who don’t go along with this New Cold War propaganda.

A difference, however, from the McCarthyism of the 1950s is that this New McCarthyism has enlisted Democrats, liberals and even progressives in the cause because of their disgust with President Trump; the 1950s version was driven by Republicans and the Right with much of the Left on the receiving end, maligned by the likes of Sen. Joe McCarthy as “un-American” and as Communism’s “fellow travelers.”

The real winners in this New McCarthyism appear to be the neoconservatives who have leveraged the Democratic/liberal hatred of Trump to draw much of the Left into the political hysteria that sees the controversy over alleged Russian political “meddling” as an opportunity to “get Trump.”

Already, the neocons and their allies have exploited the anti-Russian frenzy to extract tens of millions of dollars more from the taxpayers for programs to “combat Russian propaganda,” i.e., funding of non-governmental organizations and “scholars” who target dissident Americans for challenging the justifications for this New Cold War.

The Washington Post, which for years has served as the flagship for neocon propaganda, is again charting the new course for America, much as it did in rallying U.S. public backing for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and in building sympathy for abortive “regime change” projects aimed at Syria and Iran. The Post has begun blaming almost every unpleasant development in the world on Russia! Russia! Russia!

For instance, a Post editorial on Tuesday shifted the blame for the anemic victory of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the surprising strength of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) from Merkel’s austerity policies, which have caused hardship for much of the working class, or from her open door for Mideast refugees, which has destabilized some working-class neighborhoods, to – you guessed it – Russia!

The evidence, as usual, is vague and self-interested, but sure to be swallowed by many Democrats and liberals, who hate Russia because they blame it for Trump, and by lots of Republicans and conservatives, who have a residual hatred for Russia left over from the Old Cold War.

The Post cited the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, which has been pushing much of the hysteria about alleged Russian activities on the Internet. The Atlantic Council essentially is NATO’s think tank and is financed with money from the U.S. government, Gulf oil states, military contractors, global financial institutions and many other sources which stand to gain directly or indirectly from the expanding U.S. military budget and NATO interventions.

Blaming Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

In this New Cold War, the Russians get blamed for not only disrupting some neocon “regime change” projects, such as the proxy war in Syria, but also political developments in the West, such as Donald Trump’s election and AfD’s rise in Germany.

The Atlantic Council’s digital lab claimed, according to the Post editorial, that

“In the final hours of the [German] campaign, online supporters of the AfD began warning their base of possible election fraud, and the online alarms were ‘driven by anonymous troll accounts and boosted by a Russian-language bot-net.’”

Of course, the Post evinces no evidence tying any of this to the Russian government or to President Vladimir Putin. It is the nature of McCarthyism that actual evidence is not required, just heavy breathing and dark suspicions. For those of us who operate Web sites, “trolls” – some volunteers and some professionals – have become a common annoyance and they represent many political outlooks, not just Russian.

Plus, it is standard procedure these days for campaigns to issue last-minute alarms to their supporters about possible election fraud to raise doubts about the results should the outcome be disappointing.

The U.S. government has engaged in precisely this strategy around the world, having pro-U.S. parties not only complain about election fraud but to take to the streets in violent protests to impugn the legitimacy of election outcomes. That U.S. strategy has been applied to places such as Ukraine (the Orange Revolution in 2004); Iran (the Green Revolution in 2009); Russia (the Snow Revolution in 2011); and many other locations.

Pre-election alerts also have become a feature in U.S. elections, even in 2016 when both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton raised questions about the legitimacy of the balloting, albeit for different reasons.

Yet, instead of seeing the AfD maneuver as a typical ploy by a relatively minor party – and the German election outcome as an understandable reflection of voter discontent and weariness over Merkel’s three terms as Chancellor – the Atlantic Council and the Post see Russians under every bed and particularly Putin.

Loving to Hate Putin

In the world of neocon propaganda, Putin has become the great bête noire, since he has frustrated a variety of neocon schemes. He helped head off a major U.S. military strike against Syria in 2013; he aided President Obama in achieving the Iran nuclear agreement in 2014-15; Putin opposed and – to a degree – frustrated the neocon-supported coup in Ukraine in 2014; and he ultimately supplied the air power that defeated neocon-backed “rebel” forces in Syria in 2015-17.

President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20 Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

So, the Post and the neocons want Putin gone – and they have used gauzy allegations about “Russian meddling” in the U.S. and other elections as the new propaganda theme to justify destabilizing Russia with economic sanctions and, if possible, engineering another “regime change” project in Moscow.

None of this is even secret. Carl Gershman, the neocon president of the U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, publicly proclaimed the goal of ousting Putin in an op-ed in The Washington Post, writing:

“The United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so.”

But the way neocon propaganda works is that the U.S. and its allies are always the victims of some nefarious enemy who must be thwarted to protect all that is good in the world. In other words, even as NED and other U.S.-funded operations take aim at Putin and Russia, Russia and Putin must be transformed into the aggressors.

“Mr. Putin would like nothing better than to generate doubts, fog, cracks and uncertainty around the German pillar of Europe,” the Post editorial said. “He relishes infiltrating chaos and mischief into open societies. In this case, supporting the far-right AfD is extraordinarily cynical, given how many millions of Russians died to defeat the fascists seven decades ago.”

Not to belabor the point but there is no credible evidence that Putin did any of this. There is a claim by the virulently anti-Russian Atlantic Council that some “anonymous troll accounts” promoted some AfD complaint about possible voter fraud and that it was picked up by “a Russian-language bot-net.” Even if that is true – and the Atlantic Council is far from an objective source – where is the link to Putin?

Not everything that happens in Russia, a nation of 144 million people, is ordered by Putin. But the Post would have you believe that it is. It is the centerpiece of this neocon conspiracy theory.

Silencing Dissent

Similarly, any American who questions this propaganda immediately is dismissed as a “Kremlin stooge” or a “Russian propagandist,” another ugly campaign spearheaded by the Post and the neocons. Again, no evidence is required, just some analysis that what you’re saying somehow parallels something Putin has said.

On Tuesday, in what amounted to a companion piece for the editorial, a Post article again pushed the unproven suspicions about “Russian operatives” buying $100,000 in Facebook ads from 2015 into 2017 to supposedly influence U.S. politics. Once again, no evidence required.

In the article, the Post also reminds its readers that Moscow has a history of focusing on social inequities in the U.S., which gets us back to the comparisons between the Old McCarthyism and the new.

Yes, it’s true that the Soviet Union denounced America’s racial segregation and cited that ugly feature of U.S. society in expressing solidarity with the American civil rights movement and national liberation struggles in Africa. It’s also true that American Communists collaborated with the domestic civil rights movement to promote racial integration.

That was a key reason why J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI targeted Martin Luther King Jr. and other African-American leaders – because of their association with known or suspected Communists. (Similarly, the Reagan administration resisted support for Nelson Mandela because his African National Congress accepted Communist support in its battle against South Africa’s Apartheid white-supremacist regime.)

Interestingly, one of the arguments from liberal national Democrats in opposing segregation in the 1960s was that the repression of American blacks undercut U.S. diplomatic efforts to develop allies in Africa. In other words, Soviet and Communist criticism of America’s segregation actually helped bring about the demise of that offensive system.

Yet, King’s association with alleged Communists remained a talking point of die-hard segregationists even after his assassination when they opposed creating a national holiday in his honor in the 1980s.

These parallels between the Old McCarthyism and the New McCarthyism are implicitly acknowledged in the Post’s news article on Tuesday, which cites Putin’s criticism of police killings of unarmed American blacks as evidence that he is meddling in U.S. politics.

“Since taking office, Putin has on occasion sought to spotlight racial tensions in the United States as a means of shaping perceptions of American society,” the article states. “Putin injected himself in 2014 into the race debate after protests broke out in Ferguson, Mo., over the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, an African American, by a white police officer.

“‘Do you believe that everything is perfect now from the point of view of democracy in the United States?’ Putin told CBS’s ’60 Minutes’ program. ‘If everything was perfect, there wouldn’t be the problem of Ferguson. There would be no abuse by the police. But our task is to see all these problems and respond properly.’”

The Post’s speculative point seems to be that Putin’s response included having “Russian operatives” buy some ads on Facebook to exploit these racial tensions, but there is no evidence to support that conspiracy theory.

However, as this anti-Russia hysteria spreads, we may soon see Americans who also protest the police killing of unarmed black men denounced as “Putin’s fellow-travelers,” much as King and other civil rights leaders were smeared as “Communist dupes.”

Ignoring Reality

So, instead of Democrats and Chancellor Merkel looking in the mirror and seeing the real reasons why many white working-class voters are turning toward “populist” and “extremist” alternatives, they can simply blame Putin and continue a crackdown on Internet-based dissent as the work of “Russian operatives.”

Already, under the guise of combating “Russian propaganda” and “fake news,” Google, Facebook and other tech giants have begun introducing algorithms to hunt down and marginalize news that challenges official U.S. government narratives on hot-button issues such as Ukraine and Syria. Again, no evidence is required, just the fact that Putin may have said something similar.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel with her hands in the characteristic Merkel-Raute position. (Photo from Wikipedia)

As Democrats, liberals and even some progressives join in this Russia-gate hysteria – driven by their hatred of Donald Trump and his supposedly “fascistic” tendencies – they might want to consider whom they’ve climbed into bed with and what these neocons have in mind for the future.

Arguably, if fascism or totalitarianism comes to the United States, it is more likely to arrive in the guise of “protecting democracy” from Russia or another foreign adversary than from a reality-TV clown like Donald Trump.

The New McCarthyism with its Orwellian-style algorithms might seem like a clever way to neutralize (or maybe even help oust) Trump but – long after Trump is gone – a structure for letting the neocons and the mainstream media monopolize American political debate might be a far greater threat to both democracy and peace.

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).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Rise of the New McCarthyism

Severe Humanitarian Crisis in Puerto Rico

September 28th, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

It was nearly a week after Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico for Trump to notice, tweeting:

“Texas & Florida are doing great but Puerto Rico, which was already suffering from broken infrastructure & massive debt, is in deep trouble.”

In countless cases, affected Texas and Florida residents lost everything, lucky to be alive, struggling to cope largely on their own with little or no federal aid, funds appropriated for business and infrastructure rebuilding, not them. Trump ignored their suffering, mocking them by failing to act responsibly.

Puerto Rico resembles the aftermath of nuclear war, the island devastated without power, the ability to communicate, and other essential services, residents facing humanitarian crisis conditions, worsening daily.

Governor Ricardo Rossello and other officials described conditions as “apocalyptic,” calling for vital federal aid immediately.

San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz described a totally devastated landscape. Without power, “(p)eople are literally gasping for air” in sweltering heat, she said, seriously ill individuals unable to get vital treatment, their lives endangered.

The breached Guajataca dam could collapse altogether, tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans endangered by an estimated 11 billion gallon tsunami if unleashed.

Around half the population has no running water, including hospitals. Few have working generators. Medical supplies are running out – Trump more concerned about Puerto Rico’s unrepayable debt owed Wall Street and other large investors than providing vital aid to desperate people.

For days, islanders had no contact from federal agencies. On Tuesday, Trump disgracefully said Puerto is “an island in the middle of the ocean. (Y)ou can’t just drive your trucks there from other states” – ignoring America’s enormous military airlifting capability, along with essentials to life it can deliver by sea.

Washington can put a man on the moon, others in space regularly, but won’t go all-out to deliver food, temporary shelters, medical supplies and other essentials to its Puerto Rican citizens.

The island has been colonized for over 500 years, first by Spain, then America since 1898, its people exploited, not equitably served.

Desperate islanders interviewed complained about lack of federal or local help, Puerto Rico battered twice, first by Hurricane Irma, then Maria.

Local journalist Julio Ricardo Varel explained

“(t)he island always struggles to get federal aid for natural disasters…Maria is the worst example, but it’s hardly the first.”

Professor of Anthropology and Caribbean Studies Yarimar Bonilla said disaster caused by Irma and Maria showed Washington’s disdain for Puerto Rico.

“It is long-term structural problems that turn a disaster into a catastrophe,” he explained, adding “(v)ulnerability is not simply a product of natural conditions. It is a political state and a colonial condition.”

“With a poverty rate nearly double that of Mississippi, failing infrastructure that has been neglected for more than a decade, and a public sector that has been increasingly dismantled in response to the debt crisis, the island was already in a state of emergency long before (Irma and Maria) hit.”

In his book titled “War Against All Puerto Ricans: Revolution and Terror in America’s Colony,” Puerto Rican/Cuban American author Nelson Denis (former New York assemblyman) said the way islanders are mistreated “is not a pretty story.”

“Separately, he wrote “Puerto Rico has been little more than a profit center for the United States: first as a naval coaling station, then as a sugar empire, a cheap labor supply, a tax haven, a captive market, and now as a municipal bond debtor and target for privatization.”

“It is an island of beggars and billionaires: fought over by lawyers, bossed by absentee landlords, and clerked by politicians.”

Trump, like his predecessors, sees Puerto Rico as ripe fruit for profit-making, unconcerned about its people – even given current humanitarian crisis conditions.

Disaster capitalism aims to profit from devastation caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria. It’s a familiar story.

Promised financial aid goes for infrastructure rebuilding, upscale development, privatizations of public facilities, and gentrification in choice areas.

Privileged interests benefit, ordinary people forsaken, what Puerto Ricans can expect from federal and local officials.

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

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

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

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

Featured image is from The Intercept.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Severe Humanitarian Crisis in Puerto Rico

Selected Articles: Cold War Then. Cold War Now

September 28th, 2017 by Global Research 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)

*     *     *

Deporting Palestinians?

By Stephen Lendman, September 27, 2017

Israel’s Knesset is infested with militant hate-mongering right-wing extremists, terrorizing Palestinians, falsely blaming them for state-sponsored high crimes.

Analysis by Analogy: Myanmar Is Not Syria

By Tony Cartalucci, September 27, 2017

In Myanmar, while the US and its Saudi partners are apparently fueling militancy among the Rohingya population, it was the US itself who for decades built up the political networks of the current ruling regime, with Aung San Suu Kyi a whole-cloth creation of Western media narratives, immense funding and political support, and a carefully crafted facade to obfuscate from the public for decades the true, nationalist and even genocidal nature of Suu Kyi’s supposedly “Buddhist nationalist” support base.

There Is No Rehabilitating the Vietnam War

By Robert Freeman, September 27, 2017

There is enormous pressure and a lot of money working to rehabilitate Vietnam, to put the guilt and the shame of it behind us. But it was precisely the guilt of the people, their shame at what was being done in their name, and their courage to denounce it that made it impossible for their government to carry out the savagery any longer.

Cold War Then. Cold War Now.

By William Blum, September 27, 2017

The anti-Russian/anti-Soviet bias in the American media appears to have no limit. You would think that they would have enough self-awareness and enough journalistic integrity -– just enough -– to be concerned about their image. But it keeps on coming, piled higher and deeper.

Russian Special Forces Repel a US-planned Attack in Syria, Denounce the USA and Issue a Stark Warning

By The Saker, September 27, 2017

Right now the Americans are hiding behind the Kurds, but sooner or later the Iranians or Hezbollah will find them. As for the Kurds, their situation in Syria is precarious, to put it mildly: they are surrounded on all sides by the Turks, the Syrians and the Iranians and their only more or less stable zone of control is in Iraq. The Americans understand that perfectly, hence their desperate attempts to stop the Syrians.

Featured image is from Fort Russ.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Cold War Then. Cold War Now
Se já não bastasse a sucessão de pauladas na cabeçado trabalhador brasileiro, da qual é vítima diariamente na vida cotidiana à mercê de um Estado terrorista, excludente por natureza cuja forte intolerância e ódio regional, sexista, étnico, de classe e de gênero permeiam todos os segmentos da sociedade e órgãos governamentais, nos porões do poder a “festa pobre”, nas palavras do saudoso Cazuza cujo banquete é compartilhado alegremente também por Luiz Inácio, cada vez mais mostra-se desolador para não dizer mesmo desesperador.

No último dia, 15 o general Hamilton Mourão, secretário-brucutu de Economia e Finanças do Exército, afirmou que intervenção militar é a solução para a crise política instalada no Brasil. Em 2015, este mesmo general havia sido removido da chefia do Comando Militar do Sul por prestar homenagem póstuma ao coronel Brilhante Ustra, condenado por tortura. Pois para piorar, a situação do Brasil é tão desgraçada hoje que disse até que punir Mourão significaria premiá-lo, ao torná-lo heroi junto a seus apoiantes. Tal raciocínio remete ao fato: se a crise política piorar e Michel Temer cair – o que está estampado que ocorrerá -, dada a “vitalidade” de nossa “esquerda”, quem assumirá este País?

A resposta pode fazer pensar se não seria “menos desvantajoso” (!) ao povo brasileiro aguentar este quase fundo do poço em que se encontra até as eleições de 2018, sem grande alarde e que tenha muito boa sorte Temer e sua quadrilha – que situação! Mas o que aguarda o Brasil para a “festa da democracia” de 2018, pós-ratos na piscina – históricos aliados do PT?

É aí mesmo que a porca torce o rabo, que se toca nas feridas dos ferozes combates pelos privilégios do poder de um Estado putrefado em suas estruturas, desde sempre em favor de classes dominantes mesquinhas, ignorantes e raivosas como em nenhum outro lugar do planeta diante de uma grande plateia analfabeta, sobretudo política; portanto, vulnerável tanto à direita quanto à esquerda do acirramento dos ânimos , em ampla medida da discussão por coisa nenhuma produzida por um punhado de canalhas do topo da pirâmide.

Quase um mês antes das esborrifadas do brucutu Mourão, e no aniversário de um ano da consumação do golpe parlamentar contra a “companheira” Dilma Rousseff, eis que Luiz Inácio tratou de dar mais um exemplo do porquê a maioria dos cidadãos brasileiros está totalmente desacreditada com a política: subiu ao palanque com ninguém menos que Renan Calheiros! Recebido pelo oligarca e arquiteto do golpe parlamentar-jurídico-midiático contra a ex-presidente com muita festa nas Alagoas, o grande (e único) nome da “esquerda” não poupou a língua em favor do “companheiro” alagoano, e “rasgou o verbo” enaltecendo a “independência” e “coragem” do peemedebista!

E uma enrome parte da mídia “alternativa” brasileira, fiel publicitária dos comícios de Luiz Inácio pelos rincões do País, neste caso (evidenciando o porquê de se dedicar espaço, entusiasticamente, apenas a um candidato assumidamente em campanha presidencial, o que fere os princípios jornalísticos baseados na objetividade, transparencia, ética e imparcialidade), obviamente “deixou passar”: não cabe no panfleto lulista o abraço fraterno, respeitoso, admirado de Luiz Inácio exatamente nele, em Calheiros.

No caso específico deste setor midiático-panfleteiro, as observações da jornalista (socialista) norte-americana Rheta Childe Dorr (1868-1948) em seu livro Inside the Russian Revolution (Por Dentro da Revolução Russa), escrito em plena Rússia em 1917, em meio à “Revolução” no qual aponta a tirania do novo governo dos sovietes e as manipulações midiáticas a partir de então, encaixam-se perfeitamente no contexto brasileiro “alternativo”: “A censura à imprensa, hoje, é rígida e tirânica como no auge da autocracia, só que um tipo diferente de notícia é suprimido” (grifo nosso). Alguém tem alguma dúvida?

Pois em antecipação aos certos ataques petistas a esta observação fazendo-se valer da liberdade de expressão, foi em nome dessa mesma liberdade que, há um ano e meio, os petistas deram início (com toda a razão, e tarde demais) à demonização de Calheiros e de todo e qualquer cidadão que o defendesse – assim como de Temer, o mesmo que o PT havia escolhido a dedo, e a quem tanto defendeu das críticas dos “esquerdistas utra-radicais”. Quem se lembra?

Quanto à justificada aversão da sociedade brasileira em relação à politica, perfeitamente compreensível, vale aponta que Dilma tratou de amplificar tal rechaço ao colocar em prática, logo no primeiro dia na Presidência, o programa de governo de Aécio Neves, outro ser tido (com razão) como crápula por petistas e seus fantoches baratos que vendem a consciência, a dignidade e o futuro do Brasil por… sabe Krishna o quê! O grande equívoco de muitos brasileiros – e nisto o PT e as elites (também midiáticas) têm grande culpa – diante de tal aversão, é apontar uma saída rumo ao retrocesso da ideologia do berro, da imposição da força e do entreguismo nacional, enquanto a solução é clara e unica: mais democracia.

O grande equívoco de muitos brasileiros – e nisto o PT e as elites (também midiáticas) têm grande culpa – diante de tal aversão, é apontar uma saída rumo ao retrocesso da ideologia do berro, da imposição pela força e do entreguismo nacional, enquanto a solução é clara e unica: mais democracia. Em todo e qualquer país do planeta, ex-ditadores, perpetradores de crimes de lesa-humandade têm sido condenados, ainda que seus mandatários sejam de direita em determinados casos. O Brasil não se detém no festival de chamar a atenção mundial, negativamente.

E esse sentimento amadureceu com a recusa covarde de Luiz Inácio em se abrir os arquivos da ditadura, confome liberação de cabo secreto por WikiLeaks, quatro deles traduzidos, na íntegra e com exclusividade, junto do artigo Ditadura no Brasil e o Novo ‘Companheiro’ dos Militares, Luiz Inácio. Em um desses telegramas confidencias emitidos pela “Embaixada” (centro de espionagem) dos Estados Unidos em Brasília ao Departamento de Estado em Washington, recorda-se que o demagogo e oportunista por excelência em questão, ainda elogia os 21 anos de desmandos militares no Brasil. Em absoluta concordância com este vídeo que precede seu primeiro mandato presidencial, em que o dito-cujo desdenha a esquerda crítica de tal regime por não saber compreendê-la.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GgRpkzQDqU#=_=

Em abril, a senadora Gleise Hoffmann pelo estado do Paraná assumiu a presidência do PT afirmando que o partido neo-oligárquico faria auto-crítica como jamais fizera, a fim de – aproveitando-se da atual atmosfera de incertezas e polarização brasileiras – “não fornecer armas ao inimigo”. Que inimigo, o povo? Uma coisa é tão clara quanto os lucros dos grandes bancos, a evasão de divisas e o financimanto da grande mídia nos anos do PT ter batido todos os recordes históricos: não interessa como nunca interessou auto-crítica ao PT para que ele não se torne refém de si mesmo em sua arte de praticar a mais baixa politicagem.

Diante disso, conclui-se que a única lição que os donos do PT tiraram do previsível bico nos fundilhos que levaram, é que o autogolpe de suas cúpulas ao que sempre defendeu enquanto oposição deve ser evitado repetindo e fortalecendo os “erros” (mentiras) do “passado”, uma realidade que nos obriga a reconhecer que mesmo Jair Bolsonaro, com todas as suas limitações intelectuais e discurso carregado de preconceito, ódio e persuasão, age de maneira mais correta com seus apoiantes que Luiz Inácio com os seus. Nem será de volta ao poder, único projeto claro do PT, que se realizará a reconhecida necessidade da auto-crítica.

Aliás: apenas não ocorreu ainda o fraterno abraço entre Luiz Inácio e Bolsonaro por recusa deste. Se tenha certeza: na primeira oportunidade dada pelo segundo, o primeiro não hesitará em enojar ainda mais a sociedade brasileira em relação à política.

Perspectivas para o Brasil são obscuras e assustadoras. E tão indigno quanto isso tudo são as históricas inércia, apatia e indiferença da sociedade brasileira que, em muitos casos, defende ferozmente a politicagem mas baixa deste país, especialmente aquela em nome da “esquerda”, pura retórica servindo apenas como subterfúgio, peteca lançada pelos usurpadores do poder a fim de distrair ainda mais uma grande plateia de incautos que briga entre si, sem muita noção pelo quê…

Edu Montesanti
http://edumontesanti.skyrock.com
  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Clamor do General Mourão por Ditadura e Eterno Abraço de Luiz Inácio no Capeta

Deporting Palestinians?

September 27th, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

The scheme keeps resurfacing – deporting families of Palestinian activists for justice to Syria or Gaza.

In November 2014, months after Israeli Protective Edge aggression on Gaza, Knesset legislation was drafted to revoke the citizenship or residency of Palestinian freedom fighters falsely called “terrorists,” along with their family members, demolishing their homes straightaway, and deporting them to besieged Gaza.

Bodies of Palestinian resisters would be buried in unmarked graves at undisclosed locations, rather than returning them to families for proper burial.

According to the bill, nonviolent protesters, stone-throwers, and others Israel falsely calls “inciters” would be targeted for arrest and imprisonment during their rubber-stamp judicial proceedings in military, not civil, courts.

Families of targeted Palestinians would be deported to Gaza. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel condemned the legislation, saying it authorizes “serious human rights violations and acts of collective punishment – which bear no relation to an actual war on terror.”

Netanyahu ordered the interior ministry “to evaluate revoking the citizenship of those who call for the destruction of the State of Israel.”

In 2011, legislation authorized Israel’s Supreme Court to revoke the citizenship of Israelis convicted of terrorism or espionage, the measure directed at Arabs, not Jews.

In March 2016, Netanyahu sought attorney general Mandelblit’s authorization to deport families of Palestinian activists for justice to Gaza, falsely calling them “terrorists.”

At the time, Israeli intelligence and atomic energy minister Yisrael Katz urged their deportation to Syria.

Mandelblit wanted none of it, during a security cabinet meeting, saying proposed deportations violate international and Israeli law.

According to the Jerusalem Post, the idea of deporting families of Palestinian freedom fighters resurfaced.

On Tuesday, housing minister Yoav Galant blustered anyone engaging in activism called “terrorism” has “to pay a price,” adding:

“If you want to live side by side in cooperation, in liberalization and in freedom with the Israelis and work here, you are very welcome.”

“If you want to kill Israeli kids, we will deport you, not to Gaza, but to Syria. You are not allowed to stay here.”

Galant is a retired Israeli general turned politician. He’s a former IDF Southern Command head, currently a Knesset member, serving as housing and construction minister – in charge of illegal settlement development.

He commanded Israel’s December 2008 – January 2009 Cast Lead naked aggression on Gaza, committing high crimes against peace, responsible for slaughtering 1,414 Palestinians over a 23-day period.

The vast majority were civilians, including 313 children. Israel considers noncombatants legitimate targets, massacring them indiscriminately.

Galant is an unindicted war criminal, his above remarks code language, calling for Palestinians to surrender all rights, accept occupation harshness, and relinquish any hope for justice to be allowed to stay in Israel or the territories.

Israel’s Knesset is infested with militant hate-mongering right-wing extremists, terrorizing Palestinians, falsely blaming them for state-sponsored high crimes.

Netanyahu, Galant and other Israeli hardliners responsible for occupation harshness want it hardened. The world community pretends not to notice.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Deporting Palestinians?

Punishing the Media: The Fantasies of the CIA and William J. Casey

September 27th, 2017 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

“Unauthorized disclosures of classified information have become a cancer which undermines presidential authority to conduct foreign policy, our national security process, and our intelligence capabilities.” – William J. Casey, Director of the CIA, Nov 14, 1986

It’s the perfect dream in a nightmarish context: how do intelligence services get around the problem, in a liberal democracy, of punishing outlets that reveal classified information? The issue, when it reaches the stiff, paranoid official in a home ministry (domestically sounding, if British; more stately, if American) drives the establishment to distraction. 

Laws, having being put in place to supposedly protect and encourage the dissemination of information, may well be circumvented. Measures protecting the press need to be blunted. Recipients, in short, need to be rounded upon. The big question for those in intelligence is how.

The intelligence chief, given the nature of the work, has little concept of balancing the role of the media with actual, tangible security. The media is the natural enemy. Closed information systems defy chatter and open discourse. The aim is starvation, concealment and vanishing. Information is to be hidden with officiousness, forever justified by the interests of national security. Whether it affects national security never actually matters.

Intelligence services are, to that end, motivated by different ends to the journalistic scribbler and the information warriors such as WikiLeaks. Loose talk is dangerous; words are to be used sparingly. Their incentive is to discharge their mission as far as possible behind the cloaking veil and in the dense shadows, to push that delicate envelope into the most peculiar of bureaus.

Former Central Intelligence Agency Director William J. Casey provides a textbook response for the agency and the security high priests, ever venting on a balance between the media and intelligence activities, but coming down on the side of those who would punish disclosure. He must, by way of propriety, pay homage to the First Amendment, that nasty little limitation that does wonders to frustrate the spooks and the bureaucrats who relish secrecy more than parenthood.

In an address to the Communications Law Conference of the Practising Law Institute in November 1986, Casey gives us a very contemporary, salient view about intelligence operations and relations with the media.

He noted how he cherished “the First Amendment and admire the diligence and ingenuity of the working press.”  Too often, he had been unfairly accused of wanting to “demolish the First Amendment trying to muzzle the free press.”

There were matters that the press did acquit itself well on: the exposure of “waste, inefficiency, and corruption”.  (Vide the very same terms used by President-elect Barack Obama in 2008.) People, he claimed, needed to be “well informed about events around the world as well as the activities of their democratic government.”[1] He spoke to the press as a friend, in fact, a friend and supporter of 40 years standing.

Having gone through the course of such conjured admiration, matters become serious. His work called; his duties taxed. “No one,” he exclaimed, “can tell a publisher what he must print. On the other hand, Congress has enacted legislation which makes it unlawful to disclose or publish certain categories of information and the media, like everybody else, must adhere to the law.”

Casey’s hunt for justifications proves unrelenting. The US Supreme Court in the Pentagon Papers case may well have ruled against the Nixon administration in using prior restraint, null before the First Amendment, but in the judgements of Justices Douglas and White was a comforting view supporting “the law imposing criminal penalties on the publication of information in communications intelligence.”

Enthusiastically, Casey spoke of the Morison case, one where espionage was broadened with ease and confidence, spreadeagled across the security establishment to punish unauthorised disclosures. Such statutes should not, it was suggested, be limited in the “classic” sense to the usual stock trade “disclosures to foreign agencies” and such; these might well be applicable to “unauthorized disclosures to the press.”

Samuel Loring Morison, a former naval intelligence analyst, had supplied secret photographs featuring a Soviet ship under construction at a Black Sea shipyard to Jane’s in August 1984. In addition to furnishing the material to the British military journal, Morison was also charged with possessing classified information at home.

The vigilant prosecutor in that case, Michael Schatzow, seemed to trill a tune that would be incarnated in other prosecutions during the Obama administration, most notably that of Chelsea Manning.

“I would hope that people who are tempted to give out, in an unauthorized fashion, information relating to the national defense, stop doing it.”[2]

Forget civil disobedience, and forget the noble calling of whistleblowing.

According to Casey, it was “bunk” to make any issue about Morison being a spy. There was only one thing that mattered, one pivotal point that determined guilt: “violating a section of the law which prohibits the disclosure of classified US government information to authorized persons.”

He gathers his aim, and directs his opinion against the very thing that he supposedly endorses: a functional, effective fourth estate. “What is needed is a bill making it a criminal offense willfully to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information.” Classification had to have meaning, and for that to make sense, the fourth estate had to lose its own sense of purpose, its guiding principle. All this, before Manning, before the beavering spectacular of WikiLeaks, before the Internet.

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

Notes

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Punishing the Media: The Fantasies of the CIA and William J. Casey

There Is No Rehabilitating the Vietnam War

September 27th, 2017 by Robert Freeman

Featured image: The Vietnam War, writes Freeman, “must be remembered and condemned for the debacle it actually was.” (Image: vietnamfulldisclosure.org)

Since the day it ended, in 1975, there have been efforts to rehabilitate the Vietnam War, to make it acceptable, even honorable. After all, there were so many sides to the story, weren’t there? It was so complex, so nuancical. There was real heroism among the troops.

Of course, all of this is true, but it’s true of every war so it doesn’t redeem any war. The Vietnam War is beyond redemption and must be remembered and condemned for the calamity that it was. The Vietnam War was “one of the greatest American foreign policy disasters of the twentieth century.”

Those are not the words of a leftist pundit or a scribbling anti-American. They are the words of H.R. McMaster, the sitting National Security Advisor to the President of the United States.

Why must Vietnam be remembered and condemned for the debacle it actually was?

First, the U.S. betrayed its own ideals in the War. In 1946, Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh approached U.S. president Harry Truman asking for the U.S.’s help in evicting the French who had occupied Vietnam as a colony since the 1860s. Hadn’t the U.S. itself once fought a war of independence to rid itself of European colonial domination?

Indeed, the opening words to the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence were borrowed in sacramental reverence from the American Declaration. They echo to every patriotic American:

“All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

French soldiers fight off a Viet Minh ambush in 1952. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

But Ho was a communist. So, Truman turned him down and helped the French instead. That was the “original sin” that made it impossible for the U.S. to ever “win the hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese people. It is what ultimately doomed the War to failure. But that wasn’t the only cardinal sin the U.S. committed against its own putative ideals.

Eisenhower violated the 1954 Geneva accords that had settled the war with the French and set up a puppet regime in the south. Hence “South” Vietnam, which, not surprisingly, quickly disappeared once the Americans left. He crammed a wealthy Catholic mandarin from New Jersey—Ngo Diem—on the people who were overwhelmingly poor, Buddhist, and peasants.

Diem, with Eisenhower’s blessing, then boycotted the elections for national unification that had been agreed to in the accords. Eisenhower wrote later that the reason for the boycott was that “Our guys would have lost.” When Diem could no longer suppress the swelling rebellion against his divisive, hyper-oppressive rule, Kennedy had him assassinated.

Second, the U.S. carried out apocalyptic violence on Vietnam, vastly beyond any conceivable moral standard of proportionality. It dropped three times more tons of bombs on Vietnam than were used by all sides in all theaters in all of World War II combined. Vietnam is about the size of New Mexico and at the time had a population greater than New York and California put together.

The U.S. lost 58,000 lives in the War. But more than four million southeast Asians—Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians—were killed, most of them civilians. That’s 69 southeast Asians killed for every 1 American. That is not a war. That is a massacre, and on a scale approaching the Holocaust.

The U.S. sprayed 21 million gallons of carcinogenic defoliants on Vietnam, including the notorious Agent Orange. More than half of the nation’s forests were destroyed. Vietnam was the greatest intentionally man-made environmental catastrophe in the history of the world. Children are still being born with birth defects from the residual poisoning.

On neighboring Laos, which, in 1965 had a population of 2.4 million, the U.S. dropped 270 million cluster bombs. That’s 113 cluster bombs for every man, woman, and child in the country. More than 80 million of the bombs are still unexploded today.

It’s important to remember that neither Vietnam, nor Laos, nor Cambodia for that matter, ever attacked the United States. They never wanted to attack. They never tried to attack. They never had the capacity to attack. They had simply wanted their own way of life.

Finally, the War was founded on and prosecuted with relentless lying. Your mother once taught you, as all good mothers do, that if you have to lie about something it’s wrong.

The “intelligence” agencies lied to us, unremittingly, about the threat from a nation of pre-Industrial Age farmers on the other side of the world who, after nearly a century of colonial domination, simply wanted to be left alone by western imperial powers.

Five successive presidents lied to the American people about the need for the War and its likely winnability. None of them wanted to appear to be “soft on communism.” None wanted to be “the first American president to lose a war.”

The Pentagon Papers revealed that the military was saturated with lies, from field level body counts to strategic reviews of progress. Truth tellers were drummed out of the service, ensuring that only lies got passed up the chain. The lies wouldn’t be discovered until it was too late.

In fact, it is precisely our lying about the Vietnam War, both then and now, and our knowledge of those lies, without ever having openly, unambiguously repudiated them, that continues to make the War seem dishonorable.

The dishonor, of course, belongs not to the millions of soldiers who served there but rather to the War itself. It belongs to the institutions—both public and private—that profited from the War and lied to justify it, and to the people whose silence and knowing acquiescence made them complicit in the lies.

It belongs to those who put our soldiers, our children, in the perverse situation not of doing honorable things honorably, but of having to try to do dishonorable things honorably. For, despite the loftiest motives we might invent for its beginnings, that is unquestionably what the War ultimately became.

In March 1965, before the insertion of American ground troops that would make the War irreversible, before the vast majority of the bombings and killings would be perpetrated, a Pentagon briefing for Johnson stated that the true goals in the War were, “…70% to avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat; 20% to keep South Vietnam (and adjacent territories) from Chinese hands; and 10% to permit the people of Vietnam a better, freer way of life.”

That is what the psychotic savagery of Vietnam was all about. It was not bumbling goodwill gone awry as the rehabilitationists would have us believe. It was not to bring democracy; not to defend against communism; not to help the Vietnamese people. It was “to avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat.” Those are the official, though at the time secret, words of the U.S. government.

Kennedy and McNamara (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

We can summon an even greater authority than H.R. McMaster to confirm that the War was wrong. Robert McNamara was the U.S. Secretary of Defense in both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. He is the unquestioned architect and chief strategist of the War.

In his memoirs McNamara wrote,

“We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why.”

There are no two more disparate authorities on the War than these two men. They represent the old and the new, Democrat and Republican, civilian and soldier, actor and critic, introspective and retrospective. Yet they reach the same, damning conclusion.

There is enormous pressure and a lot of money working to rehabilitate Vietnam, to put the guilt and the shame of it behind us. But it was precisely the guilt of the people, their shame at what was being done in their name, and their courage to denounce it that made it impossible for their government to carry out the savagery any longer. Would that we had that kind of guilt, shame, and courage among us today.

Remember: if we had to lie about it, it was wrong. That is as true today as it was then, is it not? And wrong does not get made right by the louder or repeated repetition of original lies. Or, by the artful contrivance of newer, slicker, more personable ones.

Forgetting that lesson, or, worse, laundering it out of our memory so that we might go forward with cleansed consciences and fortified zeal for still more predation, would be a betrayal of itself that only the American people can resist.

Robert Freeman writes about economics and education. He is the author of The Best One-Hour History series which includes World War I, The Vietnam War, The Cold War, and other titles.

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

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on There Is No Rehabilitating the Vietnam War

There Is No Rehabilitating the Vietnam War

September 27th, 2017 by Robert Freeman

Featured image: The Vietnam War, writes Freeman, “must be remembered and condemned for the debacle it actually was.” (Image: vietnamfulldisclosure.org)

Since the day it ended, in 1975, there have been efforts to rehabilitate the Vietnam War, to make it acceptable, even honorable. After all, there were so many sides to the story, weren’t there? It was so complex, so nuancical. There was real heroism among the troops.

Of course, all of this is true, but it’s true of every war so it doesn’t redeem any war. The Vietnam War is beyond redemption and must be remembered and condemned for the calamity that it was. The Vietnam War was “one of the greatest American foreign policy disasters of the twentieth century.”

Those are not the words of a leftist pundit or a scribbling anti-American. They are the words of H.R. McMaster, the sitting National Security Advisor to the President of the United States.

Why must Vietnam be remembered and condemned for the debacle it actually was?

First, the U.S. betrayed its own ideals in the War. In 1946, Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh approached U.S. president Harry Truman asking for the U.S.’s help in evicting the French who had occupied Vietnam as a colony since the 1860s. Hadn’t the U.S. itself once fought a war of independence to rid itself of European colonial domination?

Indeed, the opening words to the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence were borrowed in sacramental reverence from the American Declaration. They echo to every patriotic American:

“All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

French soldiers fight off a Viet Minh ambush in 1952. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

But Ho was a communist. So, Truman turned him down and helped the French instead. That was the “original sin” that made it impossible for the U.S. to ever “win the hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese people. It is what ultimately doomed the War to failure. But that wasn’t the only cardinal sin the U.S. committed against its own putative ideals.

Eisenhower violated the 1954 Geneva accords that had settled the war with the French and set up a puppet regime in the south. Hence “South” Vietnam, which, not surprisingly, quickly disappeared once the Americans left. He crammed a wealthy Catholic mandarin from New Jersey—Ngo Diem—on the people who were overwhelmingly poor, Buddhist, and peasants.

Diem, with Eisenhower’s blessing, then boycotted the elections for national unification that had been agreed to in the accords. Eisenhower wrote later that the reason for the boycott was that “Our guys would have lost.” When Diem could no longer suppress the swelling rebellion against his divisive, hyper-oppressive rule, Kennedy had him assassinated.

Second, the U.S. carried out apocalyptic violence on Vietnam, vastly beyond any conceivable moral standard of proportionality. It dropped three times more tons of bombs on Vietnam than were used by all sides in all theaters in all of World War II combined. Vietnam is about the size of New Mexico and at the time had a population greater than New York and California put together.

The U.S. lost 58,000 lives in the War. But more than four million southeast Asians—Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians—were killed, most of them civilians. That’s 69 southeast Asians killed for every 1 American. That is not a war. That is a massacre, and on a scale approaching the Holocaust.

The U.S. sprayed 21 million gallons of carcinogenic defoliants on Vietnam, including the notorious Agent Orange. More than half of the nation’s forests were destroyed. Vietnam was the greatest intentionally man-made environmental catastrophe in the history of the world. Children are still being born with birth defects from the residual poisoning.

On neighboring Laos, which, in 1965 had a population of 2.4 million, the U.S. dropped 270 million cluster bombs. That’s 113 cluster bombs for every man, woman, and child in the country. More than 80 million of the bombs are still unexploded today.

It’s important to remember that neither Vietnam, nor Laos, nor Cambodia for that matter, ever attacked the United States. They never wanted to attack. They never tried to attack. They never had the capacity to attack. They had simply wanted their own way of life.

Finally, the War was founded on and prosecuted with relentless lying. Your mother once taught you, as all good mothers do, that if you have to lie about something it’s wrong.

The “intelligence” agencies lied to us, unremittingly, about the threat from a nation of pre-Industrial Age farmers on the other side of the world who, after nearly a century of colonial domination, simply wanted to be left alone by western imperial powers.

Five successive presidents lied to the American people about the need for the War and its likely winnability. None of them wanted to appear to be “soft on communism.” None wanted to be “the first American president to lose a war.”

The Pentagon Papers revealed that the military was saturated with lies, from field level body counts to strategic reviews of progress. Truth tellers were drummed out of the service, ensuring that only lies got passed up the chain. The lies wouldn’t be discovered until it was too late.

In fact, it is precisely our lying about the Vietnam War, both then and now, and our knowledge of those lies, without ever having openly, unambiguously repudiated them, that continues to make the War seem dishonorable.

The dishonor, of course, belongs not to the millions of soldiers who served there but rather to the War itself. It belongs to the institutions—both public and private—that profited from the War and lied to justify it, and to the people whose silence and knowing acquiescence made them complicit in the lies.

It belongs to those who put our soldiers, our children, in the perverse situation not of doing honorable things honorably, but of having to try to do dishonorable things honorably. For, despite the loftiest motives we might invent for its beginnings, that is unquestionably what the War ultimately became.

In March 1965, before the insertion of American ground troops that would make the War irreversible, before the vast majority of the bombings and killings would be perpetrated, a Pentagon briefing for Johnson stated that the true goals in the War were, “…70% to avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat; 20% to keep South Vietnam (and adjacent territories) from Chinese hands; and 10% to permit the people of Vietnam a better, freer way of life.”

That is what the psychotic savagery of Vietnam was all about. It was not bumbling goodwill gone awry as the rehabilitationists would have us believe. It was not to bring democracy; not to defend against communism; not to help the Vietnamese people. It was “to avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat.” Those are the official, though at the time secret, words of the U.S. government.

Kennedy and McNamara (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

We can summon an even greater authority than H.R. McMaster to confirm that the War was wrong. Robert McNamara was the U.S. Secretary of Defense in both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. He is the unquestioned architect and chief strategist of the War.

In his memoirs McNamara wrote,

“We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why.”

There are no two more disparate authorities on the War than these two men. They represent the old and the new, Democrat and Republican, civilian and soldier, actor and critic, introspective and retrospective. Yet they reach the same, damning conclusion.

There is enormous pressure and a lot of money working to rehabilitate Vietnam, to put the guilt and the shame of it behind us. But it was precisely the guilt of the people, their shame at what was being done in their name, and their courage to denounce it that made it impossible for their government to carry out the savagery any longer. Would that we had that kind of guilt, shame, and courage among us today.

Remember: if we had to lie about it, it was wrong. That is as true today as it was then, is it not? And wrong does not get made right by the louder or repeated repetition of original lies. Or, by the artful contrivance of newer, slicker, more personable ones.

Forgetting that lesson, or, worse, laundering it out of our memory so that we might go forward with cleansed consciences and fortified zeal for still more predation, would be a betrayal of itself that only the American people can resist.

Robert Freeman writes about economics and education. He is the author of The Best One-Hour History series which includes World War I, The Vietnam War, The Cold War, and other titles.

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

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on There Is No Rehabilitating the Vietnam War

The Repatriation of the Treasures Looted During Colonialism

September 27th, 2017 by Colonialism Reparation

Featured image: Triumphal procession into Paris of art looted by Napoleon from Italy in 1797. The Horses of Saint Mark in the centre, themselves taken from Constantinople in 1204, were returned to Italy in 1815. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

In the last decades the debate on repatriation of the remains and the return of the treasures looted during the colonialism has developed, leading to the failure of neocolonial style projects as the Declaration on the Importance and Value of Universal Museums.

On July 27, 2016 the Government of Benin (2.4 Retour des objets précieux royaux emportés par l’armée française lors de la conquête de novembre 1892), with the support of the Conseil Représentatif des Associations Noirs (CRAN), asked France the return of the treasures looted  during the conquest of November 1892. On December 12, 2016 the Government of France (lire: la lettre secrète et honteuse par laquelle le Quai d’Orsay a refusé la restitution des trésors du Bénin) secretly refused to return the looted treasures.

On April 1, 2017 the Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology of the University of Cambridge announced a possible neocolonial style agreement to loan to Nigeria the treasures looted in 1897 during the conquest of the Benin kingdom (now Nigeria), so as to not to have to return them effectively.

On August 2, 2017 the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation (SPK), which manages German museums, announced the launch of the investigation of the origins of about a thousand skulls looted during colonialism to decide how to handle them, not excluding their return. The Berlin Postkolonial NGO therefore asked that also the Berlin Society of Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory (Rudolf-Virchow Collection) begin investigating the origins of the remains looted during the colonialism in their possession and that both provide then for the repatriation of the remains. On October 14 and 15, 2017 the conference Prussian Colonial Heritage: Sacred Objects and Human Remains in Berlin Museums will be held in Berlin, the capital of Germany, organized by the No Humboldt 21! coalition to allow source community members and experts to participate in the debate on return and repatriation.

Colonialism Reparation asks the repatriation of the remains and the return of the treasures looted during colonialism and invites all the active subjects to begin from this first step and to continue in the direction of the Reparation of the damages of colonialism with due condemnation, reconciliation, apologies and compensations.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Repatriation of the Treasures Looted During Colonialism

The Analysis of “Revolutions”: University of Manitoba Conference

September 27th, 2017 by Global Research News

A three-day conference on ‘Revolutions’ this weekend at the University of Manitoba will feature major speakers from China, Russia, and Venezuela. Over sixty delegates from 13 countries, also including India and South Africa, will take part in the initiative, hosted by the University’s Geopolitical Economy Research Group (GERG)
GERG’s Director Radhika Desai explained: m
“Revolutions are more common than most people realise, but they are poorly understood because they generate controversy. They are increasingly in the news with the Arab Spring, ‘colour revolutions’ and the turmoil in countries like Venezuela.” k
“Several conferences are being held worldwide on the hundredth anniversary of the Russian revolution, but we wanted to go beyond that and look at why Revolutions take place, what they achieve and where they fail.”k
“We are particularly interested in the BRICS countries and also in the neglected role of Aboriginal peoples in revolutionary movements. Manitoba, home to Louis Riel, is a very appropriate place to host this inspiring and fascinating event and we are delighted at the high quality of the speakers and the talks.” j
The conference will be held in St John’s College, University of Manitoba between Friday 29th  September and Sunday 1st October. Registration is required with day-rates as low as $20 from www.geopoliticaleconomy.org. Speakers include: n
  • Miguel Angel Perez, Director at Venezuela’s Institute of Advanced Studies and director of the daily TV program “Cayendo y Corriendo”.
  •  Allen Ding, Deputy Director of the Centre for Economics of Shanghai School at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics.
  •  Ruslan Dzarasov of the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, and author of The Conundrum of Russian Capitalism.
  • Julia Buxton of the Central European University School of Public Policy and an expert on contemporary Latin America, especially Venezuela under Chavez
  •  Kees van der Pijl, Professor Emeritus of international relations at the University of  Sussex and former director of the Centre for Global Polical Economy
  •  Peter Kulchyski, Professor of Native Studies at the University of Manitoba working at the intersection of politics, law, history and culture among indigenous peoples.
For further information contact the organisers at [email protected], or visit the

Here’s Every Nuclear Weapon in the US Arsenal

September 27th, 2017 by Union of Concerned Scientists

There are enough nuclear weapons in the US arsenal to blow up the planet several times.

The explosive capacity (blast yield) of one W87 thermonuclear bomb is 300 kilotons of TNT, namely 20 times that of the “Little Bomb” (15 kilotons of TNT) dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, which resulted in the death of 100,000 people in a matter of seven seconds.

The World is at a critical crossroads. A nuclear war would be terminal.  Why is it that there is no anti-war movement following Trump’s statement to destroy North Korea?

A war against North Korea could escalate into a broader war involving Russia and China. 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 27, 2017

***

A nuclear weapon—the most destructive device on Earth. The US nuclear arsenal includes over 4,600 weapons. 

These weapons are unlike any other.

Here’s an average one, the W78. (image right) It causes a mile-wide radioactive fireball and can destroy most buildings—and humans—in a circle about 4 miles wide.

Hundreds can be launched within minutes.

About 400 nuclear-tipped missiles are stationed underground in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, and North Dakota. They’re staffed 24/7 and kept on hair-trigger alert, ready to launch if and when they receive orders from the president.

Submarines carry hundreds more.

A single nuclear-armed submarine carries the TNT equivalent of roughly seven World War II’s. About 10 such subs are at sea at any given time.

Aircraft are armed too.

About 300 bombs and air-launched cruise missiles are deployed on air bases in the United States. Another 150 bombs are in Europe. All are capable of smaller, lower-yield explosions, which may increase the risk that they’ll actually be used.

The president can use them at any time.

As Commander in Chief, the president enjoys complete control over the US nuclear arsenal. No one in Congress, the judicial branch, or even the US military can legally prevent their use once the president’s order is given.

More are in storage.

Thousands of backup weapons are kept in storage—the so-called nuclear hedge. In total, the US maintains about 4,600 nuclear warheads and bombs.

New weapons on the way.

The United States plans to spend a trillion dollars to rebuild essentially all of its nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Experts fear that the plan, which includes new designs and capabilities, will fuel tensions with Russia and China and ultimately undercut US security.

Concerned?

So are we. There are too many weapons, and our policies and plans around them—hair-triggerpresidential authority, the trillion dollar plan—are simply too risky.

*The total number of W87’s (540) differs from the total of 200 given in Table 1 in the article “United States nuclear forces, 2017” referenced in [1]. However, the authors note in footnote d of the table: “There are a total of 540 W87s in the stockpile. The 200 Mk21-equipped ICBMs can each carry one W87. The remaining 320 W87s are in storage.” We use this information rather than that in the table.

Sources

1. United States nuclear forces, 2017, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 73:1, 48-57., Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, 2017

2. How U.S. Nuclear Force Modernization Is Undermining Strategic Stability: The Burst-Height Compensating Super-Fuze, Hans M. Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie, and Theodore A. Postol, 2017

3. Capabilities of B61-12 Nuclear Bomb Increase Further, Hans M. Kristensen, 2013

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Here’s Every Nuclear Weapon in the US Arsenal

Texas Bio-hazard Laboratory Survives Hurricane Harvey

September 27th, 2017 by Robert Scott

Featured image: Galveston National Laboratory (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Galveston National Laboratory (GNL) in Texas, which contains samples of deadly and incurable diseases, has reported itself safe almost a week after Hurricane Harvey struck last week Friday.

Late on Wednesday, the lab said:

“The GNL reported that the facility continued operations without interruption and did not incur any damage, loss of power or bio-containment during the storm.”

There had been a news blackout about the lab since the Category 4 hurricane struck the island of Galveston in the Gulf of Mexico, where the lab is.

Reporters had been unable to reach the island because of severe flooding. The press did not report on the fate of the lab, which had remained silent, failing to reply to an information request from the Independent Foreign Service.

The lab says it has been constructed to withstand a Category 5 storm. But when it was built in 2008, environmentalists raised the alarm. Hurricane Ike, weaker than Harvey, hit Galveston in 2005 and knocked out back-up generators at the University of Texas Medical Branch, where the lab is located.

“The University of Texas should consider locating its biohazards lab away from Galveston Island and out of harm’s way,” Ken Kramer, the director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, said a month before the lab opened in November 2008.

“As destructive as it was, Hurricane Ike was only a Category 2 storm. A more powerful storm would pose an even greater threat of a biohazards release,” Kramer said.

“It’s crazy, in my mind,” Jim Blackburn, an environmental lawyer in Houston, said. “I just find an amazing willingness among the people on the Texas coast to accept risks that a lot of people in the country would not accept.”

Those fears were raised again this week.

Professor Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, said he feared for the lab’s safety.

“As I see it the existential problem is this: What happens if and when the fuel for the back-up generators runs out?” asked the expert in biological weapons. “The negative air pressure that keeps (the) bugs in there ends. And (the) bugs can then escape.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Texas Bio-hazard Laboratory Survives Hurricane Harvey

This article argues that the goal of achieving 100% renewable energy for every nation is not impossible. But to achieve it we must create two parallel dynamics: at society level, we must create a compatible culture for the efficient administration of the actual sources of energy and at the scientific level we must organise all sources of energies available while advancing future sources of energies.     

There are fifteen main sources of energy for use:

1) coal;
2) oil;
3) natural gas;
4) nuclear energy;
5) wind energy;
6) solar energy;
7) nuclear fusion;
8) hydrogen;
9) hydropower;
10) geothermal;
11) wave power;
12) biogas;
13) biodiesel;
14) ethanol; and
15) zero-point or black energy.

Judging from a historical perspective world total final consumption of energy sources has not changed in the last four decades or so. The consumption of oil, for example, has decreased: from 48.2% in 1973 to 40.7% in 2012.

Natural gas has increased only one percentage: from 14.0% in 1973 to 15.2% in 2012. Even coal has decreased: from 13.7 in 1973 to 10.1% in 2012. Biofuels are almost on the same level: from 13.1% in 1973 to 12.4% in 2012. Only the consumption of electricity has changed almost twofold: from 9.4% in 1973 to 18.1% in 2012. But the total amount of consumption of energy has almost doubled: from 4,672 Mtoe (megatoe, one million ton of oil equivalent) to 8,979 Mtoe. Wold’s fossil fuel energy consumption is still very high: at 81%: 2013 (Wold Bank) or 95% (Spiegel).

Transportation and manufacturing consume the biggest percentage of it: 60% and 30% respectively.

From these parameters we can understand that global climate change has been caused not only by the increase of consumption in energy sources. But from the consumption of the same source of energy – the hazardous substances of it have been accumulated in our air, water and soil.

But it is neoliberal globalization of the internationalised market economy that has caused the expansion of the consumption of energy: because it implies that the economies of the world will be relied mainly on foreign investments, transportation of goods and manufacturing rather than on domestic economic resources, in which, the transportation of goods would be reduced to unimportant levels, since communities would maximise the level of self-sufficiency by relying on their own resources. In the global economic growth, therefore, energy consumption, particularly the ‘transportation’, has played a vital role. If neoliberal globalization continues to expand and the transportation of goods continues to be the main factor of world economies, it implies that the growth for energy sources will grow together with the pain of the environment. The replacement of this kind of energy and consumption, therefore, is imperative: since it implies more accumulation of hazardous substances in our ecosystem.

Measures like removing carbon emissions from our environment by using different technologies in a global scale (artificial leaf of trees dubbed “air extractor” etc.), or politics of “carbon-trading”, are the same as the other technologies (collectors, sinks etc.) which aim at cleaning up our oceans from our plastics: namely, “non-causative measures”. Such technologies which capture carbon emissions in the atmosphere could be used in closed spaces like our rooms but not at global scale: not only because it tries to follow up our mess and it doesn’t fight the real causes of it but it is impossible. At a time when at a global scale is being emitted almost 40 million tons of carbon per year. In America, for example, there is being emitted on average fourteen (14) tons of carbon, per family, in a year, for transportation, goods and services, which, when combined with oxygen, create 50 tons of carbon dioxide gas (it increases almost fivefold!), which in turn blocks the heat of the sun to escape into space and creates the conditions not only for global warming but it impairs more the life of those who don’t use any of those sources of energy. Namely, those who walk instead of using a car or bicycle. The transformation of 40 million tons of carbon into carbon dioxide gas, therefore, is about 200 million tons per year!

Before examining, then, the possible substitution of this kind of energy and the consumption – we must first of all point out the advantages and disadvantages of them, in relation to each other, the overall cost of harvesting each source based on the present technology and the running cost. Second, we must examine the nature of them. And finally, we must outline a process through which our best sources could be realised.

Thus, oil, as is well known, is the first source which can be extracted with low cost and has an efficiency that can cover the needs of those who use it. It is being used for more than a century and almost in every sector of the socio-economic life. Natural gas is almost the same as oil. But it has an advantage comparably with oil: it leaves less harmful substances in the environment while it is more harmful than coal and oil when it is being released directly into the atmosphere by emiting methane which is 30 times more potent than CO2. It has, also, another disadvantage: because natural gas can be used mainly for the manufacturing sector and for electricity.

Transportation, therefore, remains at the mercy of oil. But shale, unlike natural gas, carries on a disadvantage: it destroys the environment (underground water etc.). Coal, on the other hand, is counter-productive since it is one the most pollutive sources of energy. As such, it must be completely abandoned. Nuclear energy, based on uranium, is almost green energy but it creates insecurities for the industrial plants despite the fact that China is trying to institutionalise techno-scientific “standards”. It can be used only for the manufacturing sector and for the production of electricity. As such, it cannot contribute to the transportation sector.

Wind energy and solar energy are the main sources from which we may expect greater contribution. But they still can be used only for electricity, and therefore, only for the manufacturing sector and home appliances. Both wind and solar carry on another disadvantage: when there is no solar light there cannot be produced energy; and when there is no wind, occurs the same. To avoid this phenomenon the sector of energy has introduced batteries: but they have not the same efficiency as oil and new methods have shown that actual batteries cannot be improved. So, both, are dependent on another intermediate source of energy, which cannot be improved! Hydrogen, which has been introduced as an important source of energy — even a “green” source of energy and a possible substitute of oil and coal, abundant in the universe, is not a source of energy: since it actually uses more energy (presumably oil, coal and gas) to be produced in the process of separation the hydrocarbons from hydrogen and as such cannot replace oil and coal. However, researchers are in the process of putting it in the obsolete technology: a “nanosized hydrogen generator”, which uses light and graphene for production of energy, is one example.

Hydropower carries on a lot of social, ecological and economic pain: as such, it must be completely abandoned.

Geothermal energy is one source of energy which could contribute to the overall amount of energy. As such, it cannot replace them. Wave power is a promising source of energy and can contribute in the consumption of energy more than geothermal energy. Biogas must be extracted only from agriculture residues and human sewages and not by biomass (woods etc.). It can contribute to the consumption of energy and be used for electricity and transportation. Biodiesel can contribute in energy consumption but by a very small percentage. It depends on the oil used in the food industry. Ethanol depends on the agriculture sector and the energy used for the production of it is more than the energy it offers. Even if it uses less energy in the future it still requires land and land is precious, first of all, for food.

Nuclear fusion is at an experimental stage and does offer some hope. If it succeeds – it can be used both for transportation and electricity. A distinction has to be made, here, with solar energy: nuclear fusion creates the “sun” in artificial conditions whereas solar energy uses the photons of the sun. In effect, it harvests ready energy or the final result of the sun. Whereas nuclear fusion goes to the starting phase of the sun: namely, to create an artificial sun able to be administered and used by humans. Lastly, and the most important source of energy, is “black energy”. Almost 95% of the universe is “black energy” (plus “dark matter”). The rest (5%) is “regular matter” which could be seen and perceived by our senses.

These sources of energies can be divided into two categories:

1. energies which are permanent (eternal); and
2. energies which are temporary in our universe and our nature.

In the former category (eternal) is “black energy”. Earth and our solar system belong to the “regular matter”. But it has been mastered by our universe – just as has been mastered the life of our planet by our Nature — although dynamics of the universe are always present on our planet. Without the former the latter sources cannot exist. This is why we must concentrate our efforts in developing the former category: to discover its nature and use it for our life. Black energy, as its colour implies, is dark in our eyes. But it counter-vibrates with regular matter. Black matter is the same but it implies greater density of “matter”.

Both gravity and vibration constitute the Universe and reproduce it. However, we use for more than a century the latter category, i.e., oil, coal and gas and the rest. But these are finite sources. Until we master the use of our dark energy and dark matter, we have no other way other than to harness our finite sources. The main source, in the finite one, is solar energy. It might be considered permanent energy. But we know for certain that our sun will pass way. Since it is in the category of regular matter. However, it has a long life. For harvesting the black energy/matter have been developed anti-gravity propulsion systems. NASA has already proved that anti-gravity propulsion systems could be developed. Not to mention the works of other researches (John Searl etc.) — who have proved that such systems could be the bases of any aircraft and spaceship. Let us, then, point out the best and worst sources of energy:

1. Black energy/matter is best source of energy: because it is eternal and everywhere.

2. The next best source of energy is solar energy: because it is almost permanent. This kind of energy must be divided into two categories:

a. solar energy, which is being harvested in its final process by our solar panels and
b. nuclear fusion, which is in the process of instituting itself.

3. The third best source of energy is wave energy, if it is harvested with technologies in harmony with its dynamic and without damaging the life of the water: because water is the most abundant substance in our planet;

4. The forth best energy is biogas. It can compensate our consumption and is an important source of energy: because it would push societies to use their own sewage, instead of polluting our waters and soil, and make use other agriculture/animal residues. The use of them would be fruitful for any society.

5. Wind power is the fifth best source of energy provided that it protects our birds. The protection of our birds can be realised by using electronic sensors on top of turbines, which could detect any bird in the air and stop its rotor blades while starting slowly in case there are resting birds.

6. Hydropower is the sixth best source of energy provided that it has been reconceptualised. Namely, it protects fishes from turbines when they descend and help them when they ascend to lay eggs in the water: by creating a parallel route for descending and ascending. Otherwise it must be completely abandoned and reintegrated into the ecosystem. Namely, dams of hydropower must let the water and its life flow freely in our planet.

7. The seventh best source of energy is nuclear power provided that its plants are being completely secured against mismanagement and natural phenomena (earthquakes etc.) and its nucleus (uranium) of energy is being used completely and is not a source of pollution in our environment.

8. Natural gas is the eighth best source of energy provided that it does not cause any damage into the environment (capillaries of water etc.).

9. Hydrogen is the ninth best source of energy provided that its technology uses less energy for production and hydrocarbons are being used for industrial purposes.

10. Geothermal is the tenth best source of energy provided that it does not cause any damage into the environment as in the case of natural gas. With the latter, it has a disadvantage: it can be used only for electricity and heating. Whereas natural gas for transportation as well.

11. Biodiesel is eleventh best source of energy but it depends on the food industry (vegetable oils and animal fat).

12. Ethanol is the twelfth best source of energy but it depends on our agriculture (corn oil etc.) and land.

13. Oil is our thirteenth best source energy. It could be at a better place if our technology eliminates its harmful substances.

14. Coal is the last and worst source of energy.

Now, we must analyse further the two top best sources of energies: black energy/matter and solar/ nuclear fusion; their potentionality and inter-relations. The first one must be understood in relation to energy, matter and gravity: because each cosmic particle carries on not only energy and matter or an equal amount of them, but an equal amount of gravity as well (e=m=g). For particle that carries on energy and matter produces gravity as well not only in relation to another particle but to itself too. Therefore, this kind of energy and matter must not be seen in relation to light, as has been seen by Einstein: but, first of all, in relation to gravity, since black energy/matter carries on gravity. And gravity is a force that changes the nature of energy and matter. Anti-gravity technology therefore is the best approach of harvesting this kind of energy: because it uses it while opposing it with the same force, just as our planets do to each other. Light, after all, originates from regular matter and energy. As such, it belongs to the second source of energy and matter.

Image result

Solar energy and nuclear fusion, as pointed out above, are not the same: in the former case we use its final result: light. In the second case we use its originative source: nucleus of atoms and produce electrons and, electrons, in turn, energy. Judging from what has been done in producing energy from fusion power —that is, accelerating at supersonic speeds atoms in order to collide them in big colliders— and judging from the proto-conditions of the sun —that is, hydrogen, helium and other elements, plus gravity— clearly, we are not creating the same conditions. So if we want to produce energy from fusion power we must create the proper conditions of the sun. The fact that the sun has created big pressures at the core of it, and pressure is accompanied with the same dose of gravity, and gravity keeps together the composition of the sun, and its composition in turn reproduces energy and power, indicates that we must master the use of sun’s elements by accompanying them with the proper pressure (not speed) on the elements involved in this process, which, in turn, would produce gravity and the whole —elements, pressure and gravity— will be self-sustainable and self-reproducible even at a small scale: namely, for our cars, trains and spaceships.

This is one option; the other, is to have solar energy without using batteries and with greater efficiency. For this we may use satellites for concentrated solar power in the orbit of our earth. Out of earth’s atmosphere we know that the quantity and the quality of the sun light, is better. Solar systems that use lenses or mirrors on the surface of our earth – in earth’s orbit would concentrate even more energy. To avoid the lack of the sun during the night and cloudy days, and the rotation of any satellite, two or more systems of this kind, might be complementary to each other. So, when a system is at the back side of the earth, namely, travelling in the night side of it, another one, travelling on the other (day) side of the earth, might do the job of the other. Such solar systems might send controlled beams of energy into generators installed on the surface of our earth and generators in turn, might produce continuous power of electricity. If such a system is possible – we might cover our needs in our homes, factories and part of our transportation. Solar energy might be harvested on the surface of the earth even by producing human cloths which might work as solar panels in clothes fashion. The kind of energy that is produced through our cloths might be controlled by electronic devices and might cover human needs provided that they do not harm human and nature’s health.

In conclusion, there are two options of reducing our carbon emissions in the ecosystem while achieving 100% renewable energy:

i. either we organize our sources of energies and use them while having the goal of pushing way harmful sources;

ii. or letting them in the dynamic of the market economy. This one might be considered an “option” because even the market economy, or they who invest in it, have understood that the future of energy is “green energy”. But it will take long time and the damage in the ecosystem will be irreversible.

So the first option is not simply an option: but an imperative need. This option implies a closer cooperation with those who want to invest in renewable sources of energies, scientists and governments of the world particularly the United Nations.

Note:

The article is the end part of a chapter with the following title: “The deception and the crime with mega-projects and technological energy: towards a techno-energetic revolution”. It was submitted for publication to “Global STM Journals, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Journals, Elsevier Ltd”, after the latter published a ‘challenge’ by inviting independent researchers around the world for independent contributions to renewable energy resources particularly to solar energy. As it rewarded the winner – or the best work, my article was not included even in the top ten of almost 300 contributors! Possibly, because I aim to develop mainly, for the reasons given in my paper, fusion and dark energy, rather than solar energy as it has been realised and as the relevant centre aims at with its sponsors. This is a contribution for humanity and those who push it forward will be part of human history and rewarded by our future generations.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Revolutionising Energy Resources: From Fossil Fuels to Black and Fusion Energy

Cold War Then. Cold War Now.

September 27th, 2017 by William Blum

The anti-Russian/anti-Soviet bias in the American media appears to have no limit. You would think that they would have enough self-awareness and enough journalistic integrity -– just enough -– to be concerned about their image. But it keeps on coming, piled higher and deeper.

One of the latest cases in point is a review of a new biography of Mikhail Gorbachev in the New York Times Book Review (September 10). The review says that Gorbachev “was no hero to his own people” because he was “the destroyer of their empire”. This is how the New York Times avoids having to say anything positive about life in the Soviet Union or about socialism. They would have readers believe that it was the loss of the likes of Czechoslovakia or Hungary et al. that upset the Russian people, not the loss, under Gorbachev’s perestroika, of a decent standard of living for all, a loss affecting people’s rent, employment, vacations, medical care, education, and many other aspects of the Soviet welfare state.

Accompanying this review is a quote from a 1996 Times review of Gorbachev’s own memoir, which said:

“It mystifies Westerners that Mikhail Gorbachev is loathed and ridiculed in his own country. This is the man who pulled the world several steps back from the nuclear brink and lifted a crushing fear from his countrymen, who ended bloody foreign adventures [and] liberated Eastern Europe. … Yet his repudiation at home could hardly be more complete. His political comeback attempt in June attracted less than 1 percent of the vote.”

Thus is Gorbachev’s unpopularity with his own people further relegated to the category of “mystery”, and not due to the profound social changes.

It should be noted that in 1999, USA Today reported:

“When the Berlin Wall crumbled [1989], East Germans imagined a life of freedom where consumer goods were abundant and hardships would fade. Ten years later, a remarkable 51% say they were happier with communism.”

Earlier polls would likely have shown even more than 51% expressing such a sentiment, for in the ten years many of those who remembered life in East Germany with some fondness had passed away; although even 10 years later, in 2009, the Washington Post could report:

“Westerners [West Berliners] say they are fed up with the tendency of their eastern counterparts to wax nostalgic about communist times.”

It was in the post-unification period that a new Russian and eastern Europe proverb was born:

“Everything the Communists said about Communism was a lie, but everything they said about capitalism turned out to be the truth.”

The current New York Times review twice refers to Vladimir Putin as “authoritarian”, as does, routinely, much of the Western media. None of the many such references I have come across in recent years has given an example of such authoritarian policies, although such examples of course exist, as they do under a man named Trump and a woman named May and every other government in the world. But clearly if a strong case could be made of Putin being authoritarian, the Western media would routinely document such in their attacks upon the Russian president. Why do they not?

The review further refers to Putin to as “the cold-eye former K.G.B. lieutenant colonel”. One has to wonder if the New York Times has ever referred to President George H.W. Bush as “the cold-eye former CIA Director”.

Just as in the first Cold War, one of the basic problems is that Americans have great difficulty in believing that Russians mean well. Apropos this, I’d like to recall the following written about George Kennan, one of the most prominent American diplomats ever:

Crossing Poland with the first US diplomatic mission to the Soviet Union in the winter of 1933, a young American diplomat named George Kennan was somewhat astonished to hear the Soviet escort, Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov, reminisce about growing up in a village nearby, about the books he had read and his dreams as a small boy of being a librarian.

“We suddenly realized, or at least I did, that these people we were dealing with were human beings like ourselves,” Kennan wrote, “that they had been born somewhere, that they had their childhood ambitions as we had. It seemed for a brief moment we could break through and embrace these people.”

It hasn’t happened yet.

Kennan’s sudden realization brings George Orwell to mind:

“We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

The plague of nationalism

The world has enough countries. Too goddamn many if you ask me. Is there room for any more delegations at the United Nations? Any more parking spots in New York? Have the people of Catalonia, who are seeking independence from Spain in an October 1 vote, considered that their new nation will have to open hundreds of new embassies and consulates around the world, furnish them all, fill them all with paid employees, houses and apartments and furniture for many of them, several new cars for each diplomatic post. … How many billions of dollars in taxes will be taken from the Catalan people to pay for all this?

And what about the military? Any self-respecting country needs an army and a navy. Will the new Catalonia be able to afford even halfway decent armed forces? The new country will of course have to join NATO with its obligatory minimum defense capability. There goes a billion or two more.

Plus what it will have to pay the European Union, which will simply be replacing Madrid in imposing many legal restrictions upon the Catalan people.

And for what noble purpose are they rising up? Freedom, democracy, civil liberties, human rights? No. It’s all for money. Madrid is taking in more in taxes from Catalonia than it returns in services, something which can be said about many city-state relationships in the United States. (Presumably there are also some individual Catalans who have their odd personal reasons.)

Source: Socialist Project

Catalan nationalists insist that “self-determination” is an inalienable right and cannot be curbed by the Spanish Constitution.  Well, then, why stop with an “autonomous community” as Catalonia is designated? Why don’t provinces everywhere have the right to declare their independence? How about cities? Or neighborhoods? Why not my block? I could be the president.

And there are many other restive independence movements in the world, like the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey; in Scotland, Belgium and Italy; and California. Lord help us. Many countries are very reluctant to even recognize a new state for fear that it might encourage their own people to break away.

If love is blind, nationalism has lost all five senses.

“If nature were a bank, they would have already rescued it.” – Eduardo Galeano

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told a New York investor conference that Hurricane Irma would ultimately boost the economy by sparking rebuilding.

“There clearly is going to be an impact on GDP in the short run, we will make it up in the long run. As we rebuild, that will help GDP. It won’t have a bad impact on the economy.”

Hmmm … very interesting … Can we therefore assume that if the damage had been twice as bad it would have boosted the economy even more?

Meanwhile, in the non-Trump, non-fantasy world, there is a thing called climate change; i.e. the quality of our lives, the survival of the planet. What keeps corporations from modifying their behavior so as to be kinder to our environment? It is of course the good old “bottom line” again. What can we do to convince the corporations to consistently behave like good citizens? Nothing that hasn’t already been tried and failed. Except one thing. … unmentionable in polite company. … unmentionable in a capitalist society. … Nationalization. There, I said it. Now I’ll be getting letters addressed to “The Old Stalinist”.

But nationalization is not a panacea either, at least for the environment. There’s the greatest single source of man-made environmental damage in the world – The United States military. And it’s already been nationalized. But doing away with private corporations will reduce the drive toward imperialism sufficiently that before long the need for a military will fade away and we can live like Costa Rica. If you think that that would put the United States in danger of attack, please tell me who would attack, and why.

The argument I like to use when speaking to those who don’t accept the idea that extreme weather phenomena are man-made is this:

Well, we can proceed in one of two ways:

  1. We can do our best to limit the greenhouse effect by curtailing greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere, and if it turns out that these emissions were not in fact the cause of all the extreme weather phenomena, then we’ve wasted a lot of time, effort and money (although other benefits to the ecosystem would still accrue).
  2. We can do nothing at all to curtail the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and if it turns out that these emissions were in fact the leading cause of all the extreme weather phenomena (not simply extreme, but getting downright freaky), then we’ve lost the earth and life as we know it.

So, are you a gambler?

The new Vietnam documentary

At the beginning of Ken Burns’ new documentary on the American war in Vietnam the narrator says the war “was begun in good faith by decent people out of fateful misunderstandings, American overconfidence and Cold War misunderstandings.”

The early American involvement in Vietnam can be marked by two things in particular:

(1) helping the French imperialists in their fight against the forces led by Ho Chi Minh of North Vietnam and

(2) the cancellation of the elections that would have united North and South Vietnam as one nation because the US and its South Vietnam allies knew that Ho Chi Minh would win. It was that simple.

Nothing of good faith or decency in that scenario. No misunderstandings. Ho Chi Minh was a great admirer of America and its Declaration of Independence. His own actual declaration of 1945 begins with the familiar “All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But Ho Chi Minh was what was called a “communist”. It was that simple. (See the Vietnam chapter in my book Killing Hope for the details.)

Daniel Ellsberg’s conclusion about the US in Vietnam:

“It wasn’t that we were on the wrong side; we were the wrong side.”

Ms. Hillary

She has a new book out and lots of interviews, all giving her the opportunity to complain about the many forces that joined together to deny her her rightful place as queen. I might feel a bit, just a bit, of sympathy for the woman if not for her greatest crime.

Image result for hillary libya

Source: The Duran

There was a country called Libya. It had the highest standard of living in all of Africa; its people had not only free education and health care but all kinds of other benefits that other Africans could only dream about. It was also a secular state, a quality to be cherished in Africa and the Middle East. But Moammar Gaddafi of Libya was never a properly obedient client of Washington. Amongst other shortcomings, the man threatened to replace the US dollar with gold for payment of oil transactions, create a common African currency, and was a strong supporter of the Palestinians and foe of Israel.

In 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the prime moving force behind the United States and NATO turning Libya into a failed state, where it remains today.

The attack against Libya was one that the New York Times said Clinton had “championed”, convincing President Obama in “what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as Secretary of State.” The people of Libya were bombed almost daily for more than six months. The main excuse given was that Gaddafi was about to invade Benghazi, the Libyan center of his opponents, and so the United States and NATO were thus saving the people of that city from a massacre. The American people and the American media of course swallowed this story, though no convincing evidence of the alleged impending massacre has ever been presented. The nearest thing to an official US government account of the matter – a Congressional Research Service report on events in Libya for the period – makes no mention at all of the threatened massacre.

The US/NATO heavy bombing sent Libya crashing in utter chaos, leading to the widespread dispersal throughout North African and Middle East hotspots of the gigantic arsenal of weaponry that Gaddafi had accumulated. Libya is now a haven for terrorists, from al Qaeda to ISIS, whereas Gaddafi had been a leading foe of terrorists. He had declared Libya as a barrier to terrorists, as well as African refugees, going to Europe.  The bombing has contributed greatly to the area’s mammoth refugee crisis.

And when Hillary was shown a video about the horrific murder of Gaddafi by his opponents she loudly cackled (yes, that’s the word):

“We came, we saw, he died!”

You can see it on Youtube.

There’s also her support of placing regime change in Syria ahead of supporting the Syrian government in its struggle against ISIS and other terrorist groups. Even more disastrous was the 2003 US invasion of Iraq which she as a senator supported.

If all this is not sufficient to capture the utter charm of the woman, another foreign-policy adventure, one which her swooning followers totally ignore, the few that even know about it, is the coup ousting the moderately progressive Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in June, 2009. A tale told many times in Latin America: The downtrodden masses finally put into power a leader committed to reversing the status quo, determined to try to put an end to two centuries of oppression … and before long the military overthrows the democratically-elected government, while the United States – if not the mastermind behind the coup – does nothing to prevent it or to punish the coup regime, as only the United States can punish; meanwhile Washington officials pretend to be very upset over this “affront to democracy”.

District of Columbia

How many people around the world know that in Washington, DC (District of Columbia, where I live), the capital city of the United States –- the country that is always lecturing the world about this thing called “democracy” –- the citizens do not have the final say over making the laws that determine life in their city? Many Americans as well are not aware of this.

According to the US Constitution (Section 8) Congress has the final say, and in recent years has blocked the city from using local tax dollars to subsidize abortion for low-income women, blocked the implementation of legal marijuana use, blocked needle exchanges, blocked certain taxes, blocked a law that says employers cannot discriminate against workers based on their reproductive decisions, imposed private schools into the public-school system, and will soon probably block the District’s new assisted-suicide law (already blocked in the House of Representatives). On top of all this, since DC is not a state, its citizens do not have any representatives in the Senate and their sole representative in the House has only the barest non-voting, token rights. DC residents did not even have the right to vote for the president until 1964.

In 2015 in Brussels, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization formally voted to accept the District of Columbia as a new member. UNPO is an international democratic organization whose members are indigenous peoples, minorities and unrecognized or occupied territories who have joined together to protect and promote their human and cultural rights, to preserve their environments and to find nonviolent solutions to conflicts which affect them.

William Blum is an author, historian, and U.S. foreign policy critic. He is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, among others. 

Notes

1. USA Today, October 11, 1999, p.1

2.Washington Post, May 12, 2009; see a similar story November 5, 2009

3. Walter Isaacson & Evan Thomas, The Wise Men (1986), p.158

4. Associated Press, September 21, 2017

5. New York Times, February 28, 2016

6. “Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy”, updated March 4, 2016.

7. RT (Russia Today) television station, January 8, 2016

8. See Mark Weisbrot’s “Top Ten Ways You Can Tell Which Side The United States Government is On With Regard to the Military Coup in Honduras

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cold War Then. Cold War Now.

Over the last 48 hours Turkish and Iranian troops have been conducting large scale military drills on the border with Iraq as Kurdish separatists in northern Iraq have voted in a unilateral referendum of secession which has been widely condemned by all regional powers except Israel as well as being condemned by both Russia and the US.

Today, it has been confirmed that Iraqi troops have joined their Turkish counterparts on the Turkish side of the border in what may be preparatory stages for a joint operation in northern Iraq against separatists who maintain their own insurgent militia called the Peshmerga.

Yesterday, in a Kurdish controlled referendum, 93% of registered local separatists voted to leave Iraq. Arabs and Turkomen have boycotted the vote which they believe to be illegitimate, in line with the position of Iraq, Turkey and Iran.

Now watch the live footage of the joint Turkish-Iraqi military drills.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Breaking: Iraqi Troops Join Military Drills in Turkey (Live Video)

Analysis by Analogy: Myanmar Is Not Syria

September 27th, 2017 by Tony Cartalucci

Many geopolitical analysts and commentators have noted many worthwhile similarities between the Syrian crisis and the one now unfolding in the Southeast Asian state of Myanmar. However, what is different about these two crises is just as important as what is the same.

The Similarities 

Particular focus has been placed on evidence emerging that US-ally Saudi Arabia is serving as an intermediary fueling militancy in Myanmar’s western Rakhine state. The militants, however, consist of a foreign armed, funded, and led cadre, constituting a numerically negligible minority of the Rohingya population they claim to represent, and are in fact no more representative of the Rohingya people than militants of Al Qaeda and the so-called “Islamic State” are representative of Syria or Iraq’s Sunni Muslim populations.

While it is crucial to point out the foreign-funded nature of a militancy attempting to co-opt the Rohingya minority in Myanmar, it is equally important to understand precisely where this militancy fits into Saudi Arabia’s and ultimately its American sponsors’ larger plans.

Another similarity pointed out by analysts is the use of US and European-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). These include larger organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as organizations on the ground in Myanmar funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), its various subsidiaries including the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), Freedom House, USAID, and Open Society.

These organizations are intentionally seeking to control the narrative, inflame rather than smooth over tensions, and create a pretext for wider and more direct intervention in Myanmar’s expanding crisis by Western nations.

Analysts and commentators, however, cannot stop here. They must commit to equal due diligence in unraveling what stands behind Myanmar’s government – who it was that assisted them into power during the relatively recent 2016 elections, who built up their political networks across the country over the course of several decades, and what role their actions play in Western designs for the nation’s near and intermediate future.

The Differences 

Syria’s government is the creation and perpetuation of localized special interests – backed by various alliances ranging from the former Soviet Union in the past, to Russia, Iran, and to a lesser degree China in present day.

The United States and its Arab partners – particularly Saudi Arabia – have engineered militancy along and within Syria’s borders beginning in 2011 for the explicit purpose of overthrowing Syria’s government and dividing what remains of the nation among proxies and client regimes controlled from Washington, London, and Brussels.

In Myanmar, while the US and its Saudi partners are apparently fueling militancy among the Rohingya population, it was the US itself who for decades built up the political networks of the current ruling regime, with Aung San Suu Kyi a whole-cloth creation of Western media narratives, immense funding and political support, and a carefully crafted facade to obfuscate from the public for decades the true, nationalist and even genocidal nature of Suu Kyi’s supposedly “Buddhist nationalist” support base.

An extensive 2006 report by Burma Campaign UK titled, “Failing the People of Burma?” (PDF), would reveal how virtually every facet of Myanmar’s current government is a creation of Western political and financial support. (Note: The US and UK still often refer to Myanmar by its British colonial name, “Burma”).

Extensive efforts have been made to portray Myanmar’s head of state, Aung San Suu Kyi, as being opposed by ultra-violent nationalist “monks,” and many in the alternative media have wrongly concludes that the US seeks to pressure, even topple Suu Kyi from power. In reality, both Suu Kyi and her violent supporters are creations and a perpetuation of US cash and political support.

The report would lay this out in great detail, stating:

The restoration of democracy in Burma is a priority U.S. policy objective in Southeast Asia. To achieve this objective, the United States has consistently supported democracy activists and their efforts both inside and outside Burma…Addressing these needs requires flexibility and creativity. Despite the challenges that have arisen, United States Embassies Rangoon and Bangkok as well as Consulate General Chiang Mai are fully engaged in pro-democracy efforts. The United States also supports organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Open Society Institute (nb no support given since 2004) and Internews, working inside and outside the region on a broad range of democracy promotion activities. U.S.-based broadcasters supply news and information to the Burmese people, who lack a free press. U.S. programs also fund scholarships for Burmese who represent the future of Burma. The United States is committed to working for a democratic Burma and will continue to employ a variety of tools to assist democracy activists.

The 36-page report would enumerate US and European programs in detail – ranging from the creation and funding of media, to organizing political parties and devising campaign strategies for elections, to even scholarships abroad to indoctrinate an entire class of political proxies to be used well into the future upon transforming the nation into a client state. Virtually every aspect of life in Myanmar was targeted and overturned by Western-backed networks over the course of several decades and an untold amount of foreign-funding.

Similar evidence reveals that many of the so-called “Buddhist” nationalist groups also enjoy a close relationship with US and European interests and that they played a pivotal role in bringing Suu Kyi to power.

Additionally, many in Suu Kyi’s current government are the recipients of US-funded training. Narratives concerning the current Rohingya crisis are being crafted by Suu Kyi’s “Minister of Information,” Pe Myint.

Pe Myint was revealed in a 2016 article in the Myanmar Times titled, “Who’s who: Myanmar’s new cabinet,” to have participated in training funded by the US State Department. The article would report (emphasis added):

Formerly a doctor with a degree from the Institute of Medicine, U Pe Myint changed careers after 11 years and received training as a journalist at the Indochina Media Memorial Foundation in Bangkok. He then embarked on a career as a writer, penning dozens of novels. He participated in the International Writing Program at the University of Iowa in 1998, and was also editor-in-chief of The People’s Age Journal. He was born in Rakhine State in 1949.

The Indochina Media Memorial Foundation is revealed in a US diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks as fully funded by the US State Department through various and familiar intermediaries. The cable titled, “An Overview of Northern Thailand-Based Burmese Media Orgranizations.” would explicitly state (emphasis added):

Other organizations, some with a scope beyond Burma, also add to the educational opportunities for Burmese journalists. The Chiang Mai-based Indochina Media Memorial Foundation, for instance, last year completed training courses for Southeast Asian reporters that included Burmese participants. Major funders for journalism training programs in the region include the NED, Open Society Institute (OSI), and several European governments and charities.

Many of those among Myanmar-based US-funded “NGOs” apparently opposing Suu Kyi’s government are in fact alumni of the same US-funded programs as many members of the current government.

In essence, the primary difference between Myanmar and Syria is that while in Syria the US is fueling militancy to topple a government beyond its reach and influence, in Myanmar, the US is manipulating the entire nation via two vectors its controls entirely – a militancy it is growing on one side, and a political establishment it has created from whole-cloth on the other.

Moving Beyond Analysis by Analogy

Helping readers understand various aspects of the current crisis in Myanmar by comparing it to various aspects of Syria’s ongoing conflict can be instructive. However, drawing entire conclusions about the implications of the Myanmar conflict by simply assuming it is repeat of Western efforts in Syria is fundamentally flawed.

While the US seeks to divide and destroy the entire state of Syria, its efforts in Myanmar are concentrated to the western state of Rakhine with little possibility of spreading because of Myanmar’s demographics.

This is also precisely where China has invested deeply in its One Belt, One Road (OBOR) project, with a seaport in Sittwe, central Rakhine, and road, rail, and pipeline projects slated to expand onward toward China’s border and eventually Kunming.

Opposition in the form of local NGOs underwritten by US State Department cash, or violence covertly backed by the US and its intermediaries, have attempted to systematically disrupt Chinese infrastructure projects around the globe, including in Myanmar. Chinese-built dams in Myanmar are opposed by networks of US-funded NGOs, militant groups accused of receiving US backing have attacked Chinese projects throughout the nation, and the current conflict in Rakhine fueled on both sides by the US threaten to not only derail Chinese projects there, but may even serve as a pretext for positioning Western forces inside Myanmar – a nation that directly borders China.

Placing American forces – in any capacity – along China’s borders has been a long-term stated goal of US policymakers for decades. From the Vietnam War-era Pentagon Papers to the 2000 Project for a New American Century report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” to former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton‘s “Pivot to Asia” policy, a singular theme of encircling and containing China either with client states obedient to Washington, or chaos all along China’s peripheries has prevailed.

It is clear that American designs in Syria and Myanmar employ similar networks and tactics and that both conflicts fit into a larger, global strategy. There are undoubtedly familiar themes emerging from both conflicts. However, what is different about Syria and Myanmar’s conflicts is just as important.

Analysts and commentators must account for the decades of US and European funding that placed the current government of Myanmar into power. They must account for the surgical nature of destabilization confined to Myanmar’s Rakhine state versus the full-spectrum destabilization being fueled in Syria. They must also identify the motives underpinning US designs in Myanmar.

Simply assuming that a US-Saudi-backed militancy exists to topple a government rather than grease the wheels for another, more indirect objective – one that perhaps even aims at preserving Myanmar’s current government rather than toppling it by pinning blame on the nation’s still powerful and independent military – will only aid rather than impede injustice. Analogies drawn from two different conflicts are only helpful in simplifying explanations and conclusions analysis by deep research have already arrived at.

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

This article was originally published by New Eastern Outlook.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Analysis by Analogy: Myanmar Is Not Syria

Will Central Banks Survive to the Mid-21st Century?

September 27th, 2017 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

(In this article, just published in the World Financial Review (London), Dr. Jack Rasmus comprehensively elaborates on the failures of global central banks’ nine-year experiment since 2008, their inevitable transformation, and ultimately, their survival beyond the mid-21st century. The article is based upon research and conclusions in Dr. Rasmus’s just published latest book, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression’, Clarity Press, August 2017, which is now publicly available in bookstores, on Amazon, and from this blog.)

After nearly nine years of a radical experiment injecting tens of trillions of dollars and dollar equivalent currency into their economies, the major central banks of the advanced economies – the Federal Reserve (Fed), Bank of England (BoE), European Central Bank (ECB), Bank of Japan (BoJ), and the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) – appear headed toward reversing the policy of massive liquidity injection they launched in 2008.

Led by the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, central bankers have begun, or are about to begin, reducing their bloated balance sheets and raising benchmark interest rates. A fundamental shift in the global availability of credit is thus on the horizon. Whether the central banks can succeed in raising rates and reducing balance sheets without precipitating a major credit crunch – or even another historic credit crash as in 2008 that sends the global economy into another recession tailspin – is the prime question for the global economy in 2018 and beyond.1

Fundamental forces in recent decades associated with globalisation, rapidly changing financial structures worldwide, and accelerating technological change significantly reduced central banks’ ability to generate real investment and productivity gains – and therefore economic growth – after nine years of near zero and negative benchmark rates. The same changes and conditions may threaten a quicker than anticipated negative impact on investment and growth should rates rise much in the near term. In the increasingly globalised, financialised, and rapid technological change world of the 21st century, central bank interest rate policies are becoming less effective – and with that central banks policies less relevant.

The $25 Trillion Radical Experiment

For the past nine years the major central banks have embarked on an unprecedented experiment, injecting tens of trillions of dollars of liquidity into their banking systems and economies – by means of programmes of quantitative easing (QE), zero interest rates (ZIRP) and even negative rates (NIRP), among other more traditional means. The consequence has been the ballooning of their own balance sheets.

Officially, the balance sheets of the five major central banks today total conservatively $20 trillion. The Fed’s contribution is $4.5 trillion. The ECB’s just short of $4.9 trillion, but still rising as it continues its quantitative easing, QE, programme purchasing both government and private bonds. The BoJ’s is more than $5 trillion, while it too continues even more aggressively buying not only government and corporate bonds but private equities and other non-bond securities as well. The BoE’s total is heading toward $1 trillion, as it re-introduced another QE programme in the wake of the Brexit vote in June 2016. And the PBOC’s is estimated somewhere between $5 and $7 trillion – the result of liquidity injections supporting its state policy banks and entrusted loans to industries and local government construction projects.

Add in important “tier 2” central banks – like the Swiss National Bank, the Bank of Sweden, and central banks of India, Brazil, Russia and others – that in recent years have also significantly increased their balance sheets, global balance sheet totals easily exceed the $20 trillion of the five majors.

This historically unprecedented $25 trillion global liquidity injection by central banks worldwide has occurred within the context of a simultaneous general retreat from fiscal policy as well – at least in the form of government direct investment and spending.

The $20 trillion itself is actually an under-estimation of cumulative liquidity injections that have occurred since 2008. Although the Fed officially ended its QE3 programme at the end of 2013 when its total reached $4.5 trillion, it continued re-buying securities thereafter as some of its earlier bond purchases matured and “rolled off”. The repurchases kept its balance sheet level at $4.5 trillion. Bloomberg Research has estimated the Fed has purchased 2008 more than $7 trillion since 2008 when its repurchases are considered. Similar reinvestments by the other four major central banks would likely add even more “cumulative trillions” of liquidity injections since 2008 to their official $20 trillion balance sheet totals. The actual liquidity injected is therefore likely closer to $25 trillion.

Some argue the reinvestments shouldn’t be counted, since the maturing of bonds represent liquidity removed from the general economy. But that view disregards any money multiplier effects on private debt and debt leveraging. Even after maturing, the bonds leave a residue of debt-generation in the economy regardless whether the bonds are repaid. The liquidity might be removed from the economy, but its multiple of residue of debt and leverage remain.

This historically unprecedented $25 trillion global liquidity injection by central banks worldwide has occurred within the context of a simultaneous general retreat from fiscal policy as well – at least in the form of government direct investment and spending. With the exception of China perhaps, it has meant almost total reliance in the advanced economies on central bank monetary policy. Since 2008 central bank monetary policy of massive liquidity injection, generating super-low (and even negative) interest rates, has been the “only game in town”, as others have aptly described.2 Talk of renewed government investment and spending in the form of infrastructure investment has to date been only talk. Elites and policy makers in 2008 chose central bank monetary policy as the primary, and even sole, engine of economic recovery. And it has proven an engine running on low octane fuel, and now running out of gas.

Has the Nine-Year Experiment Failed?

In retrospect, monetary policy has not been very effective – whether considered in terms of generating real economic growth, achieving targets of price stability and employment, or even in terms of ensuring central banks’ primary functions of lender of last resort, money supply management, and banking system supervision.

If measured in terms of central banks’ primary functions, avowed targets, and monetary tools’ effectiveness, the past nine years of “monetary policy first and foremost” (with fiscal spending frozen or contracting) may reasonably be argued to have failed. The $20 trillion central bank monetary experiment was supposed to bail out the banks, generate employment, raise goods and services prices to at least 2% annually, restore financial stability, and return economic growth in GDP terms to pre-2008 crisis averages. But it has done none of the above – despite the $20-$25 trillion massive liquidity injections.

That in turn raises the question: should anyone believe central banks’ pending policy shift – i.e. to sell off and reduce their balance sheets and raise interest rates – will prove any more successful?

Both mainstream and business media generally concur that central banks policies since 2008 saved the global economy from another 1930s-like global depression. But an assessment of central banks’ performance in terms of their primary functions, in achieving their publicly declared targets and objectives, and in the effectiveness of their monetary policy tools suggest the track record of central banks has been far less than successful.

Should anyone believe central banks’ pending policy shift – i.e. to sell off and reduce their balance sheets and raise interest rates – will prove any more successful?

Lender of Last Resort Function. Clearly some of the biggest commercial banks were rescued after 2008. The bailout was enabled by means of a combination of programmes: i.e. central banks providing virtually zero interest loans and loan guarantees to banks, directly buying bad assets like subprimes from banks and private investors at above market rates, forcing bank consolidations, suspending normal accounting rules, establishing government run so-called “bad banks” to offload bad debt, and by temporary bank nationalisations. But the global banking system today is still over-loaded with a mountain of non-performing bank loans (NPLs) and other forms of private debt and remains therefore still quite fragile. Lender of last resort appears to have been successful in rescuing some large banks, but much of the rest of the banking system has been left mired in a swamp of bad debt.

Official data show NPLs in Europe and Japan officially at levels of $1-$2 trillion each. But much of it is concentrated dangerously in certain periphery economies and industries, which makes their NPLs potentially even more unstable. China’s NPLs are estimated around $6 trillion. NPLs in India are certainly hundreds of billions of dollars and perhaps even more, and are almost certainly officially underestimated. Then there’s Russia, Brazil, South Africa and other oil and commodity producing countries, the NPLs of which – like India’s – have been accelerating particularly rapidly since 2014 as a percent of GDP, according to the World Bank. Moreover, all that’s just official data, which grossly underestimates true totals of bad debt still on banks’ balance sheets, since many NPLs are conveniently reclassified by governments as “unrecognised stressed loans” or “restructured loans” in order to make the magnitude of the problem appear less serious.

In other words, the $25 trillion central bank liquidity experiment has left the global economy with $10 to $15 trillion in global NPLs. And that’s hardly an effective “lender of last resort” performance, notwithstanding the bailout of the highly visible big banks like Citigroup, Bank of America, Lloyds, RBS, and others. What remains is a massive bad bank loan debt global overhang of at least $10 trillion. And when high risk private debt in the form of corporate junk bonds, equity market margin debt, household and local government debt are considered as well, “non-performing” debt totals likely exceed $15 trillion worldwide at minimum. A truly effective lender of last resort function would have cleaned up at least some of this bad debt, but it hasn’t. Beneath the appearance of a successful post-2008 lender of last resort function lies massive evidence of central banks failure in their performance of this function.

The global economy thus remains highly fragile, despite the $25 trillion liquidity injections by central banks since 2008.3 The global banking system is permeated with “dry rot” in many locations. If financial stability is an avowed objective of central bank policy, the magnitude of global NPLs and other forms of non-performing private debt is ample testimony that central banks have failed the past nine years to restore stability of the financial system. Central banks have failed to implement pre-emptive lender of last resort programmes and have been content to respond in reactionary fashion as lender of last resort after crises have erupted.

Money Supply Management Function. The great liquidity experiment is not just a phenomenon of the post-2008 period. It has been underway for decades, beginning with the collapse of the Bretton Woods international monetary system in the 1970s which gave central banks, especially the Fed, the task of stabilising global currency exchange rates, ensuring price stability, and facilitating global trade. Neoliberal economic policies, first in the UK and USA then later elsewhere, further encouraged and justified central bank excess liquidity policies since the 1980s. The removal of restrictions on global money capital flows in the late 1980s helped precipitate financial instability events globally in the 1990s that further encouraged central bank excesses. So did technological change in the 1990s that linked and integrated financial markets and accelerated cross-country money velocities that made banking and financial systems increasingly prone to contagion effects. As financial asset markets’ bailouts grew in frequency and magnitude after 1990 in response to multiple sovereign debt crises, Asian currency instability, bursting tech bubbles, and subprime housing and derivatives credit booms, central banks provided ever more liquidity to the system. At the same time changing global financial structures gave rise to forms of non-money “inside” credit and technology increasingly spawned forms of digital money – over both of which central banks have had little influence as well. The 2008-09 global crash thus only accelerated these developments and trends already underway for decades.

Financialisation, technological change and globalisation thus have all served to reduce central banks’ ability to carry out their money supply function as well. Moreover, central banks themselves have exacerbated the trends and loss of control by embracing policies like QE, ZIRP, and NIRP which, in effect, have thrown more and more liquidity at crises – i.e. crises that were fundamentally created by excess liquidity, runaway debt, and leveraging in the first place. The solution to the last crisis – i.e. liquidity – would become the enabling cause of the next.

Banking Supervision Function. Central banks have been no more successful in performing their third major function of banking supervision. If banks were properly supervised the current volume of NPLs would not have been allowed to grow to excessive levels. Central banks would intervene and check financial asset price bubbles before they build and burst, threatening the entire credit system and collapsing the real economy. Limited initial efforts to expand bank supervision role of central banks following the 2008 crash – such as Dodd-Frank legislation in the US and the Financial Stability Authority in the UK – have been checked and are being dismantled step by step. In Japan, bureaucratic forces have effectively stymied more bank supervision for decades and little more was done after 2008. In Europe, supervision remains largely still with national central banks. Efforts to coordinate bank supervision across central banks with the Basel II and III agreements are moribund. And nowhere have effective regulatory measures been implemented to address the huge shadow banking system, rapidly expanding online banking, or the growing role of global multinational corporations’ financial departments, which have been transforming them into de facto private banks as well.

Image result

Stanley Fischer (Source: City AM)

Even ardent central banker, Stanley Fischer, vice-chair of the Federal Reserve and head of its financial stability committee, has recently declared that efforts in the US to roll back even the limited measures of Dodd-Frank to expand Fed bank supervision as “very, very dangerous”.4

Never totally responsible for bank supervision – and only one institution among several tasked with supervising the private banks – central banks have never been very successful performing bank supervision. And now that function is again weakening across many locations of the global economy.

The Failure to Achieve 2% Price Stability. Failing functions of lender of last resort, money supply and credit control, and banking supervision are not the only indications of central banks’ failure in recent decades, and especially since 2008. No less indicative of failure has been central banks’ inability to achieve their own publicly declared targets.

Failure to achieve their 2% price stability target has been particularly evident. Since 2008 the economies of Europe and Japan in particular have repeatedly flirted with deflation in goods and services prices. When not actually deflating, prices have either stagnated or barely rose above zero. Even the US economy, which analysts herald as performing more robustly than the others, the Fed’s preferred Personal Consumption Expenditures, or PCE, price index has consistently failed the 2% threshold. And over the longer term has steadily drifted toward 1% annual rate or less. And in recent months it has been near zero. China’s prices have performed better, but that has been mostly due to periodic booms in its housing sector and its several fiscal stimulus programmes that have accompanied its central bank’s liquidity injections policy since 2011. Despite the $25 trillion, central banks have clearly failed to achieve anything near their declared 2% price targets.

Unemployment and GDP Growth. While the ECB, BoE, and BoJ limit their targeting to a 2% price stability rule (the PBOC to 3.5%), the US Fed officially maintains that employment and economic growth are also official targets of central bank monetary policy.

But it has been mostly lip-service. Since 2015 the Fed has touted the fact of the US economy’s unemployment rate has fallen to only 4.5%. But 4.5% is not the true US unemployment rate. It is the government’s official U-3 rate, which estimates only full time permanent employment. At least an equivalent percentage of the US labour force remains unemployed in the US economy when part time, temp, and contract work – i.e. underemployment – is considered. That’s the U-6 unemployment rate which the Fed conveniently ignores. The true numbers of jobless are even higher than the U-6, when workers who never entered or drop out of the labour force are considered, or when the millions more who chose permanent disability status in lieu of unemployment are added; or when the poorly estimated growing underground economy and undocumented immigrant labour force are considered. The true US unemployment rate remains over 10%, as it does as well in Europe.

If central banks’ $25 trillion liquidity injection are measured against restoring economic growth rates, the picture fares no better. Despite the Fed’s QE, ZIRP, and related programmes, the US economy has grown since 2008 at an annual rate, in GDP terms, averaging only 60% of its pre-crisis economic average. On three separate occasions since 2010 the US economy collapsed to near zero growth for one quarter. Europe’s GDP performance has been even worse, experiencing a serious double dip recession in 2011-13, and chronic growth rates well below 1% for most of the period that followed. And Japan’s growth has been even worse than Europe’s, experiencing no less than four recessions since 2008. Only China has performed better, but most likely due once again to its significant fiscal stimulus programme of 2008-09 and additional mini-fiscal stimulus thereafter and not due to monetary policy. In 2012 every dollar of liquidity provided by the PBOC generated an equivalent dollar of real GDP growth; today, that ratio is four dollars necessary to generate one dollar of real growth.

Monetary Policy Tools’ Effectiveness. With the 2008-09 global crash, it became almost immediately evident that central banks’ traditional monetary tools, like open market operations bond buying and reserve requirement adjustments, were seriously deficient for both bailing out banks and assisting economic recovery. New, more radical policy tools were introduced – specifically QE, ZIRP and then NIRP. How effective have the new tools been, one might ask?

While they reflated part of the banking system no doubt, the negative costs of the QE-ZIRP-NIRP have risen steadily since 2008. Much of the QE driven liquidity – especially direct buying of investors’ subprimes by the Fed and ECB-BOJ purchases of corporate bonds and equities – have been misdirected into financial asset markets rather than real investment, redistributed to shareholders, diverted offshore, or remain hoarded on corporate balance sheets. Both real productivity and real goods and services prices have stagnated, while financial asset prices have bubbled – especially in equities, high yield corporate bonds, and derivatives like exchange traded funds (ETFs). The nine years of near zero interest rates have devastated fixed income households’ savings. Retirees’ incomes in particular have stagnated and declined, while capital gains incomes of investors and speculators have accelerated. That does not portend well for sustained household consumption.

Central banks’ chronic low rates have been fueling a new “debt bomb” worldwide, not just in the advanced economies but increasingly in emerging markets as well.

The long term QE-ZIRP has also been distorting various markets. Pension funds and insurance annuities have not recovered due to the chronic low rates of return, and are poorly positioned now for the next recession and crisis. Low rates have encouraged excessive corporate bond debt issuance, which has not flowed into real investment and productivity or wage incomes. In the US alone, corporate debt has exceeded $6 trillion in the past six years. Central banks’ chronic low rates have been fueling a new “debt bomb” worldwide, not just in the advanced economies but increasingly in emerging markets as well. Not least, the low rate regime for nearly a decade has seriously neutralised interest rates as a potential central bank tool on hand when the next recession occurs within the next few years.

As the world’s primary central bank, the Fed has been desperate to raise rates in order to restore a policy tool cushion before the next crisis. Central banks in Europe and Japan are waiting to follow suit, to raise their rates and sell off their balance sheets, but will not do so until the Fed does more convincingly in the coming months. Due to new forces dominant in the 21st century, however, the Fed and other central banks may not be able to raise rates much higher (or significantly reduce balance sheets that will have the similar effect on rate hikes).

It is this writer’s view that the Fed will not be able to raise its benchmark federal funds rate above 2%, or push the longer term 10 year Treasury bond yield (rate) above 3%, without precipitating another major credit crisis. And if the Fed cannot, the other central banks will not as well. Monetary policy may be already neutralised for the next recession and crisis.

Central Banking’s Inevitable Transformation

Whether based on assessment of central banks’ primary functions, central bank targets, or effectiveness of new monetary tools, it is reasonable to argue that central banks have not been performing very well in recent decades, and especially not well in the post-2008 period. As the Fed and other central banks now consider reversing and reducing the consequence of post-2008 policies by trying to sell of balance sheets and raise rates, that major policy shift will most likely prove no more successful than policies pursued 2008-2017 and perhaps even less so.

Central banks have clearly not evolved apace with the rapid changes in globalisation, financial structures, and technology. The private banking and global financial system is changing far more rapidly than central banks have been able to adjust. Being essentially national institutions, they cannot adapt fast enough to the globalisation and economic and financial integration trends that are accelerating. Manipulation of national interest rates by central banks are thus becoming increasingly ineffective. Expanding, highly liquid and integrated global financial markets, proliferating new financial securities, new forms of digital money and inside credit beyond their influence, virtually unregulated (and perhaps unregulatable) global shadow banking institutions that now control more assets than commercial banks, fast-trading, dark pool investing, and coming artificial intelligence driven passive investing – all represent significant challenges to central banks’ functions, targets, and tools effectiveness. Their response has been simply to thrown more money and ever more liquidity at crises as they multiply and magnify. And in the process they lay the groundwork for still more speculative debt and leverage, more financial asset bubbles, and more subsequent financial instability to follow.

The problem is not only technological or economic. Accompanying the changes has been the rise of a new global finance capital elite – i.e. the human agency driving changes both economically and ensuring those changes are enabled politically.

Moreover, the problem is not only technological or economic. Accompanying the changes has been the rise of a new global finance capital elite – i.e. the human agency driving changes both economically and ensuring those changes are enabled politically. A couple hundred thousand super-wealthy individuals and investors who are transforming not only the global banking-financial system but who are steadily deepening their influence within the state and governments of the advanced economies as well their economies. They have been bending traditional government institutions – legislatures, executive agencies, and even courts – to their collective will. Central banks are being influenced and affected no less so.

Image result

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Director Gary Cohn Brief the Media at the White House (Source: Zimbio)

US economic policy today is largely determined by members of this financial elite. Despite this elite’s central role in causing and precipitating the last financial crash, none have gone to jail and their representatives now sit firmly in control of US levers of economic policy. The US Treasury, the New York Fed, and the National Economic Council are run by former Goldman Sachers Steve Mnuchin, Bill Dudley, and Gary Cohn. It is almost certain Cohn will replace current Fed chair Janet Yellen when her term expires next February, thus further solidifying that control. President Trump is himself a billionaire real estate speculator and member of this new finance elite, as are most of the private advisors with whom he communicates regularly and who have a swinging door access to the White House.

The various economic developments, global system restructuring, technological changes and political system entrenchment of the new elite thus render it highly likely that central banks will perform even more poorly in the decades to come – whether that performance is measured in terms of functions, targets, tools, or ensuring financial stability. That failure will drive necessary basic changes in central banking in the coming decades. Central banks will have to undergo major structural change, develop new targets and tools, and become more directly accountable to the public interest than ever before if they are to survive by mid-century. There will always be central banking in some form. But central banks as we now know them will certainly no longer exist.”

Dr. Jack Rasmus is author of the just published book, “Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes? Monetary Policy and the Next Depression”, Clarity Press, July 2017, and the previously published “Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy”, also by Clarity Press, January 2016. For more information: http://ClarityPress.com/RasmusIII.html. He teaches economics at St. Marys College in Moraga, California, and hosts the radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network. He blogs at jackrasmus.com and his twitter handle is @drjackrasmus.

This article was originally published by Jack Rasmus.

Notes

1. This is one of several main themes addressed by the author in the just published book: Jack Rasmus, “Central Bankers at the End of Their Rope?: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression”, Clarity Press, July 2017

2. See Mohammed El-Erian, “The Only Game in Town: Central Banks, Instability, and Avoiding the Next Collapse”, Random House, 2016.

3. For an assessment of the “system-wide” fragility as of 2015, see Jack Rasmus, “Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy”, Clarity Press, January 2016.

4. Financial Times, August 19, 2017, p.R3.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will Central Banks Survive to the Mid-21st Century?

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)

*     *     *

The Myth of the Kurds in Syria YPG’s Moral Excellence

By Stephen Gowans, September 26, 2017

Kurdish forces are not only “retaking” Christian and Muslim Arab towns in Syria, but are doing the same in the Nineveh province of Iraq—areas “which were never Kurdish in the first place. Kurds now regard Qamishleh, and Hassakeh province in Syria as part of ‘Kurdistan’, although they represent a minority in many of these areas.”

Kurdistan’s Referendum Gamble

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, September 26, 2017

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has not disappointed with his stance: military and economic measures are promised against the Kurdistan Regional Government for holding the referendum. Baghdad, he insists, must remain behind the steering wheel of the country’s affairs.

Kurdish PKK and YPG’s Hidden Notorious Crimes: Kidnapping, Murder, and Narcotics Trafficking

By Sarah Abed, September 26, 2017

Within the past few years, Kurds have gone from almost total obscurity to front page news. What doesn’t get reported however is how these terrorist groups under the guise of being a revolutionary movement for Independence have carried out numerous atrocities including kidnappings and murder – not to mention their involvement in trafficking narcotics.

A Risky Referendum for Kurdistan Underway in Iraq

By Barbara Nimri Aziz, September 25, 2017

Baghdad opposes the referendum as strongly as Madrid rejects Catalonia’s independence vote. In recent weeks Madrid has taken startlingly firm action to thwart the regional vote. Baghdad’s position is as uncompromising; a federal court has declared the referendum illegal according to the Iraqi constitution, and Baghdad declared its readiness to use military action, at least to hold Kirkuk. Don’t believe news reports that the US and its allies oppose this referendum. Note the absence of any diplomatic effort by Washington to help reach a compromise and avoid another period of strife there.

200,000 Israelis Expected in “Kurdistan” Once Independence Is Declared

By Voltaire, September 25, 2017

The Israeli Prime Minister is the only head of government to have publicly declared his support of the creation of an independent Kurdistan outside the historic Kurdish territory (which would also be to the detriment of the indigenous populations).

Kurdistan and the Unity of Iraq: A Referendum in a Powder Keg

By Nermeen Al-Mufti, September 18, 2017

The Turkmen and Arab blocs in the Kirkuk Provincial Council in August boycotted the meeting, which was attended by 24 of its 41 members, including governor Karim. Twenty-two voted in favour of participating in the referendum, leading to denunciations from the Turkmen and Arab members, who said it was unconstitutional and represented only the policy of the Kurds.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Kurdistan Referendum: “Ethnic Cleansing” or Total Independence?

Featured image: Mowaffak al-Rubai is an Iraqi MP from the ruling Shiite National Alliance. He is also a fromer Iraqi National Security Adviser. (Source: Rudaw TV)

An Iraqi official has accused “racist” Kurds of trying to establish a second Israel that will throw the region into years of conflict.

“The step that was taken by some racists in Kurdistan will bring instability to the entire region for years to come. The representatives of such efforts had established the state of Israel in 1948,” Mowaffak al-Rubaie, an MP from the ruling Shiite National Alliance told reporters in the Iraqi parliament.

There have been three wars since the creation of Israel, he added. Rubaie is a former National Security Adviser.

“The one who loses the most is our beloved Kurdish nation,” he continued.

On Monday, the Iraqi parliament requested Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to deploy troops to the areas that have come under Peshmerga control since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the latest in a series of measures announced by Abadi. On Sunday, he called on foreign nations to close their air and land borders with the Kurdistan Region.

Rubaie warned that all the achievements made by Kurds in Iraq since 2003 are now under threat.

“The government should take decisive, forceful, strong, and practical steps against those who made adventures with the destiny of the people of Kurdistan,” the Iraqi MP said, adding that Iraq should make use of “soft power” for now against the Kurdish leadership.

While he said that it is “unacceptable” to use military force against the Kurdistan Region, “security” options are not off the table.

“The sanctions should not target the people of Kurdistan,” he explained, but “racists Kurds” who called for the vote.

He also said that tens of MPs are working on collecting signatures to remove the Iraqi President, Fuad Masum, a Kurd, from his position for failing to protect Iraq’s territorial integrity.

Masum, who is currently in Baghdad, has been working to mediate between Erbil and Baghdad with the help of the United Nations. He also called the decision to go to the vote as “unilateral.”

Iraq’s Vice President Nouri al-Maliki, head of the ruling Shiite State of Law Coalition, rejected the US sponsored initiative that was presented by Masum.

Kurdistan’s Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani told reporters earlier on Monday that steps taken by the Iraqi government are “collective punishment.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Creation of a “Second Israel”? Kurdistan Will Cause Years of War

The White House as Donald Trump’s New Casino

September 27th, 2017 by Nomi Prins

During the 2016 election campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly emphasized that our country was run terribly and needed a businessman at its helm. Upon winning the White House, he insisted that the problem had been solved, adding, “In theory, I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly. There’s never been a case like this.”

Sure enough, while Hillary Clinton spent her time excoriating her opponent for not releasing his tax returns, Americans ultimately embraced the candidate who had proudly and openly dodged their exposure. And why not? It’s in the American ethos to disdain “the man” — especially the taxman. In an election turned reality TV show, who could resist watching a larger-than-life conman who had taken money from the government?

Now, give him credit. As president, The Donald has done just what he promised the American people he would do: run the country like he ran his businesses. At one point, he even displayed confusion about distinguishing between them when he said of the United States: “We’re a very powerful company — country.”

Of course, as Hillary Clinton rarely bothered to point out, he ran many of them using excess debt, deception, and distraction, while a number of the ones he guided personally (as opposed to just licensing them the use of his name) — including his five Atlantic City casinoshis airline, and a mortgage company — he ran into the ground and then ditched. He escaped relatively unscathed financially, while his investors and countless workers and small businesses to whom he owed money were left holding the bag. We may never fully know what lurks deep within those tax returns of his, but we already know that they were “creative” in nature. As he likes to put it, not paying taxes “makes me smart.”

To complete the analogy Trump made during the election campaign, he’s running the country on the very same instincts he used with those businesses and undoubtedly with just the same sense of self-protectiveness. Take the corporate tax policy he advocates that’s being promoted by his bank-raider turned Treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin. It’s focused on lowering the tax rate for multinational corporations from 35% to 15%, further aiding the profitability of companies that already routinely squirrel away profits and hide losses in the crevices of tax havens far removed from public disclosure.

We, as citizens, already bear the brunt of 89% of U.S. tax revenues today. If adopted, the new tax structure would simply throw yet more of the government’s bill in our laps. Against this backdrop, the math of middle-class tax relief doesn’t work out — not unless you were to cut $4.3 trillion from the overall budget for just the kinds of items non-billionaires count on like Medicaid, education, housing assistance, and job training.

Or put another way, Trump’s West Wing is now advocating the very policy he railed against in the election campaign when he was still championing the everyday man. By promoting tax reform for mega-corporations and the moguls who run them, he’s neglecting the “forgotten” white working class that sent him to the Oval Office to “drain the swamp.”

Since entering the White House, he’s also begun to isolate our country from the global economy, essentially pushing other nations to engage in more trade with each other, not the United States. Whether physically shoving aside the leader of Montenegro, engaging in tweet-storms with the President of Mexico over his “big, fat, beautiful wall,” or hanging up on the prime minister of Australia, Trump has seemingly forgotten that diplomacy and trade matter to the actual American economy. His version of “America First” has taken aim at immigrants, multinational trade agreements, regulations, and the U.N. Calvin Coolidge acted in a somewhat similar (if far less flamboyant) manner and you remember where that led: to the devastating crash of 1929 and the Great Depression of the 1930s.

What’s In a Shell?

As a new report by Public Citizen makes clear, the glimpses we’ve gotten of inner Trumpworld from the president’s limited financial disclosures indicate that his business dealings, by design, couldn’t be more complex, shadowy, or filled with corporate subterfuge.  He excels, among other things, at using shell companies to hide the Trump Organization’s profits (and losses) in the corporate labyrinth that makes up his empire. And even though the supposedly blind trust run by his sons is designed to shield him from that imperial entity’s decision-making, it still potentially allows him maneuver room to increase his own fortune and glean profits along the way.

So, what’s in such a shell? The answer: another shell, a company that usually has no employees, no offices, and no traceable capital. Think of such entities as financial gargoyles. They offer no real benefits to the economy, create no jobs, and do nothing to make America great again. However, they have the potential to do a great deal for the bottom lines of Donald Trump and his offspring.  

Think of the corporate shell game he’s been engaged in as his oyster. After all, anonymous buyers now make up the majority of those gobbling up pieces of his empire. Two years prior to his presidential victory, only 4% of the companies affiliated with people buying his properties were limited-liability, or LLC corporations, which are secretive in nature. Following his victory, that number jumped to 70%.

What that means in plain English is that there’s simply no way of knowing who most of those investing in Trump properties actually are, what countries they come from, how they made their fortunes, or whether there might be any conflicts between their buy-ins to Trumpworld and the national interest of this country.

Trump Lawsuits Meet Pennsylvania Avenue

Secret as so many of his dealings may be, there’s a very public aspect to them that Donald Trump has brought directly into the White House: his pattern of being sued. He’s already been sued 134 times in federal court since he assumed the presidency. (Barack Obama had 26 suits against him and George W. Bush seven at the same moment in their presidencies.)

In other words, one of the nation’s most litigious billionaires is in the process of becoming its most litigious president. A pre-election analysis in USA Today found that Trump and his businesses had been “involved in at least 3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts” over the previous three decades. That volume of lawsuits was unprecedented for a presidential candidate, let alone a president.

It’s fair to say that the public will, in one fashion or another, bear some of the expenses from such lawsuits, as it will, of course, from a lengthening list of ongoing federal investigations, including those into Trump’s business dealings with wealthy Russian businessmen and their various affiliates. According to Public Citizen, Trump formed at least 49 new business entities since announcing his candidacy (including some that were created after he was sworn in as CEO-in-chief). Of those 49, about half were related to projects in foreign countries, including Argentina, India, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. Since entering the Oval Office, Trump has met with leaders from each of those countries. And while it’s hardly atypical of a President to meet with foreign leaders, in this case there can be little doubt that national policy overlaps with private interests big time.

As Public Citizen concluded,

“Although just prior to being inaugurated as president, Trump announced plans to ‘separate’ himself from his business empire, he still maintains ownership in his corporations and merely reshuffled his businesses into holding companies that are held by a trust that is controlled by Trump himself.”

It added that he now has an ongoing stake of some sort in more than 500 businesses. Three-quarters of them are legally registered in Delaware, the largest tax-shelter state in the country. So expect plenty more trouble and suits and investigations to come.

The Era of Golf-plomacy

Trump has always had a knack for promoting his own properties. Now, however, he gets to do it on our dime. Indeed, we taxpayers fork over a million dollars or more every time the president simply takes a trip to visit his Mar-a-Lago private club in Florida, his National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, or any of his other properties. During his first 241 days in office, he spent 79 days visiting his properties.

A photo from U.S. President Donald Trump’s Twitter shows he and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe giving each other high-five during their golfing in Florida on Saturday. (Source: KYODO)

Meanwhile, a near-army of his well-connected friends and wannabe friends have been sharpening their golf games at Trump locales. At least 50 executives of companies that bagged sweetheart government contracts, as well as 21 lobbyists and trade group officials, are members of Trump golf courses in Florida, New Jersey, and Virginia. As the president’s son Eric Trump told The New York Times, “I think our brand is the hottest it has ever been.”

They’re not just paying for golf, of course; they’re paying for access. About two-thirds of them “happened” to be golfing during one of those 58 days when Trump, too, was present. It doesn’t take an investigative reporter to show that whatever happens on a Trump golf course undoubtedly does not stay there. And keep in mind that the upkeep of the Trump entourage that travels from D.C. to those clubs with him is at least partially funded by us taxpayers, too.

Trump may tilt isolationist when it comes to countries that don’t put money into his clubs and hotel suites, but the nations that do tend to be in big with him. To take one example, Saudi Arabia, the first stop on his first foreign tour, recently disclosed that it had spent $270,000 for lodgings and food at the new Trump International Hotel just down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House. Trump’s lawyers have pledged to donate any money foreign governments pay that hotel to the Treasury Department. Yet, so far at least, Treasury’s website has no such line item and the money promised for 2017 has now been pushed into 2018. Keep something else in mind: the Trump family forecast that it would lose about $2 million on that hotel in 2017. So far, it has made nearly a cool $2 million profit there instead.

While gaining unprecedented international coverage for his family-owned, for-profit business locales, Trump has created an ethical boundary problem previously unknown in the history of American governments. After all, we, the people, functionally pay taxes to his business empire to host foreign dignitaries, to feed them and provide appropriate security. In this context, the president has made a point of having official state visits at his properties, which ensures that we taxpayers get hit for expenses when, say, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stay at Mar-a-Lago. Though the president swore he would cover Abe’s stay, there’s no evidence that it was more than a “fake claim.”

Meanwhile, the Trump brand rolls on abroad. Though his election campaign took up the banner of isolationism, the Trump Organization didn’t. Not for a second. On January 11th, days before placing his hand on the Bible to “defend the Constitution,” Trump proudly noted that

he “was offered $2 billion to do a deal in Dubai with a very, very, very amazing man, a great, great developer from the Middle East… And I turned it down. I didn’t have to turn it down because, as you know, I have a no-conflict situation because I’m president… But I don’t want to take advantage of something.”

He also promised that he wouldn’t compromise his office by working privately with foreign entities. His business empire, however, made no such promises. And despite his claims, Dubai has turned out to be ripe for a deal. This August, the Trump Organization announced a new venture there (via Twitter of course): Trump Estates Park Residences. It is to be “a collection of luxury villas with exclusive access to” the already thriving Trump International Golf Course in Dubai, a Trump-branded (though not Trump-owned) part of an ongoing partnership with the Dubai-based real-estate firm DAMAC. Its president, Hussain Sajwani, is well known for his close relationship with the Trump family. Units in the swanky abode are expected to start at about $800,000 each.

Meanwhile, DAMAC gave a $32 million contract to the Middle Eastern subsidiary of the China State Construction Engineering Corporation to build part of Trump World Golf Club, also in Dubai. That’s the same China that Trump regularly chides for not working with us properly. The course is scheduled to open in 2018.

So buckle your seatbelts. U.S. foreign policy and the Trump Organization’s business ventures will remain in a unique and complex relationship with each other in the coming years as the president and his children take the people who elected him for a global ride.

His Real Inner Circle

President Trump has made it abundantly clear that sworn loyalty is the route to staying in his favor. Unwavering dedication to the administration, but also to the Trump Organization, and above all to him is the definition of job security in Washington in 2017. Take the latest addition to his communications team, Hope Hicks, who has rocketed into her new career by making devotion to the Trump brand, including defense of daughter Ivanka, a central facet of her professional life. The 28-year-old Hicks has now been anointed the new White House communications director.

But she doesn’t have as much job security as one other group: The Donald’s personal legal team. For make no mistake, Trump’s financial dealings lie at the heart of his presidency, raising conflicts of a sort not seen at least since Warren Harding was president in the 1920s, if ever. And yet, even though they should be secure through at least 2020 and possibly beyond, one little slip about Russia in the wrong D.C. restaurant could see any one of them ushered out the door.

In 2011, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision rendered corporations people. It erased crucial campaign finance and lobbying restrictions, and elevated billionaires to the top ranks of the American political game. It was a stunning moment — until now. Donald Trump’s presidency is doing something even more remarkable. The billionaire who became our president has already left Citizens United in a ditch. He’s created not just a political campaign but a White House in which it’s no longer possible to imagine barriers between lobbying efforts, government decisions, and personal interest, or for that matter profits and policy.

In November, after the election, Trump announced that “the law’s totally on my side, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” Recently, however, the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to government transparency, revealed 530 active Trumpian conflicts of interest and that’s after only eight months in office.

Theoretically, we still live in a republic, but the question is: Who exactly represents whom in Washington? By now, I think we can take a reasonable guess. When the inevitable conflicts arise and Donald Trump must choose between business and country, between himself and the American people, who do you think will get the pink slip? Who will be paying for the intermeshing of the two? Who, like the investors in his bankrupt casinos, will be left holding the bag? At this point, we’re all in the Washington casino and it sure as hell isn’t going to be Donald Trump who takes the financial hit. After all, the house always wins.

Nomi Prins,TomDispatch regular, is the author of six books. Her most recent is All the Presidents’ Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power (Nation Books). She is a former Wall Street executive. Special thanks go to researcher Craig Wilson for his superb work on this piece.

Featured image is from Common Dreams.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The White House as Donald Trump’s New Casino

[September 21] Something rather unprecedented just happened in Syria: US backed “good terrorist” forces attempted a surprise attack against Syrian government forces stationed to the north and northeast of the city of Hama.

What makes this attack unique is that it took place inside a so-called “de-escalation zone” and that it appears that one of the key goals of the attack was to encircle in a pincer-movement and subsequently capture a platoon of Russian military police officers deployed to monitor and enforce the special status of this zone. The Russian military police forces, composed mainly of soldiers from the Caucasus region, fought against a much larger enemy force and had to call for assistance. For the first time, at least officially, Russian special operations forces were deployed to rescue and extract their comrades. At the same time, the Russians sent in a number of close air support aircraft who reportedly killed several hundred “good” terrorists and beat back the attack (Russian sources speak of the destruction of 850 fighters, 11 tanks, three infantry fighting vehicles, 46 armed pickup trucks, five mortars, 20 freighter trucks and 38 ammo supply points; you can see photos of the destroyed personnel and equipment here).  What also makes this event unique is the official reaction of the Russians to this event.

Head of the Main Operations Department at Russia’s General Staff Colonel General Sergei Rudskoi declared that:

“Despite agreements signed in Astana on September 15, gunmen of Jabhat al-Nusra and joining them units that don’t want to comply with the cessation of hostilities terms, launched a large-scale offensive against positions of government troops north and northeast of Hama in Idlib de-escalation zone from 8 am on September 19 (…) According to available data, the offensive was initiated by American intelligence services to stop a successful advance of government troops east of Deir ez-Zor“.

Today, other Russian officials have added a not-so-veiled threat to this accusation. The Russian Defense Ministry’s spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov has declared that:

Russia unequivocally told the commanders of US forces in Al Udeid Airbase (Qatar) that it will not tolerate any shelling from the areas where the SDF are stationed (…)  Fire from positions in regions [controlled by the SDF] will be suppressed by all means necessary.

This is unprecedented on many levels. First, the Russians clearly believe that this attempt to kill or capture a platoon of the Russian military police was planned by the United States. The fact that they are making this accusation officially shows the degree of irritation felt by the Russians about the duplicity of the Americans. Second, this is the first time, at least to my knowledge, that Russian Spetsnaz forces had to be sent in to rescue a surrounded Russian subunit. All Spetsnaz operators survived, but three of them were wounded in the operation (the Russians are not saying how badly). The close air support by very low flying SU-25 aircraft was obviously coordinated by Spetsnaz forward air controllers and probably saved the day. In other words, this was a close call and things could have ended much more badly (just imagine what the Takfiri crazies would have done, on video, to any captured Russian serviceman!). Finally, a US-organized attack on what was supposed to be a “de-confliction” zone combined with an attempt to capture Russian soldiers raises the bar for American duplicity to a totally new level.

The big question now is “do the Russians mean it?” or are they just whining with real determination to hit back if needed.

There are a couple of problems here. First, objectively, the Russian contingent in Syria is a tiny one if compared to the immense power of CENTCOM, NATO and the ever-present Israelis. Not only that, but in any US-Russian confrontation, Russia as a country is objectively the weaker side by any measure except a full-out nuclear exchange. So the Russians are not in a position of force. Furthermore, for historical and cultural reasons, Russians are much more concerned by the initiation of any incident which could lead to all-out war than the Americans who always fight their wars in somebody else’s country. This might seem paradoxical, but the Russians fear war but they are ready for it. In contrast to the Russians, the Americans don’t fear war, but neither are they ready for it. In practical terms this means that an American miscalculation could very well lead to a Russian military response which would stun the Americans and force them to enter an escalatory spiral which nobody would control.

Remember how Hillary promised that she would unilaterally impose a so-called “no-fly” zone over Syria? She promised not only to deploy US aircraft above Russian forces in Syria, but she also promised that she would force the Russian Aerospace forces out of the Syrian skies. Thank God, this crazy witch was not elected, but it appears that folks with the same arrogant and, frankly, completely irresponsible point of view are now back in power under Trump.

My fear now is that the incompetent, arrogant, not too bright and generally ignorant commanders at the Pentagon and the CIA will simply ignore clear warning signs coming from the Russians, including the public announcement that the Kremlin has given the authority to use force to protect Russian personnel to the local Russian commanders in Syria. In plain English, this means that if they are attacked the Russians in Syria do not need to consult with Moscow before using force to protect themselves. By the way, such rules of engagement are pretty common, there is nothing earth shattering here, but the fact that they were made public is, again, a message to the Anglo-Zionist and the “good” terrorist they use to try to conquer Syria.

This time around we (the world) were lucky. The Syrians fought hard and the “good” terrorists were probably surprised by the ruthless determination of the Russian military police forces (in reality, mostly Chechen special forces) and of the Spetsnaz operators. It is one thing to fight Syrian conscripts, quite another to deal with these hardened warriors. But the next time around the outcome could be different.

The bigger picture is also one which gives me a great deal of concern. The Syrians, with Iranian, Hezbollah and Russian help, have freed Deir ez-Zor and have crossed the Euphrates river and are moving further East. In plain English, this means that the US and Daesh have lost the war and that the last region of Syrian from which the Anglo-Zionists can hope to partition the country (their current “plan B”) and establish a permanent US military presence is now threatened by the Syrian advance. The distance between the US forces currently deployed in northeastern Syria and Syrian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Russian forces is becoming shorter and shorter each day. I can just imagine how, say, Iranian or Hezbollah forces which are already “smelling” the nearby presence of US forces are drooling with hunger for the moment they will finally be able to get their hands on their old and most hated foe. I feel sincerely sorry for the first US unit to make contact with the Iranians or Hezbollah forces.

Right now the Americans are hiding behind the Kurds, but sooner or later the Iranians or Hezbollah will find them. As for the Kurds, their situation in Syria is precarious, to put it mildly: they are surrounded on all sides by the Turks, the Syrians and the Iranians and their only more or less stable zone of control is in Iraq. The Americans understand that perfectly, hence their desperate attempts to stop the Syrians.

This is a very dangerous situation: even though CENTCOM and NATO are by far the “biggest guys on the block”, in Syria the Americans are cornered, their corner is shrinking fast and it remains entirely unclear how this process can be stopped. Hence the attack on the de-confliction zone we just witnessed.

I hope that eventually the Americans will do what they did in al-Taif and simply pack, declare victory and leave. That would be the only rational thing to do. But after listening to Trump at the UN I don’t get the feeling that being rational is at the top of the US priority list. That’s all rather frightening.

Featured image is from Fort Russ.


Global Research announces the forthcoming release of  the print edition of Mark Taliano’s Book, “Voices from Syria”  which includes one additional chapter. 

Taliano talks and listens to the people of Syria. He reveals the courage and resilience of a Nation and its people in their day to day lives, after more than six years of US-NATO sponsored terrorism and three years of US “peacemaking” airstrikes.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Special Pre-Publication Offer

**Pre-Order Special Offer: Voices from Syria (Ships mid-September)

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russian Special Forces Repel a US-planned Attack in Syria, Denounce the USA and Issue a Stark Warning

La Nato boccia il disarmo nucleare

September 26th, 2017 by Manlio Dinucci

Il giorno dopo che il presidente Trump prospettava alle Nazioni Unite uno scenario di guerra nucleare, minacciando di «distruggere totalmente la Corea del Nord», si è aperta alle Nazioni Unite, il 20 settembre, la firma del Trattato sulla proibizione delle armi nucleari. Votato da una maggioranza di 122 stati, esso impegna a non produrre né possedere armi nucleari, a non usarle né a minacciare di usarle, a non trasferirle né a riceverle direttamente o indirettamente, con l’obiettivo della loro totale eliminazione.

Il primo giorno il Trattato è stato firmato da 50 stati, tra cui Venezuela, Cuba, Brasile, Messico, Indonesia, Thailandia, Bangladesh, Filippine, Stato di Palestina, Sudafrica, Nigeria, Congo, Algeria, Austria, Irlanda e Santa Sede (che l’ha ratificato il giorno stesso). Il Trattato entrerà in vigore se verrà ratificato da 50 stati. Ma il giorno stesso in cui è stato aperto alla firma, la Nato lo ha sonoramente bocciato.

Il Consiglio nord-atlantico (formato dai rappresentanti dei 29 stati membri), nella dichiarazione del 20 settembre, sostiene che «un trattato che non impegna nessuno degli stati in possesso di armi nucleari non sarà effettivo, non accrescerà la sicurezza né la pace internazionali, ma rischia di fare l’opposto creando divisioni e divergenze». Chiarisce quindi senza mezzi termini che «non accetteremo nessun argomento contenuto nel trattato».

Il Consiglio nord-atlantico esautora così i parlamenti nazionali dei paesi membri, privandoli della sovranità di decidere autonomamente se aderire o no al Trattato Onu sull’abolizione delle armi nucleari. Annuncia inoltre che «chiameremo i nostri partner e tutti i paesi intenzionati ad appoggiare il trattato a riflettere seriamente sulle sue implicazioni» (leggi: li ricatteremo perché non lo firmino né lo ratifichino).

Il Consiglio nord-atlantico ribadisce che «scopo fondamentale della capacità nucleare della Nato è preservare la pace e scoraggiare l’aggressione» e che «finché esisteranno armi nucleari, la Nato resterà una alleanza nucleare».

Assicura però «il forte impegno della Nato per la piena applicazione del Trattato di non-proliferazione nucleare». Esso è invece violato, tra l’altro, dalle bombe nucleari statunitensi B61 schierate in cinque paesi non-nucleari – Italia, Germania, Belgio, Olanda e Turchia. Le nuove bombe nucleari B61-12, che rimpiazzeranno dal 2020 le B61, sono in fase avanzata di realizzazione e, una volta schierate, potranno essere «trasportate da bombardieri pesanti e da aerei a duplice capacità» (non-nucleare e nucleare).

La spesa Usa per le armi nucleari sale nel 2018 del 15% rispetto al 2017. Il Senato ha stanziato, il 18 settembre, per il budget 2018 del Pentagono circa 700 miliardi di dollari, 57 miliardi in più di quanto richiesto dall’amministrazione Trump. Ciò grazie al voto bipartisan. I democratici, che criticano i toni bellicosi del presidente Trump, lo hanno scavalcato quando si è trattato di decidere la spesa per la guerra: al Senato il 90% dei rappresentanti democratici ha votato con i repubblicani per aumentare il budget del Pentagono più di quanto avesse richiesto Trump. Dei 700 miliardi stanziati, 640 servono all’acquisto di nuove armi – soprattutto quelle strategiche per l’attacco nucleare – e alle aumentate paghe dei militari; 60 alle operazioni belliche in Afghanistan, Siria, Iraq e altrove.

L’escalation della spesa militare statunitense traina quella degli altri membri della Nato sotto comando Usa. Compresa l’Italia, la cui spesa militare, dagli attuali 70 milioni di euro al giorno, dovrà salire verso i 100. Democraticamente decisa, come negli Usa, con voto bipartisan.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on La Nato boccia il disarmo nucleare

The Iranian ballistic missile launch that President Donald Trump tweeted about Saturday apparently never happened.

That’s what U.S. officials told Fox News and CNN on Monday after U.S. intelligence assets in the region, including radar and satellites, found no indication of a launch.

On Friday, Iran’s state-run TV showed video boasting of a new missile launch, but that footage turned out to be seven months old, U.S. officials said, taken from an unsuccessful launch in March.

On Saturday, Trump tweeted: “Iran just test-fired a Ballistic Missile capable of reaching Israel.They are also working with North Korea.Not much of an agreement we have!”

Trump has been criticized a number of times for jumping to conclusions and commenting on Twitter before breaking news reports have been confirmed.

As of Monday night, he had not deleted the erroneous tweet.

Separately, Twitter Inc. TWTR, +0.29%  on Monday explained that it would not block Trump’s more incendiary tweets because they are newsworthy. Some had complained to Twitter that his threats toward North Korean leader Kim Jong Un — which North Korea said Monday it took as a “declaration of war” — violated the company’s terms of service.

In a series of tweets Monday, Twitter’s Public Policy account said “newsworthiness” and “whether a tweet is of public interest” are two of the factors it uses when considering rule violations.

“This has long been internal policy and we’ll soon update our public-facing rules to reflect it. We need to do better on this, and will,” the company said.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fake News? Trump Tweeted About Iran Missile Launch that Never Happened

Angela Merkel: The IKEA Politician

September 26th, 2017 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

“The recipe for her success, which she has only latterly discovered, is that she’s been able to develop an image as someone who is tuned in to the German soul.” – Oskar Niedermayer, Sep 22, 2017

Modular furniture divinities, or corporations, may not be the best points of comparison for a politician, but German Chancellor Angela Merkel has invited it. She is stable, reliable, self-assembled from history. But more to the point, she has managed to forge a workshop of political viewpoints, angles, and perspectives, a tent so vast it has neutralised opponents within and without her political base. Her capacity to deal in “flat pack centrism,” otherwise termed the “IKEA principle” has become textbook.

The notion of IKEA politics is not something that has been missed by conservatives and centre-based politicians.  IKEA supplied a point of reference to Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, when she observed a certain organisational principle at work in the conservative movement in the United States.[1] The State Policy Network proved particularly interesting, some 64 groups loosely assembled as free-market think tanks. Its president, Tracie Sharp, while denying the IKEA model had any role to play in a public sense, secretly spoke about it, its points of assembly and distribution.

For all its stock standard reliability, Merkel’s period in office has also seen hiccups, some of the dangerous sort. The Syrian refugee crisis, and the open door policy to migrants and refugees which her European counterparts fear, has threatened inroads into her political base. She has managed to prevent a general exodus from the centre, but dissatisfaction is finding form across a range of smaller parties across the political spectrum.

To that end, any vision of furniture is only as good as its final product. These wear over time, and not even the advertising agency Jung von Matt could conceal the creaks and breaks for this campaign. This was the question that presented itself on Sunday. Mutti did pull through eventually, but it was a scarring encounter.

The first signs on Sunday night, true to a form that has become a recurring pattern across the elections of Europe, were that smaller parties, notably those reaping the populist whirlwind, were set to make strong gains.

The Free Democrats (FDP), which had vanished from the Bundestag in 2013 on 4.8%, found themselves projected to return with a notably present 9%. (As the figures continue being finalised, that number has moved to almost 11%.)

The AfD (Alternative for Germany), while still garnering support as a far-right wing alternative, did not do as well as certain worried predictions went, though, with just under 13%, things promise to be merry for this coming term. As the party’s manifesto went with conspiratorial glee, a “secret sovereign… has cultivated itself in the existing political parties.”

Nothing can get away from the reality that the party has made good its promise to found a petulant base in the Bundestag, a nationalist rear guard hopeful of dampening the refugee agenda. The party’s co-leader, Alexander Gauland, has made clear through his conservative soaked account Anleitung zum Konservativsein (Instruction on Being a Conservative), that he wishes for a return to such notions as “deutsche Leitkultur,” a dominant German culture which arrests any other notions of identity. Germany first is not a dirty term.

Despite being a refugee of the German Democratic Republic during the Cold War, Gauland saw his experience as singularly German, one to set apart from those swarms Merkel was accepting onto the soil of the fatherland. He, as he explained, “went from Germany to Germany. It is quite different when someone comes from Eritrea or Sudan. He has no right to the support of a foreigner.”[2] A fantasy he holds near and dear is a Muslim ban and an open cradling of the nostalgia of Heimat.

It was a night where major parties received more than a touch-up. Merkel’s CDU/CSU grouping received the lowest share of the vote since 1949, on 33%, while the SPD’s effort was even more impoverished at 20.5%.

The message from the electoral pundits and analysts was generally uniform: Merkel would win. Thankfully for her, the FDP performance means that a “Jamaica” coalition with the CDU/CSU and the Greens is in the offing. But she could barely conceal the exhausted fact that it was a victory stripped of its sweetness. Her own efforts to reverse the rot had seen a more curt electioneering approach, a visible hardening in policies, including support for a burqa ban and attempts to gauge the conservative temperature. 

“The CDU could have hoped for a better result, but we mustn’t forget – looking back at an extraordinary challenge – that we nevertheless achieved our strategic objectives: we are the strongest party.” 

The next period in the Budestag promises to be truly astringent, the very politics that resists the convenient brand labelling of modular, stable furniture. For Merkel, its objective is clear.

“We want to win back the AfD voters above all through good politics.” 

The chancellor’s political centre risks breaching.

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

Notes

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Angela Merkel: The IKEA Politician

Not since Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev banged his fists and waved his shoe at the UN in 1960 has a world leader made such a spectacle of himself as President Donald Trump did this past week at the world organization.

Trump vowed to ‘totally destroy’ North Korea, a nation of 25 million, if it dared threaten the US or its allies. To do so, the US would have to use numerous nuclear weapons.

The president’s Genghis Khan behavior seemed to take no account that a US nuclear strike against North Korea would cause huge destruction to neighboring China, Japan and Russia – and pollute the globe. They could hardly be expected to applaud Trump’s final solution for pesky North Korea.

As leader of the world’s greatest power, President Trump was foolish to get into a schoolyard fracas with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. Superpowers shouldn’t engage in such childish behavior. Trump’s claim that North Korea threatens the world is a reheated Bush-era lie used to whip up support for invading Iraq.

In a subsequent speech to African UN delegates, Trump comically referred to the nation of ‘Nambia’ instead of Namibia. Let’s hope Trump does not mix up the Koreas. While passing through Philadelphia last week I was reminded of its former flamboyant, tough-guy police chief Frank Rizzo. He famously welcomed a senior Nigerian official as the leader of ‘Niggeria.’

Interestingly, both ‘axis of evil’ jeremiads originated from two different neocon speech writers, both known to this writer.

Escalating tensions, North Korea’s foreign minister, Ri Yong-ho, suggested that his nation might detonate a hydrogen bomb in the atmosphere above the Pacific Ocean.

Amidst all the trumped-up hysteria over North Korea, too few questions were asked about its ballistic missiles that have caused such an uproar.

First, the DPRK’s medium-range missiles, notably the 6,700km-range Hwasong and the 3,500 km-range Musudan are fueled by highly volatile liquid propellants. Fuelling them is often done outdoors for safety reasons. The dangerous, unstable chemical fuels have a tendency to spontaneously explode. Early US ballistic missiles had similar problems. Musudan, based on an elderly Soviet design, is notoriously unreliable and plagued by technical problems.

These missiles are usually kept on wheeled transporters (aka TELs) secreted in caves. The transporters are based on Russian and Chinese designs. An erector device then positions the missile into upright launch position.

This is the most vulnerable time for North Korea’s missiles. The US and South Korea claim they can knock out the DPRK missiles while getting ready for launch.

South Korea has a tactical program known as ‘Kill Chain’ that would use missiles, rocket batteries and air strikes to destroy the pre-launch missiles. But the problem remains:  during the 1991 invasion of Iraq, US warplanes and missiles totally failed to knock out Iraq’s mobile missile launchers and stop it firing ineffective Scud missiles at Israel.

For North Korea, launching a major missile barrage is no easy matter. The North’s missile caves, fueling points, and leadership bunkers are photographed even more often than super-model Cindy Crawford. US satellites, high-altitude recon aircraft, sensors and drones keep a 24/7 watch on North Korea’s potential launch sites.

Preparations for refueling and erecting large numbers of missiles would invite a massive nuclear strike by US air and naval forces. But given the technology unreliability of the DPRK’s missiles, it would have to fire a sizeable barrage in order to be sure of scoring a few long-range nuclear hits.

Equally important, North Korea’s ability to fire a nuclear warhead atop a ballistic missile has not yet been demonstrated. A miniaturized warhead that can withstand the g-forces of launch and re-entry, extreme heat and cold and buffeting and detonate as planned after a 6,700-km journey is a tall order. The US and USSR both keep redundant ICBM missiles because of the reliability problem.

North Korea’s submarine-launched prototype KN-08 missile could pose a far greater danger. Though short-medium ranged, the missile if fired from submarines off the US East and West coast is greatly worrying US defense authorities. But, once again, North Korea is only in its infancy when it comes to underwater-launched strategic missiles and submarines.

Another key point. US and South Korean intelligence question how much missile propellant fuel the North has or could produce. Supplies are believed limited; raw material components are under embargo, even from ally China. Information about DPRK fuel supplies is, as always, scanty and unreliable. So is US and South Korean intelligence about North Korea.

Finally, if Washington believed North Korea was about to launch a massive, long-ranged missile strike against North America, it’s likely the US would detonate a nuclear device high above North Korea. The electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from such a detonation would likely fry most of North Korea’s electronic circuits, notably missile guidance systems and communications. Of course, the North Koreans could do the same to the US and allies Japan and South Korea. Pacific Russia and northern China would also be affected.

Behind all the hysteria over North Korea lies the basic question: why would rather small North Korea embark on a nuclear war with the United States? Its leadership, however zany and eccentric, is in no mood to commit suicide. US nuclear weapons would vaporize North Korea before any of the missiles it might fire at North America could detonate.

Having nuclear-armed missiles does not necessarily make one’s nation a public menace that must be destroyed. India has them. So do Pakistan and Israel, China and Russia. Add France and Britain. We don’t keep threatening to invade them and overthrow their governments. That’s why they are not threatening us.


“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph UniversityWWIII Scenario

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute  

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on My Threats Are Bigger than Your Threats. Trump Vowed to ‘Totally Destroy’ North Korea if it Dared Threaten the US”

Looking at the global political landscape over the last month, two trends are becoming more apparent. The infamous military and economic power at America’s disposal is declining, whereas in the multipolar field, an acceleration has occurred in the creation of a series of infrastructures, mechanisms and procedures to contain and limit the negative effects of America’s declining unipolar moment. This series of three articles will focus firstly on the military aspect of these ongoing changes, then the economics at play, and finally, how and why smaller countries are transitioning from the unipolar camp to the multipolar field.

One of the most tangible consequences of the decline of US military power can be observed in the Syrian conflict. Over the past few weeks, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies have completed the historic and strategic liberation of Deir ez-Zor, a city besieged for more than five years by Islamists belonging to Al Qaeda and Daesh. The focus has now shifted to the oilfields south of the liberated city, with a frantic rush by both the US-supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the SAA to free territories still held by Daesh. The final goal is to claim Syria’s resources and strengthen a weak US position (the US is not even part of the Astana peace talks) in future negotiations concerning the country’s future. To understand how much the US dream of partitioning Syria is failing, one only need note repeated US failures as seen in the liberation of Aleppo and then Deir Ez-Zor, and now the crossing of the Euphrates river. In spite of American intimidation, threats, and sometimes even direct aggression, the Syrian army continued to work against Daesh in the province of Deir Ez-Zor, advancing on oil rich sites. Thanks to the protection given by the Russian Federation Air Force during the conflict, Damascus has obtained a protective umbrella necessary to withstand attempts by the US of balkanize the country.

Further confirmation of Washington’s failed strategy to divide the country a la Yugoslavia appears evident from the strategic realignment of the most loyal allies of Washington in the region and beyond. In the course of the last few weeks, several meetings have taken place in Astana and Moscow between the likes of Putin and Lavrov with their TurkishSaudi, and Israeli counterparts. These meetings outlined the guidelines for Syria’s future thanks to Moscow’s red lines, especially regarding Israel’s desire to pursue regime change in Syria and an aggressive attitude towards Iran. Even the most loyal allies of the United States are beginning to plan a future in Syria with Assad as president. US allies have started showing a pragmatic shift towards a reconciliation with the factions that are clearly winning the war and are going to call the shots in the future. The long-held dreams and desires of sheikhs (Saudi-Qatar) and sultans (Erdogan) to reshape Syria and the Middle East in their image are over, and they know it. Washington’s allies have been let down, with the US incapable of keeping its promises of fulfilling a regime change in Damascus. The consequences for the US have just begun. Without a military posture capable of bending adversaries and friends to her will, the US will have to start dealing with a new reality that involves compromise and negotiation, something the US is not accustomed to.

An example of what can happen if Washington decides to go against a former friend can be seen with the Gulf Crisis involving Qatar. Since the beginning of the aggression against Syria, the small emirate has been at the center of plots and schemes aimed at arming and financing jihadists in the Middle East and Syria. Five years later, after billions of dollars spent and nothing to hold onto in Syria, the Gulf Cooperation Council, as expected, has plunged into a fratricidal struggle between Qatar and other countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Egypt. The latter accuse Doha of funding terrorism, an undeniable truth. But they omit to acknowledge their own ties to the jihadists (Egypt in this framework is excluded, fighting continually with terrorists inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood in the Sinai), showing a hypocrisy that only the mainstream media can rival.

The consequences of Riyad’s actions against Doha, backed up by a large part of the American establishment, seems, almost six months later, to have finally pushed Qatar and Iran together, reopening diplomatic ties. These are two countries that have for years been on opposite sides of many conflicts in the Middle East, reflecting contrasts and divisions dictated by the respective positions of Tehran and Riyadh. This seems to be no more, with Doha and Tehran coming closer and circumnavigating sanctions and blockades, overcoming common difficulties. This shift can only be described as a strategic failure by Riyadh.

Looking back six years, one of the reasons for the eruption of the conflict in Syria has everything to do with the famous pipeline that Iran intended to build connecting Iraq and Syria. Incredibly, the end of the conflict will see a new transport line emerging between countries that for years have had opposing and diverging strategic goals. Iran and Qatar are currently engaging in trade agreements, and rumors have it that a joint effort to build a new pipeline that should cross Iraq and Syria, to end in the Mediterranean, is in the making. The idea is to jointly exploit the world’s largest gas field, and in so doing become a new supplier for a Europe that is looking to diversify its energy imports. Riyadh and Washington will have to take full responsibility for this failure of epic proportions.

A clear sign of how fast things are changing in the region and beyond comes from Israel. Even the Jewish State has had to abandon any dream of territorial expansion into Syria, despite several attempts by Netanyahu to persuade Putin of the existential danger that Israel faces with Iran’s presence in Syria. A smart and pragmatic Putin is able to let Israel know that any request to impose conditions on Russian or its allies in Syria will be firmly refused. But at the same time, Moscow and Tel Aviv will continue to pursue good relations with each other. Russian political figures are far to smart to play double games with their long-standing allies in Syria or to underestimate the capacity that Israel has to disrupt the region and plunge it into chaos. Furthermore, Assad has invited Russia into Syria as well as Iran and Hezbollah. Even if Putin were willing to help Netanyahu, which is doubtful, international law prohibits this. If anything is clear, it is that Moscow respects international law as few nations do. All other foreign nations operating in Syria, or flying over Syrian skies, have no right to be there in the first place, let alone to impose decisions over a sovereign territory.

If Tel Aviv’s goal was to expand the illegal border in the Golan Heights and proceed with regime change, the situation has ended up totally different six years later. Iran has expanded its influence in Syria thanks to aid provided to Damascus in combating terrorism. Hezbollah has increased its battle experience and arsenal, as well as expanded its network of contacts and sympathizers throughout the Middle East. Hezbollah and Iran are seen as Middle Eastern peacemakers, playing positive roles in fighting the plague of jihadist terrorism as well as against Israel and Saudi Arabia, states that have tried in every way to assist terrorist organizations with weapons and money. Washington, Riyadh and Tel Aviv six years later find themselves in a totally different environment, with hostile neighbours, less collaborative friends, and in general, a Middle East increasingly orbiting around the Iranian and Russian spheres of influence.

Another indicator of American decline in military terms can be clearly seen on the Korean peninsula. The DPRK has obtained a full nuclear capability through a development program that has paid scant attention to American, South Korean and Japanese threats. The imperative for Pyongyang was to create a nuclear deterrent capable of dissuading the desire of many US policymakers enact regime change in North Korea. The strategic importance of a regime change in the DPRK follows the strategy of containment and encirclement of the People’s Republic of China, a failed doctrine well known as the Asian pivot.

Beside its nuclear deterrent, the US is unable to attack the DPRK because of the conventional deterrent that Pyongyang has patiently put in place. Trump and his generals continue the rhetoric of fire and flames, dragging Seoul and Tokyo into a dangerous game of chicken between two nuclear powers. Not surprisingly, Trump’s words worry everyone in the region, especially the Republic of South Korea, which would pay the heaviest price were war ever to break out. In light of this assessment, it is worth pointing out that the military option is simply unthinkable, with Seoul and perhaps even Tokyo ready to break with its American ally in case of disastrous unilateral action against Pyongyang.

Kim Jong-un, as well as Assad and other world leaders facing pressure from Washington, have fully understood and taken advantage of America’s declining military power. Trump and his close circle of generals are full of empty threats, unable to change the course of events in different regions around the world, from the Middle East to the Korean peninsula. Whether it is through direct action or through proxies, little changes and the results remain the same, showing a continuous failure of goals and intents.

The underlying rule guiding US policy makers is that if a country cannot be controlled, such as with a Saudi-style regime serving only American interests through something like the petrodollar, than that country is useless and ought to be destroyed in order to stop other peer competitors from expanding their ties with that country. The Libyan example is still fresh in everyone’s minds. Luckily for the world, Russia has stepped in militarily, and on more than one occasion has, together with her allies, sabotaged or deterred the US military from taking reckless actions (Ukraine, Syria and DPRK).

In this sense, Hillary Clinton‘s defeat, more than Trump’s victory, seems to have instilled some sense into this declining empire, if one ignores the persisting strong rhetoric. One can only shudder on imagining a Clinton presidency in the current environment, with her predictably careening at full speed towards a conflict with Russia in Ukraine and Syria or a nuclear standoff with the DPRK in Asia.

Trump and his generals are slowly adapting to a new reality where it is not only impossible to control countries, but where it is increasingly difficult to destroy them. The old doctrine of wreaking chaos on the world, with a view to emerging once the dust settles down as the world’s hegemonic power, now seems like a distant memory. Just looking at the Middle East, even Syria, in spite of the unprecedented destruction, is on the road to reconstruction and pacification.

Russian military power and Chinese economic might have thus played an invaluable role in restricting the US war machine. The DPRK even took a further step by attaining a formidable nuclear and conventional deterrent, effectively blocking the United States from influencing domestic events by bringing about destruction and chaos.

While this reality is difficult for Washington to take, it must come to accept it. After almost seventy years of imperialistic chaos and destruction wrought all over the globe, America’s friends and enemies are starting to react to this situation. Washington is left with a president full of sound and fury, but a credible militarily posture is now but a thing of the past.

The financial mechanisms that have allowed for this indiscriminate military spending are based on an intrinsic bond between dollar, oil, and the role of American money as the world reserve currency. The transition of the world order from a unipolar reality to a multipolar one is deeply tied to the economic and diplomatic strategies of Russia and China. The next article will explore the role of gold, investment, diplomacy and the petroyuan, which are all decisive factors that have accelerated the transformation and division of power on a global scale.

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Failing Empire: Russia and China’s Military Strategy to Contain the US

Washington Has Initiated Military Conflict with Russia

September 26th, 2017 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Russia has provided evidence that Washington is collaborating with ISIS in attacks on Russian forces. 

In one Washington-directed attack, ISIS tried to capture 29 Russian military policemen. However, Russian special forces entered the fray, and the result was spectacular losses for ISIS. 

In another Washington-directed attack, Russian General Valery Asapov and two Russian colonels were killed in an attack that violated agreements. 

Sooner or later it will dawn on the Russian government that Washington is not a rational government with which diplomacy can be practiced, peace pursued, and agreements reached. Sooner or later it will dawn on the Russian government that far from being rational, Washington is a criminally insane collection of psychopaths in thrall to the military/security complex which, in turn, is in thrawl to its massive profits.  

In other words, for the powerful interest groups that control the US government, war is a profit center. No amount of Russian diplomacy can do anything about this fact.

It is unfortunate that the Russian government did not realize what it was dealing with. If the Russian government had not projected its own rationality on Washington, the war in Syria would have been over a couple of years ago.  Instead, hoping for a settlement, the Russians were stop-go/stop-go, which gave Washington time to recover from the shock of Russian intervention and put in place plans to partition Syria in order to keep the conflict alive forever.  Having dallied in hopes of a settlement, the danger of which The Saker warns us is real.  

The protests by black pro-football players by refusing to stand for the national anthem has come at an unfortunate time.  It is playing into the hands of the military/security complex which is using President Trump’s loud voice challenging the “anti-americanism” to whip up patriotic fervor.  It is amazing how people fall for it every time.  The military/security complex and their presstitutes are creating public anger at those “attacking our country.”  This anger will be turned from black football players to Russia.

With the public in its pocket, the military/security complex will increase its reckless provocations of Russia until we are all dead.

Featured image is from Right.is.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington Has Initiated Military Conflict with Russia

Video: US-Russian Tensions Grow in Deir Ezzor Province

September 26th, 2017 by South Front

Featured image: Russia’s Lieutenant general Valery Asapov (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

An ISIS shelling has killed Russia’s Lieutenant general Valery Asapov near Deir Ezzor city, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Sunday. The general died after sustaining a “fatal injury” in the shelling. The incident took place when Asapov was at a command outpost manned by Syrian troops, assisting commanders in the liberation of Deir Ezzor.

According to the Russian media, Asapov was a commander of Russian task forces in Deir Ezzor and Raqqah provinces.

At the same day, CNN announced citing a US official that US forces in Syria have increased surveillance of Russian troop locations. The report boosted the rumors that ISIS could receive a location of the Russian-Syrian command post from the US-led coalition.

The Russian Defense Ministry also released photos showing US Special Operations Forces deployed in stronghold in the ISIS-held area near Dier Ezzor with no screening patrols.

“The shots clearly show the US SOF units located at strongholds that had been equipped by the ISIS terrorists. Though there is no evidence of assault, struggle or any US-led coalition airstrikes to drive out the militants.

Despite that the US strongholds being located in the ISIS areas, no screening patrol has been organized at them. This suggests that the US troops feel safe in terrorist controlled regions,” the statement said.

Russia will likely react to the recent developments in Deir Ezzor with increased bombing campaign with possible usage of Kalibr cruise missiles against ISIS targets.

Photos and videos appearing online show increased deployment of government troops as well as equipment, including battle tanks, PMM-2M self-propelled ferries and BMK-MO boats, to Deir Ezzor ahead of further operations.

Last weekend, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies made a large progress northwest of Deir Ezzor, retaking the key town of Maadan and the nearby areas from ISIS. At the same, time, government troops were not able to develop momentum on the east bank of the Euphrates because of a fierce ISIS resistance there.

In turn, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) consolidated their gains over Ibsah and Taibah fields and pushed towards Jafra fields. The SDF also launched a storm of the al-Suwar town.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: US-Russian Tensions Grow in Deir Ezzor Province

How to End the Korea Crisis

September 26th, 2017 by Rep. Ron Paul

The descent of US/North Korea “crisis” to the level of schoolyard taunts should be remembered as one of the most bizarre, dangerous, and disgraceful chapters in US foreign policy history.

President Trump, who holds the lives of millions of Koreans and Americans in his hands, has taken to calling the North Korean dictator “rocket man on a suicide mission.” Why? To goad him into launching some sort of action to provoke an American response? Maybe the US president is not even going to wait for that. We remember from the Tonkin Gulf false flag that the provocation doesn’t even need to be real. We are in extremely dangerous territory and Congress for the most part either remains asleep or is cheering on the sabre-rattling.

Now we have North Korean threats to detonate hydrogen bombs over the Pacific Ocean and US threats to “totally destroy” the country.

We are told that North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un is a “madman.” That’s just what they said about Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, and everyone else the neocons target for US military action. We don’t need to be fans of North Korea to be skeptical of the war propaganda delivered by the mainstream media to the benefit of the neocons and the military industrial complex.

Where are the cooler heads in Washington to tone down this war footing?

Making matters worse, there is very little understanding of the history of the conflict. The US spends more on its military than the next ten or so countries combined, with thousands of nuclear weapons that can destroy the world many times over. Nearly 70 years ago a US-led attack on Korea led to mass destruction and the death of nearly 30 percent of the North Korean population. That war has not yet ended.

Why hasn’t a peace treaty been signed? Newly-elected South Korean president Moon Jae-in has proposed direct negotiations with North Korea leading to a peace treaty. The US does not favor such a bilateral process. In fact, the US laughed off a perfectly sensible offer made by the Russians and Chinese, with the agreement of the North Koreans, for a “double freeze” – the North Koreans would suspend missile launches if the US and South Korea suspend military exercises aimed at the overthrow of the North Korean government.

So where are there cooler heads? Encouragingly, they are to be found in South Korea, which would surely suffer massively should a war break out. While US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, was bragging that the new UN sanctions against North Korea would result in a near-complete blockade of the country (an act of war), the South Korean government did something last week that shocked the world: it announced an eight million dollar humanitarian aid package for pregnant mothers and infant children in North Korea. The US and its allies are furious over the move, but how could anyone claim the mantle of “humanitarianism” while imposing sanctions that aim at starving civilians until they attempt an overthrow of their government?

Here’s how to solve the seven-decade old crisis: pull all US troops out of the Korean peninsula; end all military exercises on the North Korean border; encourage direct talks between the North and South and offer to host or observe them with an international delegation including the Russians and Chinese, which are after all Korea’s neighbors.

The schoolyard insults back and forth between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un are not funny. They are in fact an insult to all of the rest of us!

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How to End the Korea Crisis

Election Results in Germany. Rise of the Ultra Right Wing

September 26th, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Angela Merkel’s fourth term as chancellor was marred by the rise of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, winning 13% of the vote on Sunday, entering parliament for the first time post-WW II.

Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) alliance got only 33% of the vote, its worst showing since 1949 – compared to 41.5% in 2013.

Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SDP) finished second with 20.5%, a post-WW II low. Putting a brave face on her party’s dismal result, Merkel said

“(w)e are the strongest party. We we have the mandate to build the next government, and there cannot be a coalition government built against us.”

Nearly half of German voters rejected the two major parties, dominating the country’s politics since WW II.

Coalition-building won’t be easy. SPD leader Martin Schulz said his party won’t rejoin the so-called “grand” one with the CDU and CSU. Instead, it’ll become its main opposition.

Germany’s parliament will now include members of six parties instead of four. Die Zeit publisher/editor Josef Joffe said Sunday’s result marks a “tectonic shift in German politics,” a likely three-party CDU-led coalition, he believes, with Merkel remaining chancellor to be “highly unstable.”

AfD co-founder Alexander Gauland said his party will “hunt” the new government whatever its new makeup, adding “(w)e’ll get our country and our people back.”

France’s Marine Le Pen tweeted:

“Bravo to our AfD allies for this historic showing.”

Party spokesman, academic/politician Jorg Meuthen maintained its anti-immigration policy is racist, saying

“(w)e will neither tolerate xenophobia or racist positions.”

Party leaders deny being Nazi sympathizers.

The hard-right Free Democratic Party (FDP) appears Merkel’s best coalition option, short of majority rule without a third partner, the Greens a slim possibility, a party that long ago abandoned its anti-establishment leftist agenda.

At this point, nothing is certain. Surprises are possible. Election results showed Germany becoming more hardline, the right-wing AfD and FDP the only parties gaining strength – at the expense of the CDU/CSU and SDP.

Despite her party’s dismal showing, Merkel becomes the third German leader to serve four terms as chancellor – Konrad Adenauer (1949 – 1963) and Helmet Kohl (1982 – 1998), Merkel’s mentor, the other two.

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

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

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

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

Featured image is from Debating Europe.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Election Results in Germany. Rise of the Ultra Right Wing

It is all done in a fully barefaced manner. Those who are not part of this world could never even dream about such a ‘perfect’ design.

You come to your club, in my case to The Foreign Correspondent Club of Thailand (FCCT), and immediately the long arm of indoctrination begins stretching towards you.

You place yourself on a comfortable couch, and soon after get fully serviced. You get instructed, told what to think and how to formulate or modify your ideas.

You are periodically shown movies about “corruption and immorality” in China. You get encouraged to participate in some public discussions that are, among other things, trashing the anti-Western president of the Philippines.

Although lately also the Middle East, and particularly Syria, are brought into the spotlight.

Of course almost all that is on offer in such places like FCCT is the Western view, or concretely a set of Western views raging from conservative to ‘liberal’. The club is located in Asia, in the heart of Southeast Asia, but very few Asians are invited to speak here, except the few Thais who are well versed in the Western way of thinking. Or Western agents like the Dalai Lama, of course – such individuals can come anytime they want! Forget about hearing from ‘the other side’ – you’d never stumble here over speakers such as Communist thinkers or writers from Mainland China, or pro-Duterte academics or activists from the Philippines.

Most of the Thais who get spotted at the FCCT are actually those who provide support services for the Western gurus of mainstream media: interpreters, fixers, waiters and as well as some administrative support staff.

This is not a place for Asians to lecture Westerners about Asia; this is where Westerners tell Asians how to think in general, and what to think about their own countries in particular.

On the same floor as the FCCT, right down the narrow carpeted corridor, there are the offices of the BBC, the NBC and several other mainstream Western media outlets. ‘The Penthouse’ of the Maneeya Center Building in Bangkok is actually a self-sufficient propaganda complex.

And tonight it is offering a free screening (free for us, members) of a U.S. documentary film called Salam Neighbor, about Jordan’s huge Za’atari refugee camp, which hosts approximately 80,000 refugees just a few miles away from the Syrian border.

On the FCCT flier it says openly: “In partnership with the U.S. Embassy Bangkok and The American Film Showcase.“

A U.S. embassy official introduces the film. It is also being sponsored (openly) by the U.S. Department of State.

The FCCT is packed. Beer flows. People obediently clap to all the opening speeches. No one seems to be noticing the irony: The Empire’s foreign ministry hosting an event at the foreign correspondent’s club in the most important city of Southeast Asia. There are no jokes flying about, no sarcasm. Western media people are well disciplined. Forget about “Salvador” by Oliver Stone – these are quite different times.

It all feels mildly embarrassing. Here, one can never really witness a fiery ideological confrontation. People know their place. They are well aware of what they should say, and how to behave. But most importantly, they know what to write.

*

The film is short, only some 75 minutes, and it is truly predictable. It is not out-rightly bad. Cinematography is fine, and there are very few factual errors, perhaps because there are only a few facts on offer. The filmmakers are ‘politically correct’: they periodically break down in tears, particularly when interacting with some refugee children.

It is full of clichés, such as: “….. inhabitants of the camp opened their hearts and homes to us”.

But there are also several clearly predictable scenes, appearing on the monitors in all corners of the FCCT, with chilling regularity. Here is one, for instance: kids are playing violent war video games. One child suddenly comments:

“Yes, and this is Assad’s regime flag… They give me ammunition and weapons…”

We are fed with soft, ‘well-intentioned’ and well-filmed propaganda. Not one word is uttered about the essential and monstrous role of the West in the Syrian war. There is nothing about the Za’atari Camp being one of the training camps for the most extreme pro-Western and pro-Gulf terrorist organizations.

After the films ends, I decide to participate in the Q/A session.

Somehow sarcastically, I congratulate the two filmmakers who were flown to Thailand at the US taxpayer’s expense. I mention that I have also made some films inside refugee camps, including the notorious and brutal Dadaab on the Kenyan-Somali border. Then I ask, point blank:

“Did you know that Syrian refugees were allowed to tell you only one side of the story? I am well familiar with the Za’atari camp. There, as well as in the camps for Syrian refugees located in the Iraqi Kurdish region, Syrians are screened and unless they declare that they are against President Assad, they have no chance of getting processed and receiving assistance.”

The annoyed faces of veteran Western propaganda-makers now stare at me, point blank. The US embassy apparatchiks maintain their composure. These people are professionals and they hardly ever lose their calm.

But media people are scandalized. I exaggerate my Russia accent and I mention South American Telesur as one of the channels for which I have been making films. How dare I? Don’t I know my place? A non-Westerner telling Western opinion-makers about the world!

I conclude:

“Most of the Syrian refugees are not escaping from their government. They are fleeing from the horrors of war, triggered and upheld by the West and its allies in the Gulf and elsewhere.”

The silence is now complete.

Then a girl, a local Thai miss, obviously coming from the upper middle class and groomed in the West, approaches the microphone and asks with a cute giggle:

“I want to visit the Za’atari Camp early next year. I don’t know why, as I don’t know anything about the Middle East… but maybe I can do something for the refugees, no? And maybe I learn something?”

“And maybe take some selfies,” I think.

Soon after I begin to feel sick, and literally flee the place.

*

The entire Southeast Asia is imprisoned in the tight straightjacket of Western and Japanese pro-Western propaganda. However, the mainstream media and the way it disseminates Western propaganda is not the only example of how the straightjacket works.

Almost all serious and large bookstores, (at least those that are selling books in English), have already been ‘defeated’ by Kinokuniya, a Japanese mega seller. Kinokuniya is to bookselling in Southeast Asia, what Carrefour is to food vending. It operates in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore, and its shops look elegant and sleek. But unless you want to buy some mainstream stuff, you may be truly disappointed, even shocked, by what you find (or not find) on the shelves.

It goes without saying that in those stores, one would always be able to find hundreds of appalling anti-Soviet propaganda books, such as those of the Nobel Prize in Literature laureate, Svetlana Alexievich. But try to search for a great, iconic Mexican left-wing author like Elena Poniatowska, and you will get nothing! And forget about finding most of works there of such enormous (but Communist) thinkers like Jose Saramago, Dario Fo, and Harold Pinter (all three authors were also awarded with the Nobel prizes in literature, but are strongly hated by the regime). If you are lucky, you will find one or two books from each of them, but not more than that.

Perhaps you may also find one or two plays by Bertolt Brecht. I searched in Bangkok, and found only one – Galileo.

In Southeast Asian bookstores, you can have “all you can eat” anti-Chinese, anti-Communist propaganda, but except for Mo Yan, not one book of any truly great modern Chinese Communist novelist or a poet.

Of course, you should never even try to find some “offensive materials”; and by offensive I mean sarcastically critical of all that the West has been implanting and upholding in this part of the world – religion, neo-colonialism, monarchism, or even local feudalistic structures which often hide behind such terms as ‘cultures’…

In Indonesia, the situation is the most ridiculous. There, all decent bookstores that mushroomed after Suharto stepped down have literally disappeared. Thereafter, Kinokuniya ‘modified’ its operation in Jakarta, and is presently selling only pop fiction, some Penguin classics and similar mainstream stuff.

Mr. Ariff, a staff marketing person at Kinokuniya, Plaza Senayang in Jakarta, explained:

“Arrangement of the shells has to be the same as in our Singapore store, but Indonesian management decides what to sell here.”

And decide they do! As expected, many books about Adolf Hitler (very popular historic individual in Indonesia), including his ‘best selling’ (at least in Jakarta) “Mein Kampf.” Right next to it, there are few shelves filled with anti-Communist propaganda of the lowest grade.

Indonesia has been, since 1965, always a Southeast Asian leader in brainwashing of the population.

One could of course argue that there are also some local chains of bookstores, selling books exclusively in the languages of Southeast Asia. However, the offering there is very limited. Frankly, there is no culture of high-quality translations of books in this part of the world, and the number of titles published in local languages is relatively small. Even the most prominent Indonesian novelist, Pramoedya Ananta Toer, once confessed to me, that while translating Maxim Gorky’s “Mother” to Bahasa Indonesia (“Ibunda”), he used the Dutch translation for his work, as well as his ‘intuition’ while scrolling through the original Russian text (he did not really speak much Russian, as he admitted).

*

After decades of great effort, the Western intellectual indoctrination of Southeast Asia is now almost complete.

It is partially being done through ‘education’, by disbursing scholarships for students and offering conditional funding for Indonesian, Thai, Malaysian and other ‘scholars’ and professors.

Western propaganda is also ‘successfully’ distributed through ‘culture’. Western ‘cultural centers’, which are often (bizarrely) the only places offering ‘high art’ in most of the local cities, are clearly advancing their European and North American imperialist agenda (as I colorfully described in my latest novel “Aurora”).

The elites here are almost fully subservient to foreign business and political interests. Patriotism is only a buzzword, with no substance behind it.

There is no other part of the world so disconnected from the ideological and physical opposition to Western imperialism, as Southeast Asia.

The consequences of total Western brainwashing are devastating: the entire colossus of Southeast Asia is unable to produce great thinkers, writers, filmmakers, or scientists. There are only a few small exceptions in Thailand (including an important novelist Chart Korbjitti) and in Indonesia (the political painter Djokopekik, a former political prisoner during Suharto’s fascist regime, described by my Australian friend, the artist George Burchett, as ‘an explosive local fusion of Diego Rivera and Picasso’).

Other poor, devastated or complex parts of the world are literally regurgitating entire armies of tremendous writers, filmmakers and intellectuals: from Nigeria to Lebanon, from Iran to Mexico.

*

With the exception of Vietnam (and to some extent, Laos), the West has literally uprooted all Communist and socialist ways of thinking, as well as internationalism. It was done brutally, though orchestrating massacres and purges. Hundreds of thousands of leftists, perhaps millions, were killed in Indonesia alone, after the 1965 coup. 30% of the population was murdered by Suharto’s military in East Timor, after the left-wing FRETILIN movement won independence from Portugal and consequently took power in fair and clear elections. In Thailand, Communists were burned alive in oil barrels. The killing and disappearing of Communists took place in Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines.

In several countries, including Indonesia, th entire ‘Communist ideology’ is still officially banned.

After internationalism, anti-imperialism, Communism and intellectualism were destroyed, Southeast Asia was injected from abroad with conservative forms of religion, with consumerism, ‘traditional family values’ and grotesquely extreme individualism.

Simultaneously and already for years and decades, this part of the world has become truly famous, even notorious, for sex tourism, and for armies of ‘expats’ who are searching for a cheap and easy lifestyle. In the process they are managing to shape local ‘cultures’, to de-intellectualize this part of the continent. While Beijing and Tokyo are attracting, like magnets, countless great foreign scholars, thinkers and creative people, Southeast Asia is generally besieged by, to put it mildly, a very different type of foreigners. Why are they so comfortable here? It is because of the ‘great respect’ they can enjoy in Southeast Asia for just being white, no matter what their age or life achievements. This respect comes from the clear indoctrination of locals, from the pronounced lie, repeated thousands of times (mostly indirectly), that Western culture is superior, and in fact the greatest in the world.

To make Europeans and North Americans even more comfortable here: in Southeast Asia, almost all basic doctrines disseminated by Western propaganda, as well as the most primitive grain of capitalist and right wing ideologies have been historically accepted, tolerated, and even dutifully replicated.

4666777

For the local academia, it is only the Western (or Japanese) stamp of approval that matters. As a result Southeast Asia forgot what patriotic and independent thought truly consists of.

Most of the Southeast Asian newspapers have no ‘foreign correspondents’ in faraway places. Almost all of their international news reports come directly from Western mainstream agencies such as Reuters, AFP and AP. No loopholes through which at least some alternative opposition information could enter and influence the masses, seems to be available.

You ask on the streets of Bangkok, Jakarta or even Kuala Lumpur about ‘South-South’ co-operation, and you will be greeted with blank stares. You would be suspected of talking about some new mobile phone application, or a chain of fast food restaurants. And what is BRICS, masonry?

While bookstores are basically finished, commercial cinemas are offering extremely carefully selected (the emptier the better) Hollywood ‘blockbusters’ and local horror films.

Local art forms, including traditional political theatre in Indonesia (ketoprak) is lately ‘out of fashion’, read: sidelined, made fully irrelevant, silenced.

Scarce art film clubs, like the one in the River City in Bangkok, has stickers of US and European cultural institutions (“sponsors”) ‘decorating its entrance.

One naughty art seller, in one of the galleries near the River City film club, just recently dared to exhibit a painting depicting Obama, with two obnoxious missiles hanging in between his legs. But was apparently asked to remove provocative art work, right before the official film screening which was sponsored by the Turkish embassy and attended by several Western diplomats. “Come with me into the storage and I will show you,” he whispered to me, as if he was peddling some illegal pornographic material or narcotics.

*

Perhaps the most telling example of “how things are done”, I encountered several years ago on the premises of the Goethe Institute in Jakarta. Its curators decided to exhibit some old photographs from the Polish ‘Solidarity’ days, when, during one protest in the city of Gdansk, security forces fired at protesters.

The exhibition was put together, barefacedly, in the capital city of Indonesia, where ‘Communism’ is patently banned, where millions were massacred during the US-sponsored coup of 1965, and where the entire huge archipelago has been irreversibly plundered and devastated by multi-national and local mining and logging cartels. The nightmarish, ultra-extreme capitalism has been ruling and ruining Indonesia for years and decades, but it was Gdansk that Germany decided to show to the Indonesian public!

A handful of people killed by the Communists, decades ago, in Poland, was commemorated and shown to the Indonesian public. Of course the German cultural institute would never even dream about arranging an exhibition commemorating the mass slaughter of Communists by Indonesian pro-Western genocidal forces.

*

Now Southeast Asia knows nearly nothing about Russia, and almost nothing about China (except what the Western demagogues want it to know). Africa, including South Africa, is located on another planet, and so is Latin America. Only local elites can afford to travel to far away places, and these people are loyal to their Western masters and official doctrines; they would never tell the truth, never rock the boat of disinformation.

The local population knows generally more about North American pop or European football, than about its neighboring countries. The Southeast Asian poor are kept totally ignorant about Latin American attempts to build just, egalitarian societies. They know close to zero about Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela or Ecuador.

Of course there is absolutely no way one could discuss, in Southeast Asia, the recent re-election of MPLA in Angola (an event of tremendous global significance, as Angola is one of the symbols of the Western colonialist crimes against humanity, as well as of neo-colonial plunder). There is no way of discussing Cuba and its internationalism here, or even the coalition of countries, which are now standing proudly and determinedly against Western imperialism.

And what about the Middle East? It is fully limited to the Palestinian issue, and even that is discussed only in predominantly Muslim Indonesia and Malaysia. Another Middle Eastern ‘link’ is the unnaturally injected hatred for President Assad, who is accused of being too ‘secular’ and too ‘socialist’ (of course, these are great ‘crimes’ here, definitely not praise).

*

In Southeast Asia, the West is clearly victorious. It has successfully ‘neutralized’, ‘pacified’, indoctrinated and intellectually enslaved this large (and in the past diverse) part of the world.

Hopefully this situation will not last forever, and not even for too long a time.

The Philippines and Vietnam are rapidly coming back to their senses, increasingly determined not to take dictates from the West.

But Indonesia has suffered a major setback, after its traditional-style ‘legal coup’ against Jakarta’s progressive Governor ‘Ahok’, who was smeared and then imprisoned on thoroughly irrational and bizarre accusations that he ‘insulted Islam’ (charges so bizarre that even local linguists came to his defense, but the verdict was ‘political’ and had nothing to do with justice). His true ‘sin’: Ahok tried to implement at least some elements of socialism in this still hopelessly fascist country. He fell. Others may make a fresh attempt, soon.

In the meantime, both China and Russia are making great inroads in the region. Local ‘creams’ are watching, attentively. Most of Southeast Asian elites have always been for sale, for centuries, of course with the exception of those in North Vietnam.

As the anti-imperialist coalition is getting stronger and wealthier, there could actually be some serious changes of heart in foreseeable future, at the top of several Southeast Asian countries. Even Communism could be finally legalized again, but only if it manages to disperse some funding, scholarships, and substantial grants.

If it would, than those uniform debates at the FCCT in Bangkok could finally become vibrant and diverse.

The West will, of course, work very hard to prevent all this from happening.

Andre Vltchek is philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He’s a creator of Vltchek’s World in Word and Images, a writer of revolutionary novel Aurora and several other books. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

This article was originally published by New Eastern Outlook.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Western Propaganda in Southeast Asia — a True “Success Story”

So I wish you well, Sarge, give ’em Hell!
Kill me a thousand or so
And if you ever get a war without blood and gore
I’ll be the first to go
Phil Ochs, The Draft Dodger’s Rag

“Guess that makes me a proud bitch.”
Teresa Kaepernick, Colin Kaepernick’s mother’s response to Trump’s comment about her son.

*

In the true spirit of patriotic opposition, Colin Kaepernick took a courageous knee when he protested the current and historical treatment of black Americans and people of color during the playing of the National Anthem. For his patriotism, the NFL has made sure he remains unemployed, and now, when our reality-television president urges NFL teams to fire any “son-of-a-bitch” who dares follow Kaepernick’s example, the NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell releases a sanctimonious statement calling Trump’s demented words “divisive comments,” revealing an “unfortunate lack of respect” for NFL players.  NFL owners and others chimed in with the word of the day – “divisive.” Exactly who is being divided from whom is left to speculation?

The hypocrisies of this lurid spectacle continue to mount daily.

Kaepernick knelt on principle during the Obama presidency. His was a lonely act.  Now that the buffoonish Trump tweets and speaks his grotesqueries, it has become easy to emerge from the woodwork and join the crowd in supporting the man who made his solitary witness. Cheap grace, the German theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer termed the desire for “salvation” without paying a price. He said this before being executed by Hitler for his opposition to Nazism.

Who among those kneeling today in solidarity with Kaepernick are willing to pay a price? What’s the NFL’s price?  The Tycoons who own the teams? Who among them agrees with a man who gave his life for black liberation, Dr. Martin Luther King, who made it emphatically clear that the fight against racism involved opposing a trinity of devils when he said:

We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power… this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others… the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order.

Colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, racism – this is U.S. history, not the myths proffered by mythmakers, politicians, and schools.  The system of exploitation is old and enduring, and the point of its spear is war.  It is great that many players join in solidarity with Kaepernick. Racism must be opposed and freedom of speech exercised and defended. But it would be better indeed if more of those who rightly oppose Trump’s disgusting comments and support Kaepernick speak out about the triple devils King warned about.  The system of racial exploitation does not stand alone; never has. Nor will it fall alone.

The Star Spangled Banner is a celebration of war, meant to stir martial emotions. It also contains racist lyrics. And football is the war sport par excellence, extremely violent, and deeply tied to the spectacle of cruelty that dominates American society today and that has caused so much suffering for black people and other people of color for centuries. In the 1960s, Brazilian television, in an effort to distinguish football (soccer) from American football, aptly termed it “military football.” And while it, like other sports, has been an avenue to wealth and “success” for some black Americans (a tiny minority), its war-like structure and violent nature is noted with a nod and a wink. Heck, it’s fun to play and exciting to watch, and is just a colorful spectacle that we can’t do without, despite all the concussions, pain killers, and crippling life-long injuries. Lasting effects similar to those suffered by veterans returned from war zones. The gridiron is a war zone.

That the NFL is a conditioning agent for the love of war and violent aggression is usually passed over. Its language, like all good linguistic mind control, becomes powerfully invisible.

Colin Kaepernick, like all quarterbacks, is the field general who throws bombs to flankers as he tries to avoid the blitz. Each team defends and conquers the enemy’s territory, pushing its opponent back through frontal assaults and pounding the enemy’s line. This is mixed with deceptive formations and aerial assaults behind the opponent’s line. When none of this works and the enemy goes on the offensive, a different platoon is brought in to defend one’s territory. One’s front line must then defend against a frontal assault and hit back hard.

The analogies are everywhere, and as with many aspects of “everywhere,” what’s everywhere is nowhere – its familiarity making it invisible and therefore all the more powerful.

In a society of the spectacle, NFL football is the most spectacular and entertaining mass hypnotic induction into the love of war and violence that we have.  Goodell says that “the NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture.” These are swell sounding words that were essentially forced out of his mouth by Trump’s mad rantings. Words involving a double-entendre as well: The good of being united against racism on one hand, if that is what Goodell meant; the bad of being united to promote patriotic militarism, violence, and war on the other. Hypocritical contradictions, at best.

And where in all this is Colin Kaepernick, the forgotten man? Has he decided to study war no more, but to study Dr. King’s true legacy and his naming of the three demons that must be confronted and exorcised if MLK’s “Beloved Community” is to be established?

Great ironies abound here. Who among Kaepernick’s current supporters said one word when the mixed-race, neo-liberal Democrat, Barack Obama, suavely mass murdered his way around the world with seven wars,while showing his “cool” skills on the basketball court? Coolness works.Obama was given a free ride. More than that; he was treated like a rock star by the entertainment/sports complex.  And now that he is cashing in with speeches to Wall Street, who calls him out on that?  Obama, while always standing front stage, was all about operating back stage, very CIA-like. “One may smile, and smile, and be a villain,” wrote Shakespeare, who was quite an expert on acting.

Trump is the obverse. His back stage is his front stage. He is an easy target. He makes himself one; thinks coolness is to generate heat and draw audience attention to it.  It is an aspect of his celebrity reality-TV mindset: create buzz around your “brand,” make it hot, whether good or bad, it doesn’t matter. Titillate, provoke, tweet garbage sure to arouse passions. Agitate the audience.  He is an expert at feeding the beast that is America’s entertainment circus, the spectacle of con-men and prestidigitators extraordinaire. Flip Trump and you have Obama. Flip Obama and you have George W. Bush. Flip George and you have Bill Clinton. Flip Bill and you have the tail that wags the dog – Hillary. Or the reverse. Rotating little people going round and round, in and out, disappearing and appearing on a cuckoo clock with terrible music and mockingbird sounds.

There’s only one coin in these United States, and it’s counterfeit.

Trump goes to the United Nations and says he is “ready, willing, and able to totally destroy North Korea” and its 25 million people.  Who will take a knee for the North Korean people threatened by the public ranting of a man willing to commit genocide?

Who took a knee for the world when Obama announced a 1 trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade? When he savagely attacked Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan; sent drones worldwide in search of victims?  Did the NFL issue a statement of condemnation on the deaths of innocent children at the receiving end of American bombs?

Who is linking arms for all the innocent victims killed by Trump in eight months?  What communities are the NFL Commissioner and team owners referring to when they say the league and the players are forces for good in our communities?  Does “ours” meana small circle of friends, outside of which the enemies lurk who should be annihilated?  Over there, over there, send the bombs, send the bombs, over there.  Far from our “communities.”  Is that the theme song?  Is that the distinction?

What about Dr. King’s “Beloved Community”?

Our goal is to create a beloved community and
this will require a qualitative change in our souls
as well as a quantitative change in our lives.

Who will take a knee for a radical redistribution of economic and political power? Who will link arms for the end to capitalist exploitation and the amassing of obscene wealth by a few at the expense of the many? Who will refuse to support war and war-making? Who will tell it like it is and say that the demon of racism can only be eliminated if the others are? Liberals won’t. Conservatives won’t. Who will? Who will pay a price?

MLK paid the ultimate price for confronting these demons. When U.S. government forces killed him in Memphis, he had taken a knee for all the exploited and oppressed people of the world community, the beloved community.

“America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order,” he told us.

Hypocritical comes from the Greek hypokrites, a stage actor; pretender, dissembler. There are too many actors on this stage of moral outrage – far too may hypocrites. For years many NFL teams accepted Pentagon money to pimp for the war makers, but their pimping days started long before and continue to the present day, even if they say they no longer accept their client’s payoff. What do the owners stand for? Capital accumulation? Exploitation? War? And all the liberals jumping on the moral outrage train of racism? Obama was okay as he killed, maimed, and exploited – wasn’t that their silent mantra? So Trump is a conservative? What kind of true conservative would threaten foreign wars and tweet absurdities?

Welcome to the phony circus, where the man on the hire wire, the daring one, Colin Kaepernick, is home studying American history and learning about all the confidence men.

So I hope and pray.

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely.  He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. A former college basketball player, he teaches the sociology of sports, and writes on a wide range of topics.  His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/

Featured image is from Uproxx.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Colin Kaepernick, The Super Patriotic Draft Dodger’s Rag: “Fire the Son-of-a-Bitch”

Satellite Images Show US-Support for ISIS in Syria

September 26th, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

This and other incriminating evidence clearly reveal US support for ISIS – the scourge it pretends to combat, arming its fighters, providing other material support.

Silence by media scoundrels makes them complicit with US high crimes, a longstanding unholy alliance, a disgrace to legitimate journalism.

On Sunday, Russia’s Defense Ministry released satellite video images showing US-supported troops together with terrorists comprising the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), moving freely in ISIS-controlled parts of Deir Ezzor governorate.

“Without resistance from ISIS militants, (these forces) are moving along the left bank of the Euphrates river towards the town of Deir Ezzor,” Russia’s Defense Ministry said, adding:

“Despite strongholds of the US armed forces…located where ISIS troops are currently deployed, there are not even signs of organization of a battle outpost.”

In other words, ISIS, al-Nusra, and so-called SDF forces are virtually the same thing – US recruited, armed, funded and directed cutthroat killers, waging naked aggression against Syria and its people.

Images were taken from September 8 – 12 in areas controlled by ISIS, also showed “US Hummer armored vehicles used by the US Army’s special forces,” Russia’s Defense Ministry explained.

US and SDF forces “feel absolutely safe” in ISIS-controlled territory.

Days earlier, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov accused SDF fighters of colluding with ISIS, saying they “work (for) the same objectives.”

“Russian drones and intelligence have not recorded any confrontations between” between them. They’re allies, not enemies.

The Pentagon’s so-called Operation Inherent Resolve so far is silent on Russia’s damning evidence.

Separately, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem accused Washington of working with its terrorist “assets” in Syria, including al-Nusra, to undermine Astana peace talks.

Russia’s Defense Ministry made a similar accusation, saying its intelligence revealed US forces together with al-Nusra terrorists tried halting “the successful advance of government forces east of Deir Ezzor.”

Russian airpower smashed their offensive. Sergey Lavrov condemned the US-led coalition for refusing to combat al-Nusra, calling it “absolutely unacceptable.”

According to Russia’s Defense Ministry, nearly 90% of Syrian territory held by ISIS is now liberated.

Moscow will respond appropriately to any US efforts to impede the campaign to free Syria entirely from control by terrorists.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Satellite Images Show US-Support for ISIS in Syria

Featured image: Lieutenant-General Valery Asapov

By now many of you must have heard the news: a Russian Lieutenant-General, Valery Asapov, and two Colonels have been killed in what appears to be a very precisely targeted mortar attack.  Just as in the case of the Russian military police unit recently attacked near Deir ez-Zor, the Russians are accusing the Americans of being behind this attack.  To make things even worse, the Russians are now also officially accusing the Americans of actively collaborating with ISIS:

US Special Operations Forces  units enable US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces units to smoothly advance through the ISIS formations.  Facing no resistance of the ISIS militants, the SDF units are advancing along the left shore of the Euphrates towards Deir-ez-Zor.  The aerial photos made on September 8-12 over the ISIS locations recorded a large number of American Hummer vehicles, which are in service with the America’s SOF.  The shots clearly show the US SOF units located at strongholds that had been equipped by the ISIS terrorists. Though there is no evidence of assault, struggle or any US-led coalition airstrikes to drive out the militants.  Despite that the US strongholds being located in the ISIS areas, no screening patrol has been organized at them. This suggests that the US troops feel safe in terrorist controlled regions.

These are the maps and aerial photos provided by the Russians (for higher resolution, click here)

What this all seems to point to is that the Pentagon has now apparently decided to attack Russian forces directly, albeit unofficially. From the Pentagon’s point of view, this (almost) makes sense.

First, by now it is pretty darn clear that the “good terrorists” and the “bad terrorists” have lost the civil war in Syria.  Simply put, the USA has been defeated, Syria, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah have won and the Israelis are now freaking out.

Second, the American plan to use the Kurds as foot-soldiers/canon-fodder has failed.  The Kurds are clearly too smart to be pulled in such a losing proposition.

Third, the American plan-B option, the partition of Syria, is now itself directly threatened by the Syrian military successes.

Last and not least, the Americans by now are deeply humiliated and enraged at the Russian success in Syria.

Hence they have now apparently taken the decision to directly target Russian military personnel and they are using their considerable reconnaissance capabilities combined with US Special Forces on the ground, working side by side with “good” and “bad” terrorists, to target and attack Russian military personnel.

This is not the first time, by the way.  There is pretty good evidence that a Russian hospital near Aleppo was targeted using means not available to the local Daesh franchise.This time, however, the Americans are not even trying to hide.  The message seems to be this all-time American favorite “watcha gonna do about it?“.

There is a lot the Russians could do about it, in fact.  I wrote about this in my article “Using plausible deniability against a systematically lying adversary“.  If the folks at CENTCOM really believe that their generals are all safe and out of reach they are deeply mistaken.  Unlike the Russians and, even more so, the Iranians, US Generals are mostly risk averse and hard to get to in Syria.  But who said that Russia would have to retaliate in Syria?  Or, for that matter, that Russia would have to use Russian forces to retaliate.  Yes, Russia does have special units trained in the assassination of high-value targets in hostile countries, but that does not at all mean that they would decide to use them.  Accidents can happen anywhere and the roads are notoriously dangerous in the Middle-East.  Why do I mention that?  To illustrate that Russia does have options short of overtly going to war.

Of course, the Russians could simply fire a volley of Kalibr cruise missile at any of the ISIS positions shown in the photos above and then go “oops, you had personnel embedded with these al-Qaeda types?  Really?  We had no idea, no idea at all“.  Syria also have a pretty solid arsenal of tactical ballistic missiles.  The Syrians could mistakenly hit any such ISIS+US positions and express consternation at the presence of US military personnel in the midst of terrorists.  There is also Hezbollah who, in the past, has even seized Israelis soldiers in raids across the border and who could decide to capture themselves some US SOF types.    And let’s not forget the Iranians who have not had such an golden opportunity to finally get their hands on US military personnel since many years.

The three key weakness of the US force posture in Syria are: first, their own force in Syria is too small to make a difference, but big enough to represent a lucrative target and, second, all the boots on the ground which matter are against them (Syrians, Iran, Turkey, Hezbollah and the Russians).  Finally, the only two real US allies in the region are too afraid to put boots on the ground: Israel and the Saudis.

The bottom line is that if the Americans think that the Russians and their allies don’t have options they are deeply mistaken.  They also should seriously consider the consequence of having US SOF operating in forward positions.  The Syrians are closing the distance fast and this might not be the best time to hunt Russian military personnel.

So far the Russians have only limited themselves to protests and expressions of disgust.  This has clearly not been an effective strategy.  The Russians apparently don’t realize that very few people care and that the more the complain, the less credible their warnings sound.  This is not a sustainable approach and the Russians will so “have to do something about it”, to use the American expression.

Things might become very dangerous, very fast and very soon.

All images in this article are from The Saker.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Very Dangerous Escalation in Syria. Russia “Officially” Accuses US of Collaborating with ISIS. Pentagon to Attack Russian Forces Directly

Kurdistan’s Referendum Gamble

September 26th, 2017 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

“We hope for a unified Iraq to annihilate ISIS, and certainly a unified Iraq to push back on Iran.” – Sarah Huckabee Sanders, White House spokeswoman, Sep 25, 2017

What a gamble, and a seemingly ugly one. The merchants of propaganda have naturally been busy with this new, and petulant, kid on the block. Three areas of Iraqi Kurdistan have gone to the polls for a referendum that is intended to add meat to the bone of any future negotiations for secession. The desk minders in Baghdad are fuming; regional power brokers are minding their military inventories.

The Reuters news agency noted the words of a man queuing to vote in Irbil.

“We have been waiting 100 years for this day. We want to have a state, with God’s help. Today is a celebration for all Kurds.”

President of the Kurdish region, Massoud Barzani was unflappably confident on Sunday:

“From now on, Kurdistan will be a neighbour of Iraq, but not a part of it.”

Iraq remains a construction, an artificial confection of miscellaneous, often murderous groups. It is being held together – barely – and the Iraqi leaders wish to keep it this way. Given its sheer vulnerability, the Iraqi state, or at the very least parts of it, have been ripe for severance. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, vain efforts to secure various states of autonomy were crushed with cold blooded determination. Towns such as Halabja and Qala Diza blot the text books as bloodied, failed enterprises.

The romance of a free Kurdistan, or at the very least its dream cleaved from the Iraqi whole, has been the lingering preoccupation of some. The late Christopher Hitchens, who remained a staunch backer of the invasion of Saddam’s Iraq, was ever keen to scribble about the advances being made in the region. He had found an underdog to back. 

The Christmas holidays of 2006 were spent taking advantage of this new Kurdistan, one free of Saddam. (Never mind the fact that Iraq was unraveling and untethered from any concept of a unified state at that point.) Travelling with his Greek-speaking son, Hitchens noted the ease of air and road travel, and that “walking anywhere at night in any Kurdish town is safer than it is in many American cities.” Erbil was visited, “where Alexander the Great defeated the Persians”.[1] With some cheer, it had been a year since the last suicide bomb attack.

Such sentiment aside, this non-binding vote has already stirred resentment. A curfew was imposed on the city of Kirkuk on Monday evening, a characteristic reminder that trouble is brewing. There are suggestions that the voting process has been compromised, despite loud proclamations that democracy is being practised with vigour. Turkmen and Arab groups had urged a boycott. 

Geopolitical considerations, as they often do in these situations, are bound to force their way into the profane reckoning. Nature’s abhorrence of a vacuum has duly brought in replacements, and they are furious with this experiment in balloting. This was, for Iraq’s Vice President Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, “a declaration of war on the unity of the Iraqi people.”[2]

To the Baghdad authorities can be added Turkey, Iran, the United Nations and the United States. The reasoning there is elementary: the moment the Kurds get a nationalist foothold, the surge towards independence may be unstoppable. Minorities may upset local applecarts through the region. Police and military measures, followed by massacre, will be perpetuated. From the crucible of death a state shall be born and slain. 

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has not disappointed with his stance: military and economic measures are promised against the Kurdistan Regional Government for holding the referendum. Baghdad, he insists, must remain behind the steering wheel of the country’s affairs. 

“After this, let’s see through which channels the northern Iraqi regional government will send its oil, or where it will sell it.”[3] 

As oil is life, the president is keen to remind the upstarts of the KRG that Ankara controls “the tap. The moment we close the tap, then it’s done.” 

The move stresses the complex dynamics of oil politics in the area, with Iraqi Kurdistan able to develop an independent oil sector of some consequence. This burgeoning sector supplies some 80% of revenue for the KRG.  Some 600,000 barrels of oil are exported on a daily basis, impressive when you start considering the petroleum output relative to such states as Ecuador and Qatar.[4] The Turkish threat, however, is an important one, given that half of the oil product goes through a Turkish pipeline which effectively bypasses Baghdad’s own oil company.

Washington has also affirmed its traditional duplicity regarding the Kurdish situation. While happy to avail itself of Kurdish help fighting Islamic State forces, pen pushers in the Pentagon and State Department would prefer it if they use their weapons for an entirely altruistic cause. Forget the nationalist drive: defeating ISIS is the only cause that truly matters.

According to Army Col. Ryan Dillon, a spokesman for the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve,

“There is a distraction from the fight against ISIS”.

Irritatingly for Dillon, the Peshmerga forces had been biding their time in the latest offensive against Hawija, where an estimated 800 to 1,500 ISIS fighters remain.

“The Peshmerga are not part of the elements that are conducting the advance, but they will very much likely play a part because of the proximity of the Kurdish defence line.”[5]

To add a final, and by no means exhaustive touch of complexity to the vote, some Kurdish groups have preferred caution, the sort harvested from centuries of disappointment. Businessman Shaswar Abdulwahid Qadir, the man behind the “Not4Now” campaign, urges the care and patience only wealth can buy.[6] Secession hardly comes cheaply. The Kurdistan Islamic Group and the Change Movement (Gorran) are similarly opposed to the timing.[7] But nationalist referendums are rarely about caution and timing, and the waiting, for some, is over.

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

Notes

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Kurdistan’s Referendum Gamble

This week’s headlines have been dominated by reaction to US President Donald Trump’s bluster against North Korea during his address to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday. This has overshadowed the equally threatening and ominous references he made in the same speech to Iran.

Anyone listening to him will have been left with two impressions: Trump’s speech faithfully echoed the utterances of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and it brazenly beat the drums of war against Iran.

Trump described Iran as a ‘rogue state’ and ‘corrupt dictatorship’ that exports violence, anarchy, and bloodshed. He also said that he had reached a decision regarding the P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran, while declining to reveal what it is. This has led many observers to conclude that he will soon withdraw from the agreement, in line with his electoral promise to tear it up on the grounds that it is the worst agreement in US history, and in deference to the dictates of the Israel lobby.

Trump is widely expected to announce the US’ withdrawal from the agreement in mid-October when he testifies to Congress in his semi-annual review. This is likely to be accompanied by a further tightening of the sanctions and the economic blockade on Iran. And it could prompt the Iranian government to immediately resume the enrichment of uranium at very high levels, giving it the capacity it to produce nuclear warheads.

It was no coincidence that shortly before Trump spoke, Netanyahu demanded that the nuclear agreement be scrapped or altered, while likening Iran to a hungry tiger on a vicious rampage in the region and the world. Nor was it a coincidence for Israeli Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot to announce that Israel has plans already in place for attacking Iran and Hezbollah, which he described as an Iranian surrogate whose growing missile and intelligence-gathering capacity (via pilotless drones) was a top Israeli concern.

The Israeli occupation state is the only country that backs Trump’s stance. The EU is opposed to it, especially French President Emmanuel Macron who warned it would be a ‘mistake’ for the US to withdraw from the nuclear agreement. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed the same view and vowed that his country would continue to uphold the deal.

Trump is literally implementing Israeli dictates. He is planning to drag his country and the world into a ruinous war in the Middle East: a war whose main victims will be Arabs and Muslims, and which will not spare the citizens of those states that host American military bases, which along with Israel can be expected to be targeted in any Iranian retaliation.

Iran will certainly not stand by with folded arms in response to the attempt to cancel the agreement it spent five years negotiating with the six major powers, and ratchet up the economic sanctions that have stifled it for decades and inflicted huge damage on its economy and its people’s livelihoods. President Hassan Rouhani replied by stressing that his country was ready for all scenarios, including that of immediately resuming its nuclear activities. Revolutionary Guard Commander Mohammad-Ali Jafari went further, threatening to deliver a painful blow to the US if compelled to do so. Saturday’s test of a new ballistic missile a few days after Trump’s speech – apparently taking a leaf out of North Korea’s book – was intended to demonstrate that Iran is not prepared to take his threats lying down.

After the failure of his plans in Syria and the entire region, and after the humiliating embarrassment inflicted on him by North Korean President Kim Jong-un, who defied him by carrying out fresh nuclear and missile tests, Trump wants to return to the Middle East in force and start fires there. He is confident that the region’s oil-rich governments will cover the war’s expenses and does not mind turning their citizens into their victims.

But the Israelis who are pushing for this war will also pay a heavy price. They too will not be secure, either during or after this war, as hundreds of thousands of missiles will be aimed at their cities and settlements from Iran, Lebanon and Syria. It would be the mother of all wars, and with Israel armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, potentially the region’s last. This time round, however, it will not be one-sided.

Trump is playing with fire. He may not only burn his fingers but also millions of our innocent people unless he is restrained, and unless his deranged tendencies and the megalomania which dominates his behaviour and policies are brought under control.

Featured image is from the author.


“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph UniversityWWIII Scenario

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute  

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump and Israel Want War Against Iran, But It Won’t be One-sided

The Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, and its Syrian spinoff, the YPG, are cult-like radical movements that intertwine Marxism, feminism, Leninism and Kurdish nationalism into a hodge-podge of ideology, drawing members through the extensive use of propaganda that appeals to these modes of thought.

Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the PKK, took inspiration from American anarchist Murray Bookchin in creating his philosophy, which he calls “Democratic Confederalism.”

The PKK spin-off group YPG represents most of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Syria.

With Western political support, they have gained popularity and garnered an impressive amount of support from anarchists and military veterans in the West, some of whom have left the comfort of their home countries to fight with the group.

One of their most productive marketing tools has been to use young, attractive female fighters as the face of the guerrillas. During their fight against Daesh, the PKK has saturated the media with images of these young female “freedom fighters,” using them as a marketing tool to take their cause from obscurity to fame. Some of these female fighters in the YPJ are fighting alongside their male counterparts under the direction of the U.S. in the SDF.

Stephen Gowans writes more about this topic in his superb article titled: The Myth of the Kurdish YPG’s Moral Excellence.

Here is an excerpt:

In Syria, the PKK’s goal “is to establish a self-ruled region in northern Syria,” [8] an area with a significant Arab population.

When PKK fighters cross the border into Turkey, they become ‘terrorists’, according to the United States and European Union, but when they cross back into Syria they are miraculously transformed into ‘guerrilla” fighters waging a war for democracy as the principal component of the Syrian Democratic Force. The reality is, however, that whether on the Turkish or Syrian side of the border, the PKK uses the same methods, pursues the same goals, and relies largely on the same personnel. The YPG is the PKK.

Child Soldiers: forced recruitment, kidnapping, and murder by the PKK and YPG

Within the past few years, Kurds have gone from almost total obscurity to front page news. What doesn’t get reported however is how these terrorist groups under the guise of being a revolutionary movement for Independence have carried out numerous atrocities including kidnappings and murder – not to mention their involvement in trafficking narcotics.

It’s important to keep in mind that this and previous articles are never meant to imply that the crimes committed by Western-backed militia groups are in any way a reflection on the entire Kurdish ethnicity. Although the term Kurds may be used generalizations and blanket statements are neither intended nor applicable. Kurds are not a monolithic united group of people that all share identical political aspirations, goals, the same language or religion. They are a diverse group of people that are spread across the globe and have predominately lived in or around the four countries that some are looking to divide and establish an independent Kurdistan on.

The militia groups more or less exist for the purpose of creating instability, division, and chaos, in the region, for the benefit of Israel and its Western allies. After all, a divided people are much easier to control than a united one.

Causing tension between Kurdish, Arab, Assyrian, and other groups in the region is a goal that the United States and their allies have had their eyes on for a while.

Therefore it’s important to always remember that there are many Kurds that do not support these armed groups, nor are they interested in carving out the Near and Middle East and illegally establishing an independent country in the Middle East.

Kurdish families are demanding that the PKK stop kidnapping minors. It started on April 23, the day Turkey marked its 91st National Sovereignty and Children’s Day. While children celebrated the holiday in western Turkey, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) kidnapped 25 students between the ages of 14 and 16 on the east side of the country, in the Lice district of Diyarbakir.

Although the PKK has kidnapped more than 330 minors in the last six months, the Bockum family was the first in the region who put up a tent near their home to start a sit-in protest, challenging the PKK and demanding that it return their son. Sinan was returned to the family on May 4. Al-Monitor reported this incident from the beginning in great detail.

As Bebyin Somuk reported in her article, the PKK and PYD still kidnap children in Turkey and Syria. She states:

“As I previously wrote for Kebab and Camel, the PKK commits war crimes by recruiting children as soldiers. Some of the PKK militants that surrendered yesterday were also the PKK’s child soldiers. The photos clearly show that these children are not more than sixteen years old. The Turkish army released video of the 25 PKK militants surrendering in Nusaybin.”

Image on the right is a young Kurdish fighter (Source)

U5dqpdM5uJ9t7e3spcAC9TtkRdYRfZB_1680x8400.jpg

Thousands of children are serving as soldiers in armed conflicts around the world. In 1989, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38, proclaimed:

“State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.”

Since then, UNICEF and the UN Security Council took steps to end the recruitment of children in conflict and war.

The PKK, recognized as a terrorist organization by the U.S. EU, and Turkey

The PKK often recruits children some as young as 7-12 years. In 2010, a Danish national daily newspaper, Berlingske Tidende, published a story about the PKK’s child soldiers. According to that report, there were around 3,000 young militants in the PKK’s training camps. The youngest child at the PKK training camps was eight or nine years old. They were taught Abdullah Öcalan’s life story (the jailed leader of the PKK) and how to use weapons and explosives.

U5dsGHKEYCcxdyZgg7nFMUDYML5gX8S_1680x8400.jpg

Despite the Deed of Commitment, the PKK continues to recruit minors. 

After that story was published, the PKK encountered strong reactions from human rights organizations worldwide. The same year, UNICEF released a statement voicing its “profound concern” about the PKK’s recruitment of child soldiers. In October 2013, the PKK, represented by HPG (the PKK’s military wing) commander Ms. Delal Amed, signed the Deed of Commitment protecting children in armed conflict. This document, drawn up by the Geneva Call NGO, is dedicated to promoting respect by armed non-state actors for international humanitarian norms in armed conflict. Despite this commitment, the PKK continued to recruit minors.

Image on the left shows young Kurdish fighters (Source)

The PKK Abducted Children During the Peace Process

On March 21, 2013, PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan called for a cease-fire that included the PKK’s withdrawal from Turkish soil and an eventual end to armed struggle. The PKK announced that they would obey, stating that 2013 would be the year of conclusion, either through war or through peace. But that did not happen. Instead, the PKK abducted 2052 children aged between 12 and 17 while the peace process was still going on, according to Turkish security records. The PKK took these children and trained them. However, because these children were not involved in any criminal activities, when they were captured by or surrendered to, Turkish security forces, Turkish courts did not prosecute them, so most of them were released. This was the Turkish state’s goodwill gesture for the sake of the peace process, for whatever it’s worth.

U5dsE8WnoC2C4RfmSb1nHSL7DD5bgxU_1680x8400

The People’s Defence Forces is the military wing of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. (Source)

Unfortunately, once released, most of these children joined the YDG-H, the PKK’s new youth wing, and began to perpetrate illegal and/or violent events in Kurdish populated cities and towns. The YDG-H began to emerge in early 2013 and spread rapidly after the peace process’ beginning. Then, after the 7 June 2015 election, the YDG-H began to attack security forces and civilians in cities and towns such as Cizre, or in Diyarbakır’s Sur neighborhood, with heavy weapons, and to dig trenches and erect barricades in side streets.

Source: VOA News Published on Jul 2, 2014

Video summary: A growing number of Kurdish families in Turkey are calling for the return of their children, who they say have been abducted by the Kurdish rebel group, the PKK. The PKK denies the claim, but with the Turkish prime minister stepping in, the issue is putting pressure on an already stalled peace process. Dorian Jones reports from Diyarbakir, the main city in Turkey’s predominantly Kurdish southeast.

The HDP assaulted the mothers demanding their children

In May 2014, mothers from across Turkey whose children had been recruited by the PKK held a sit-in protest in front of the Diyarbakır Metropolitan Municipality building and called on the PKK to release their children. Their children were mostly 14-15 years old at that time. Some families claimed that their sons and daughters were kidnapped by the PKK against their will. The Diyarbakır Municipality, administered by the HDP, used water cannons to disperse the mothers. HDP Co-Chair Selahattin Demirtaş even claimed that these mothers were hired by the Turkish National Intelligence Organization. Despite the resistance coming from the PKK and the HDP, the families continued their protest, and some families’ children were released by the PKK.

The PKK established a child-wing called YPS-Zarok

The above Tweet, from the Yüksekova district shows the child-wing recently established by the PKK called YPS-Zarok (Child) with the headline “YPS-Zarok announcement from the children of the resistance.”

The PYD, the PKK’s Syria branch, is also known for its recruitment of child soldiers.

U5dtvKPw7bNqT4GFCT78gHGHQSKXNwn_1680x8400.jpg

YPS (Source)

U.S.’s “reliable partner” the YPG also recruits children

A Human Rights Watch report, “Syria: Kurdish Forces Violating Child Soldier Ban” provides a list of 59 children, ten of them under the age of fifteen, recruited for YPG or YPJ forces since July 2014. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute that set up the International Criminal Court classify the recruitment of under-15-year-olds as a war crime. While the Trump Administration does not recognize the YPG as a terrorist organization and supports them as a local partner in the region, the YPG continues to recruit child soldiers.

It’s clear that the U.S. sees the PYD as a “reliable partner” in the fight against ISIS. However, the Trump Administration should notice the fact that the PYD is not an independent organization. It is linked to the PKK and recruiting minors under 18. The decision to found the PYD was made in 2002 during a PKK Congress in Qandil. The PYD also has a bylaw stating that “Abdullah Öcalan is the leader of the PYD.”

In summary, the YPG is the Syrian wing of the PKK, and recruits children just like the PKK. Regardless of what acronym they go by, whether it be the YPG, PKK, PYD, YPJ or any of the other alphabet soup combinations, they commit crimes against civilians in both Syria and Turkey all with the arms, funds, and training received from the United States.

Female PKK Fighters Killing Turkish Soldiers

SouthFront reported on female PKK fighters who have killed Turkish soldiers.

“The women fighters command of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) have released a statement, claiming PKK female fighters killed 160 Turkish military servicemen in 2016. According to the statement, the women fighters command of the PKK carried out 115 operations against Turkish government forces in 2016. The group also vowed to ‘proceed the struggle during the new year for a life of freedom and until victory is achieved.’”

U5dsPdrfdbJZxHY9RD8WQfUzn8vMjxc_1680x8400

Hundreds of people protest against the PKK in Istanbul on 7 September after the PKK killed 16 soldiers and wounded six others in Daglica, Turkey. (Source)

The PKK is also killing Kurds under the guise of protecting their rights

“Senior PKK leader Cemil Bayık, in an interview with the Fırat News Agency (ANF) on Aug. 8, said, ‘Our war will not be confined to the mountains like it was before. It will be spread everywhere without making a distinction between mountains, plains or cities. It will spread to the metropolises.’ Terrorist Bayık’s statement signaled that the PKK would take increasing aim against civilians, targeting civilian areas more than ever. And it is happening.

Since July 15, the day when the Gülenist terror cult, FETÖ, launched its failed military coup attempt to topple the democratically-elected government, the PKK perpetrated dozens of terrorist attacks, killing 21 civilians and injuring 319 others – most of them Kurdish citizens.”

According to The Washington Institute: On November 18, FBI Director Robert Mueller met with senior Turkish officials to address U.S.-Turkish efforts targeting the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), also known as Kongra-Gel. A press release from the U.S. embassy in Ankara following the meeting stressed that U.S. officials ‘strongly support Turkey’s efforts against the PKK terrorist organization’ and highlighted the two countries’ long history of working together in the fight against terrorism and transnational organized crime.

The PKK: Terrorist Organization and Foreign Narcotics Trafficker 

These discussions are timely. Despite Ankara’s recent bid to alleviate the Kurdish issue — a bid referred to as the ‘democratic opening’ — the PKK is one of a growing number of terrorist organizations with significant stakes in the international drug trade.

In October, the U.S. Treasury Department added three PKK/Kongra-Gel senior leaders to its list of foreign narcotics traffickers. The PKK, along with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), is one of only a few organizations worldwide designated by the U.S. government as both a terrorist organization and a significant foreign narcotics trafficker.” Drug smuggling is reported to be the main financial source of PKK terrorism, according to the organization International Strategic Research, whose detailed report can be seen here.

U5drTAq5Cuuvo4u1Un9iXzUUKgpbcVj_1680x8400.jpg

Source

Western Veterans Blindly Supporting Kurdish Independence

Their exaggerated triumphs against Daesh have helped them evolve from a radical militia to an alleged regional power player. Have they been successful in fighting against Daesh in Syria? Yes – but while the Syrian Arab Army has been more effective, it does not receive a fraction of the praise or recognition that the PKK does.

Pato Rincon, a U.S. military veteran, recently wrote about his experience training with the YPG in Syria.

Although initially interested in their desire for autonomy, he soon got to know a different side of the group.

An Exclusive Eyewitness Account of an American who Trained with the Kurdish Syrian Rebels

Getting retired from the United States Marine Corps at age 23 with zero deployments under my belt was a huge blow to what I figured to be my destiny on this planet. That “retirement” came in 2010 after three years on convalescent leave, recovering from a traumatic brain injury sustained stateside. I got my chance to vindicate myself in 2015 by volunteering to fight in Syria with the Kurdish Yeni Parastina Gel (YPG), or the “People’s Protection Units” in Kurmanji (Northern Kurdish language).

The YPG is the military apparatus of the Partiya Yekitiya Democrat (PYD), the Democratic Union Party, and one of the main forces of the Syrian Democratic Forces fighting ISIS and Bashar al-Assad’s regime. While they are a direct ideological descendant of the Soviet Union, their take on Marxism has a much more nationalistic bent than that of their internationalist forebears. At their training camp that I attended, they constantly spoke of their right to a free and autonomous homeland–which I could support. On the other hand, they ludicrously claimed that all surrounding cultures from Arab to Turk to Persian descended from Kurdish culture. One should find this odd, considering that the Kurds have never had such autonomy as that which they struggle for. All of this puffed up nationalism masquerading as internationalism was easy to see through.

The Westerners were treated with respect by the “commanders” (they eschewed proper rank and billet, how bourgeoise!), but the rank and file YPGniks were more interested in what we could do for them and what they could steal from us (luckily, my luggage was still in storage at the Sulaymaniyah International Airport in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq). By “steal from us,” I mean they would walk up to a Westerner/American and grab their cap, glasses, scarf and whatever else they wanted and ask “Hevalti?” which is Kurmanji for “Comraderie?” and if you “agreed” or stalled (a non-verbal agreement) then they would take your gear and clothing. “Do not get your shit hevalti-ed,” the saying went.

Not only was their idea of Marxism fatuous, their version of feminism was even worse. We had to take mandatory “Female World History” classes in which some putrid fourth or even fifth wave feminist propaganda was espoused. Early on in my brief stay with this “military unit”, I was told not to ever brush my teeth in front of a woman as that might “sexualize” her… …something to do with preparing one’s self for sex or something.

They insisted that we chicken-wing our elbows while sighting in on targets–the same targets that were fired on by everybody in the class, thus making an assessment of individual strengths and weaknesses rather impossible. This was on the ONE day that we went to the range–one day with the AK-47 out of about a month of training. Another day was Some of these guys were straight from civilian life, with only their blood composition to act as a reason for them to be there. Little boys and little girls as young as 13 or 14 were there–reason enough for me to leave.

During one long “Female World History” class, we were taught that if a man had a Dragonov (sniper rifle) and he was elevated from his female comrade’s position and she had a Bixie, they the male in the scenario should not cover his female comrade, but instead should find something else to do lest she lose self esteem, not feeling capable of carrying out the task by herself.

When a student from Kentucky asked, “What if the situation is reversed–can a woman cover a man?” the female instructor smiled and said, “Yes, that’s okay.” I didn’t end up firing a shot in combat for the YPG. After seeing their half-baked ideology, poor level of training, and the child soldiers, I had had enough. They were nice enough to arrange for me to go back to Iraq where I could catch a ride to Turkey.

U5dr7RnnEiaxhDQjarqsfGiDtWSiwZX_1680x8400

Pat Rincon with YPG fighters in Syria (Source)

Accounts such as this will certainly not make it to mainstream media, as they do not fit the narrative that the Kurds and their sponsors promote.

UK Veteran with outstanding warrant joined YPG, gets arrest in the UK then again in Turkey

In another example of Western support for the YPG, Joe Robinson, an ex-soldier and UK national, recently returned to the UK after spending five months in Syria fighting with the group. He was detained and arrested by Greater Manchester Police officers on suspicion of terrorism offenses as soon as he returned. He joined the British military when he was 18 and toured Afghanistan with the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment in 2012.

U5drt9vbTpyGh5jiw2WyGDKGNPt9a7L_1680x8400.jpg

Joseph A. R. (right) in a military outfit with flag patches of Kurdistan and the UK, while men who appear to be Kurdistan Region’s Peshmerga forces are seen in the background in this undated social media picture (Source)

He left the UK when an arrest warrant was issued after he failed to appear in court. Robinson is pictured here in Syria with YPG fighters.

The information contained in this article serves the purpose of balancing all of the propaganda and romanticization that these Kurdish terrorist groups have received in mainstream media. The bottom line is they are armed, dangerous, and committing crimes with international support. Support for these terrorist groups needs to end immediately before further division, chaos and death spread further in the region.

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.

Featured image is from this source.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Kurdish PKK and YPG’s Hidden Notorious Crimes: Kidnapping, Murder, and Narcotics Trafficking

Threats of Total Destruction Are Unlawful and Extremely Dangerous; Direct Diplomacy between the US and the DPRK Is Essential to Avert Disaster

September 26th, 2017 by Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy and Western States Legal Foundation

“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.” – President Donald Trump, speech at United Nations, September 19, 2017

President Trump’s threat of total destruction of North Korea is utterly unacceptable. Also unacceptable are similarly threatening statements made in pieces carried by North Korea’s state-owned news agency.[1] Instead of making apocalyptic threats, the two governments should agree on a non-aggression pact as a step toward finally concluding a peace treaty formally ending the 1950s Korean War and permanently denuclearizing the Korean peninsula.

The U.S. and North Korean threats are wrong as a matter of morality and common sense. They are also completely contrary to bedrock requirements of international law – law which is part of the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution. Both countries, by engaging in a cycle of threats and military posturing, violate prohibitions on the threat of force to resolve disputes and on threats to use force outside the bounds of the law of armed conflict. Trump’s threats carry more weight because the armed forces of the United States, capped by its immense nuclear arsenal, could accomplish the destruction of North Korea in short order.

Threats of total destruction negate the fundamental principle that the right to choose methods and means of warfare is not unlimited:

  • Under the law of armed conflict, military operations must be necessary for and proportionate to the achievement of legitimate military objectives, and must not be indiscriminate or cause unnecessary suffering. Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibits threatening an adversary that there will be no survivors or conducting hostilities on that basis. The Nuremberg Tribunal found the Nazi concept of “total war” to be unlawful because it runs contrary to all the rules of warfare and the moral principles underlying them, creating a climate in which “rules, regulations, assurances, and treaties all alike are of no moment” and “everything is made subordinate to the overmastering dictates of war.”
  • Conducting a war with the intention of destroying an entire country would contravene the Genocide Convention, which prohibits killing “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group ….”
  • Limits on the conduct of warfare apply to both aggressor and defender states. Thus Trump’s statement that total destruction would be inflicted in defense of the United States and its allies is no justification. Moreover, the U.S. doctrine permitting preventive war, carried out in the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq, means that Trump’s reference to “defense” does not necessarily rule out U.S. military action in the absence of a North Korean attack or imminent attack.
  • North Korea has explicitly threatened use of nuclear weapons. While the United States likely would not use nuclear weapons first in the Korean setting, it remains true that Trump’s references to “fire and fury” and “total destruction” raise the specter of U.S. employment of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons cannot be used in compliance with the law of armed conflict, above all the requirement of discrimination, as the recently adopted Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons recognizes. Threats of use of nuclear weapons are likewise unlawful.  The illegal character of the threat or use of nuclear weapons is especially egregious where the express intent is to “totally destroy” an adversary, a purpose that from the outset rules out limiting use of force to the proportionate and necessary.

U.S. and North Korean threats of war are also unlawful because military action of any kind is not justified.

The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force except in self-defense against an armed attack or subject to UN Security Council authorization:

  • Article 51 of the UN Charter permits the use of force as a matter of self-defense only in response to an armed attack.  No armed attack by either side has occurred or is imminent.
  • The Security Council is addressing the matter and has not authorized use of force. Its most recent resolution[2] imposing further sanctions on North Korea was adopted pursuant to UN Charter Article 41, which provides for measures not involving the use of force. There is no indication whatever in that and preceding resolutions of an authorization of use of force. Moreover, the resolution emphasizes the need for a peaceful resolution of the dispute with North Korea. That approach is mandated by the UN Charter, whose Article 2(3) requires all members to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

It is urgent that diplomatic overtures replace threats.

In the nuclear age, the first principle of diplomacy should be that adversaries talk to each other to the maximum possible extent, and in moments of crisis directly and unconditionally. We learned during the Cold War that even when the prospects for any tangible progress seem dim, negotiations between nuclear-armed adversaries have other positive results. They allow the military and political leaderships of the adversaries to better understand each other’s intentions, and their fears. They build broader channels of communication between military and government bureaucracies that can be of tremendous value when tensions rise.

Accordingly, the United States should declare itself ready and willing to engage in direct talks with North Korea, and a commitment to denuclearization should not be a precondition for such talks. To facilitate negotiations, the United States and South Korea should immediately cease large-scale military exercises in the region, providing North Korea with an opportunity to reciprocate by freezing its nuclear-related testing activities. The immediate aim of negotiations should be a non-aggression pact, as a step toward a comprehensive peace treaty bringing permanent closure to the Korean War and providing for a nuclear-weapon-free Korean peninsula. Success in denuclearizing the Korean peninsula will be much more likely if the United States, Russia, China and other nuclear-armed states also engage, as they are obligated to do, in negotiations for a world free of nuclear weapons.

Click here for a printable pdf of this statement.

Notes

[1] E.g., “U.S. Will Meet Nuclear Strike and Final Ruin,” The Rodong Sinmun, September 18, 2017, http://www.rodong.rep.kp/en/index.php?strPageID=SF01_02_01&newsID=2017-09-18-0005 (“in case the U.S. opts for confrontation and war … it will meet horrible nuclear strike and miserable and final ruin”).

[2] Resolution 2375, adopted September 11, 2017.


“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph UniversityWWIII Scenario

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute  

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Threats of Total Destruction Are Unlawful and Extremely Dangerous; Direct Diplomacy between the US and the DPRK Is Essential to Avert Disaster

Featured image: Israeli border police officer chases Palestinian children during land day demonstration in Damascus gate, East Jerusalem, March 30, 2014. (Source: Activestills.org via +972 Magazine)

Israeli occupation apologists masquerading as protectors of Palestinian children in military detention? Few displays of alternative facts should shock us these days, but somehow an upcoming event by the Israeli right-wing group NGO Monitor’s at the UN Palais De Nations in Geneva comes close. Under the Orwellian title “Protecting Children: The realities of Israeli Military Juvenile Justice in a Terror Environment,” the event planned for Sept 25th features such doyens of child protection as the former IDF Chief West Bank Prosecutor, Lt. Col. (Res) Maurice Hirsch.

A recent recruit to the Israeli hasbara (public relations) industry, Hirsch seems committed to denying Israel’s 50 year-long occupation — instead, he euphemistically refers to “the changing borders of the State of Israel” — as well as trying to legitimize Israel’s military court system, which has faced broad criticism by British experts, UNICEF, as well as B’Tselem, for its systematic and widespread mistreatment of Palestinian minors.

Hirsch oversaw the prosecution’s part in the assembly line that forces virtually all Palestinian minors prosecuted by the army to accept conviction by plea bargains — which usually lead to incarceration. In 2015, the last year for which official data is available, 95 percent of the approximately 540 Palestinian minors indicted in the military courts were convicted. This is done through interrogations that violate minors’ rights, such that they incriminate themselves and others; these incriminations are later presented to the military court, with no other evidence. Military courts deny most minors bail and the few exceptions are routinely appealed by the military prosecution, which is also responsible for the high percent of indictments – 62 percent of the 871 minors arrested in 2015.

In response to criticism, Israel has implemented tried and true tactic: cosmetic changes that enable it to continue imprisoning Palestinian children. These included several changes to the military legislation, such as formalizing the age for prosecuting Palestinians as adults, the establishment of the military court for youth, and changes in detention and remand periods. Legal cosmetics, however, will not meaningfully improve the treatment of Palestinian minors or the protection of their rights.

Israel soldiers in a courtroom at the Ofer Military Court near the West Bank town of Beitunia, February 8, 2015. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Israel soldiers in a courtroom at the Ofer Military Court near the West Bank town of Beitunia, February 8, 2015. (Source: Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Israel has also attempted to deflect criticism by initiating a “secret dialogue” with UNICEF, the UN program that provides humanitarian assistance to children in developing countries, in order to improve its image. But according to the latest UNICEF update, “the data demonstrates the need for further actions to improve the protection of children in military detention, as reports of alleged ill-treatment of children during arrest, transfer, interrogation and detention have not significantly decreased in 2013 and 2014.” And this comes following the “secret dialogue”. Official Israeli statistics present a large increase in the numbers of Palestinian minors serving prison sentences since the round of violence that broke out in late 2015, and a renewal of administrative detention of minors. All this indicates that the situation has not improved, and that the system still rejects the principle that the detention of minors should be a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate time.

The central problem at the heart of Israel’s half-century old military court system is clear: these courts do not – and never will – reflect the interests of the defendants, but rather that of the regime of occupation. Under Israel’s two separate and unequal legal systems, military judges and prosecutors act as Israeli army officers enforcing martial law over a civilian Palestinian population living under military rule.

In 2012, a delegation of eminent British jurists concluded that

“it may be that much of the reluctance to treat Palestinian children in conformity with international norms stems from a belief, which was advanced to us by a military prosecutor, that every Palestinian child is a ‘potential terrorist’. Such a stance seems to us to be the starting point of a spiral of injustice.”

The jurists did not speak to Hirsch, who took up his post in 2013, but his conduct seems to reflect a similar position: treating all Palestinian child detainees, regardless of age, as terrorists, while denying Israel’s obligations as an occupying power in the West Bank.

Israeli Border Police officer detains a Palestinian child at a protest in Kufr Qaddum, January 25, 2013. (Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

Israeli Border Police officer detains a Palestinian child at a protest in Kufr Qaddum, January 25, 2013. (Source: Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

In 2016, bloggers Noam Rotem and John Brown revealed a series of private Facebook posts published by Hirsch, in which he demanded to hang the killers who committed the horrific killing of five members of the Fogel Family in March 2011, and for the “elimination” of Hamas heads on a daily basis until Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit is freed. According to Rotem and Brown, these comments “reflect on the head of the military prosecution in the West Bank, who should at least pay lip service to providing a fair hearing for Palestinians.” Hirsch’s deeply disturbing indictment of a troubled 12-year-old Palestinian girl, arrested near a settlement carrying a concealed knife is another telling indication of his take on protecting Palestinian children, with the entire military legal system’s backing and participation. The girl was sentenced to four-and-a-half months in prison, of which she served two-and-a-half months, eventually released following an international outcry.

The steady entrenchment of Israel’s occupation and dispossession of Palestinians, while eliciting some condemnation, has not yet led to meaningful international action. Still, the abuse of Palestinian minors in the military court system is one of the few matters that some countries have been willing to take up seriously with Israel. This is the context of the forthcoming event in Geneva: yet another example of NGO Monitor’s role in promoting Israeli government’s propaganda while smearing critical human rights groups. Now they have moved to trying to justify systematic abusive treatment of minors. But no PR exercise can eliminate the contradiction in terms known to the world as Israel’s “military justice system.” Only ending the occupation will.

Sarit Michaeli is B’Tselem’s international advocacy officer.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on There’s No Beautifying Israel’s Treatment of Palestinian Children

Syria: U.S. Central Command Declares War on Russia

September 25th, 2017 by Moon of Alabama

Yesterday three high ranking Russian officers were killed in an “ISIS attack” in eastern-Syrian. It is likely that they were killed by U.S. special forces or insurgents under U.S. special forces control. The incident will be understood as a declaration of war.

The U.S. Central Command in the Middle East wants the oil fields in east-Syria under control of its proxy forces to set up and control a U.S. aligned Kurdish mini-state in the area. The Syrian government, allied with Russia, needs the revenues of the oil fields to rebuild the country.

 

Last week the Russians issued sharply worded statements against U.S. coordination with al-Qaeda terrorists in Idleb province and warned of further escalation.

Yesterday the Russian Ministry of Defense accused the U.S. military in east-Syria of direct collaboration with the Islamic State:

US Army special units provide free passage for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) through the battle formations of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terrorists, the ministry said in a statement.“Facing no resistance of the ISIS militants, the SDF units are advancing along the left shore of the Euphrates towards Deir ez-Zor,” the statement reads.

The newly released images “clearly show that US special ops are stationed at the outposts previously set up by ISIS militants.”

“Despite that the US strongholds being located in the ISIS areas, no screening patrol has been organized at them,” the Russian Ministry of Defense said.

This map marks the currently relevant conflict area – (U.S. proxies – yellow, SAA – red, ISIS – black):

Source: Weekend Warrior

The accusations are plausible. Large parts of ISIS in Deir Ezzor consist of local tribal forces from eastern-Syria. U.S. special envoy Brett McGurk recently met tribal leaders who had earlier pledged allegiance to ISIS. Deals were made. As we wrote:

The U.S. diplomat tasked with the job, Brett McGurk, recently met with local tribal dignitaries of the area. Pictures of the meeting were published. Several people pointed out that the very same dignitaries were earlier pictured swearing allegiance to the Islamic State.

Just like during the “Anbar Awaking” in its war on Iraq the U.S. is bribing the local radicals to temporarily change over to its side. This will help the U.S. to claim that it defeated ISIS. But as soon as the payments stop the very same forces will revert back to their old game.

The local criminal Ahmad Abu Khawla, who had earlier fought for ISIS, was suddenly installed as commander of a newly invented “Deir Ezzor Military Council”, set up under U.S. special force control.

Last night a Russian three-star general and two colonels were killed in a mortar attack while they visited a Syrian army headquarter in Deir Ezzor:

Lieutenant-General Valery Asapov, of the Russian armed forces, has been killed after coming under shelling from Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) militants near Deir ez-Zor, the Russian Defense Ministry has announced.In its statement, the ministry said that Asapov was at a command outpost manned by Syrian troops, assisting commanders in the liberation of the city of Deir ez-Zor.

Lieutenant-General Valery Asapov is the highest-ranking Russian officer to be killed in the Syrian campaign. He was a commander of the 5th Army in Russia’s Eastern Military District, one of the four strategic commands in the Russian Armed Forces. The army is based in Russia’s Far East, in the city of Ussuriysk, some 98 km (61 miles) from Vladivostok.

For three years ISIS had besieged Syrian troops in Deir Ezzor city and its airport. It had not once managed to successfully attack the Syrian headquarter or to kill high ranking officers. Now, as U.S. proxy forces “advised” by U.S. special forces, have taken position north of Deir Ezzor, “ISIS” suddenly has the intelligence data and precision mortar capabilities to kill a bunch of visiting Russian officers?

That is not plausible. No one in Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran or Moscow will believe that.

The Russian military, as usual, reacts calmly and officially attributes the attack to ISIS. Doing so avoids pressure to immediately react to the attack. (The U.S. will falsely interpret this as a face-saving Russian retreat.)

But no one in Moscow will believe that the incident is independent of other recent maneuvers by the U.S. forces and independent of the earlier accusations the Russian military made against the U.S. forces.

Nominally the U.S. and Russia are both in Syria to fight the Islamic State. The Russian troops are legitimately there, having been invited by the Syrian government. The U.S. forces have no legal justification for their presence. So far open hostilities between the two sides had been avoided. But as the U.S. now obviously sets out to split Syria apart, openly cooperates with terrorists and does not even refrain from killing Russian officers, the gloves will have to come off.

U.S. Central Command has declared war on the Russian contingent in Syria. A high ranking Russian general was killed. This inevitably requires a reaction. The response does not necessarily have to come from Russian forces.  Moscow has many capable allies in the area. The response does not necessarily have to come in Syria.

“Accidents” and “incidents”, like an “ISIS mortar attacks”, or unintentional bombing of troop concentration of the other side, can happen on both sides of the front. Cars can blow up, bridges can collapse. Any U.S. officer or civilian official in the larger Middle East should be aware that they too are now targets.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria: U.S. Central Command Declares War on Russia

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Sunday asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to start investigating Israel’s settlement activities in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, and for the United Nations (UN) to inspect Israel’s nuclear facilities, according to a statement issued at the conclusion of a meeting in Ramallah for the PLO’s Executive Committee.

It also charged Israel of ethnic cleansing and racial segregation, which it also said were considered a war crime that should be investigated by the ICC.

The PLO said Israel’s settlement expansion, which it described as an aggression, is going to create “a system of discrimination and racial segregation.”

It accused Israel of carrying out what it describe as “silent ethnic cleansing” in Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, in areas south of Hebron and in other areas of the occupied West Bank.

As a result, said the PLO, it has decided “to refer the file of settlements as a war crime and the file of ethnic cleansing, discrimination and apartheid to the International Criminal Court with an urgent appeal to open a judicial investigation into the war crimes committed by the State of Israel in the Palestinian territories occupied during the 1967 aggression.”

President Mahmoud Abbas chairing a PLO meeting in Ramallah following his return from a trip that took him to the United Nations. (WAFA photo/Thayer Ghanayem) 

The PLO also called on the United Nations to take “necessary and speedy measures to inspect (Israel’s) nuclear facilities and the necessity of (Israel) implementing the decisions of the (Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons).”

It called on the UN to provide protection to the Palestinian people under Israeli occupation, saying that the international community, particularly the UN, cannot continue with its double standard policy and not implement international law and UN resolutions when it comes to Israel.

It said Jewish settler groups that have been terrorizing the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, such as Price Tag, the Hilltop Youths, and others should be considered as terrorist organizations and treated as such. It accused Israel of protecting these groups  while they carry out attacks and terror acts against the Palestinian civilians and their properties.

The PLO said that international law and UN resolutions relevant to the Palestinian cause remain

“the only base for a comprehensive and balanced political settlement that will provide security and stability to all people in the region, including the state of Palestine on the June 1967 borders with Jerusalem in its heart as the eternal capital of the people and state of Palestine, that will also protect the rights of the Palestinian refugees for return to their homes they were forced out from by military aggression as stated in UN resolution 194.”

Featured image is from PNN.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on PLO Urges International Criminal Court (ICC) to Investigate Israel’s Settlement Activities, UN to Check Its Nuclear Facilities

The Russian Defense Ministry wrote on Facebook on Sunday that US special forces have escorted the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) across ISIS positions.

“Without any resistance from the IS militants, the SDF units are moving further along left shore of the Euphrates River towards Deir Ezzor,” the defense authority said. “At the aero photo imaged, taken between September 8 and 12, 2017, at the positions of IS forces can been seen many US armored Hammer vehicles, used by the US special forces.”

“Though the US military units’ positions are in the areas of ISIS location, they do not have any signs of organized combat security,” the Defense Ministry added.

“The pictures show clearly that units of the US special force are located in the strongholds, the IS militants had equipped,” the statement reads.

“This means that all the US personnel there feel quite secure in the districts, controlled by terrorists,” the ministry said after highlighting that there was no signs that fighting has taken place.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Photos: US, Kurdish-led Forces Pass Through ISIS Territory with No Confrontation in Deir Ezzor

There have been disturbing reports of attacks by security forces against civilians, which are completely unacceptable. Aid activities…have been severely disrupted. I call on the Myanmar authorities to suspend military action, end the violence, uphold the rule of law, and recognize the right of return of all those who had to leave the country.” – United Nations Secretary General Antonio Gutteres (September 13, 2017) [1]

“Like so many other cases of ethnic cleansing, the Rohingya conflict is essentially a conflict over resources, namely oil and gas.” – Whitney Webb (September 20, 2017) [2]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Over the last year, and particularly in recent weeks, Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi has had her status as a pro-democracy icon tarnished.

Since August 25th, violence directed by the Myanmar security forces toward the Rohingya peoples has forced more than 400,000 to cross the border into neighbouring Bangladesh. [3]

Former allies and admirers of Aung San Suu Kyi are now condemning her inaction in the face of these measures against the Rohingya. There has been open talk of rescinding her Nobel Peace Prize. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is facing pressure to revoke the Myanmar leader’s status as an honourary Canadian citizen. Even fellow Nobel laureate and celebrated anti-apartheid activist Desmond Tutu could not contain his disappointment saying:

“If the political price of your ascension to the highest office in Myanmar is your silence, the price is surely too steep…It is incongruous for a symbol of righteousness to lead such a country.”

The Myanmar top general claims the recent crack down is in retaliation against Rohingya militants, a group “with no roots in the country” which attacked dozens of police positions on August 25th.

On September 13th, the UN Secretary-General gave the crisis top billing during a press conference. The ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Rohingya is making international headlines.

It is not unusual for mainstream press and Western political leaders to downplay human rights abuses by their allies (eg. Israel, Saudi Arabia) while waxing indignant about the crimes of official enemies (eg. Cuba, Venezuela, Syria).

So what are we to read into the change in attitude toward Aung San Suu Kyi, arguably a tool of US ambitions in the region since the beginning? This question dominates our focus on this week’s Global Research News Hour.

In our first half hour, fellow broadcaster Stephen Lendman joins us to share what prompted him to write two recent articles on the Rohingya and Aung San Suu Kyi. [4] [5] In a 20 minute discussion we explore the question of foreign support for Suu Kyi’s ‘pro-democracy’ movement, the role of celebrity in achieving imperial ends, and whether the current ‘calling out’ of the former darling of the West signals a welcome correction of US strategic aims.

In our second half hour, we probe more deeply into the question of US imperial aims. Chile-based writer Whitney Webb wrote an article for Mint Press News entitled Oil, Gas, Geopolitics Guide US Hand In Playing The Rohingya Crisis. This September 20th article, exposes a destabilization campaign being deliberately instigated through Saudi and Pakistani sources, prompting the Myanmar government’s violent crack-down. She brushes aside misleading rhetoric about human rights as a motivating factor and puts Myanmar in the context of basic power principles and the South Asian state’s critical role on the current geopolitical chessboard.

Stephen Lendman is an independent journalist, blogger and broadcaster with the Progressive Radio network. He is a project censored winner and recipient of the Mexican Journalists Club international journalism award. He is also the editor of and contributor to the 2014 book “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” from Clarity Press. He is also a frequent contributor to Global Research and a frequent guest on this program. His writings are archived on his new website: stephenlendman.org.

Whitney Webb is a contributor to Mintpress News and has written for several news organizations in both English and Spanish. Her stories have been featured on ZeroHedge, the Anti-Media, Global Research, 21st Century Wire, and True Activist among others. She is based in Temuco, Chile.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in everyThursday at 6pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

Notes: 

  1. http://webtv.un.org/watch/ant%C3%B3nio-guterres-un-secretary-general-press-conference-13-september-2017/5575111900001/
  2. http://www.mintpressnews.com/oil-gas-geopolitics-us-rohingya-crisis/232145/
  3. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41315924
  4. http://stephenlendman.org/2017/09/the-rohingya-genocide/
  5. http://stephenlendman.org/2017/09/nobel-laureate-suu-kyi-ignores-genocidal-slaughter-rohingyas/

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)

*     *     *

North Korea versus the United States: Who are the Demons? North Korea Lost 30% of Its Population as a Result of US Bombings in the 1950s

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 25, 2017

What most people in America do not know –and which is particularly relevant when assessing the “threats” of the DPRK to World peace– is that North Korea lost thirty percent of its population as a result of  US led bombings in the 1950s. US military sources confirm that 20 percent of North Korea’s population was killed off over a three period of intensive bombings.

“Unlimited Imperialism”, History of American Militarism: Light at the End of the Tunnel?

By Francis A. Boyle, September 25, 2017

The future of American foreign policy and the peace of the world lie in the hands of American citizens—not the bureaucrats, legislators, judges, lobbyists, think-tankers, professors, and self-styled experts who inhibit Washington, D.C., New York City, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Hyde Park/Chicago, Illinois. Civil resistance is the way to go!

“The Syrian People Knew that This War Was to Eliminate Their Country”: Syria’s Deputy Prime Minister’s Impassioned UN Address

By Stephen Lendman, September 25, 2017

Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Walid al-Moualem used his UN address to blast America and its rogue allies, while expressing gratitude to Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah for their vital support – combating the scourge of terrorism Washington supports.

The Iran “Nuclear Deal” Leads to War, Not Peace

By Tony Cartalucci, September 25, 2017

While US President Barack Obama posed as conciliatory toward Iran, the US was steeped deeply in not only a proxy war against Syria, but ultimately a proxy war aimed directly at Iran.

Signs Indicate Trump Continuing Obama’s Support for Al Qaeda in Syria

By Eric Zuesse, September 25, 2017

This is a U.S.-Saud-Israel core alliance, against Iran and against Iran’s ally Syria. From the very start of Donald Trump’s Presidency, the overthrow of Iran’s Government has been practically an obsession.

Unites Nations – and the Monster in the Room

By Peter Koenig, September 23, 2017

The ongoing US indiscriminate killing around the globe – tens of millions of people in the last 70 years alone – plus these ferocious, insane threats, and economic strangulations through illegal sanctions, are ripe for a new Nuremburg type tribunal.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Washington’s Deep-seated Aversion to Independent States

In recent years, Myanmar (formerly Burma) has only rarely been in the news. The quiet treatment owed much to the assumption that the country’s fledgling democracy was in “good hands” once the U.S-backed 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi gained renewed political prominence after the 2015 elections and assumed the office of state counselor a year later. However, the tide of international public opinion has been turning sharply against Suu Kyi as human rights activists, the United Nations and several other Nobel laureates have strongly criticized her handling of what has now become known as the “Rohingya crisis.”

The crisis centers on the plight of the Rohingya, a historically persecuted Muslim minority living in Myanmar’s coastal Rakhine state (formerly Arakan state). The Rohingya are also stateless, as Myanmar’s government has long refused to recognize their centuries-long claim to the region and has asserted on several occasions that the Rohingya are not native to Myanmar but instead “illegal immigrants” from neighboring Bangladesh. Deprived of citizenship and thus of basic rights, their suffering has been compounded by Myanmar’s government, which has used the military to violently intimidate the Rohingya and force them from their lands.

This month, in particular, the corporate media — as well as several prominent human rights organizations and international bodies, such as the UN — have given unprecedented attention to the conflict. Last Monday, for example, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, accused Myanmar of undertaking “a textbook example of ethnic cleansing” and stated that Myanmar’s campaign against the Rohingya violated international law. In the first two weeks of September, corporate media outlets have reported extensively on the crisis. Just last week, CNN published 13 different articles about the Rohingya’s plight. Calls have mounted for Suu Kyi, as Myanmar’s leader, to intervene.

Given the recent flurry of press coverage and the spike in concern among international bodies such as the United Nations, one might assume that the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya by Myanmar’s government is a recent phenomenon. However, in reality, the conflict itself is nearly a century old and its current escalation did not begin this year, but rather in 2011, and has continued to worsen ever since. Furthermore, numerous other instances of genocide, such as the Saudis’ destruction of Yemen and Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine, are hardly touched by the corporate media or mentioned in mainstream political discourse.

So why the sudden interest in Myanmar?

Oil and Gas Pipelines

Like so many other cases of ethnic cleansing, the Rohingya conflict is essentially a conflict over resources, namely oil and gas. In 2004, a massive natural gas field, named Shwe in honor of the long-time leader of Myanmar’s military junta, was discovered off the coast of Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal. In 2008, the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) secured the rights to the natural gas and bestowed upon the field its honorific name. Construction began a year later on two 1,200 km overland pipelines that would cross from Myanmar’s Rakhine state – home of the Rohingya – to the Yunnan province of China.

The pipelines — one carrying gas and the other carrying oil from the Middle East and Africa, brought to Myanmar by ship — missed their targeted dates for completion. The gas pipeline became operational in 2014 and carries more than 12 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year to China. The oil pipeline has proven more difficult to construct and is set to be completed later this year. Once completed, it will allow China easier access to oil from the Middle East and Africa and will reduce the transport time of such oil by as much as 30 percent.

Map showing the route of the China-Myanmar oil and gas pipelines. (Image: Shwe Gas Movement)

Map showing the route of the China-Myanmar oil and gas pipelines. (Image: Shwe Gas Movement)

Beyond the obvious boon of having increased and easier access to oil, the Shwe oil pipeline is of critical strategic importance to Chinese geopolitical interests. Currently, 80 percent of China’s imported oil passes through the straits of Malacca and disputed parts of the South China Sea. This current route would leave China vulnerable to a potential energy blockade imposed by the 6th Fleet of the U.S. Navy, were hostilities to arise between the two rival nations. Once the Shwe oil pipeline became operational, the Chinese would no longer have to worry about the possibility of the U.S. imposing a blockade on the vast majority of Chinese oil imports, a critical advantage for China during a period of rapidly decaying Sino-U.S. relations.

Since construction began, protests against the pipelines in Rakhine state and other areas of Myanmar have been constant. Residents of Rakhine state, in particular, have complained to the government and to CNPC on numerous occasions that the project had polluted rivers, destroyed private property and decimated the livelihood of local fishermen. In addition, many of the owners of properties expropriated for the project were not compensated by CNPC as promised, further stoking anti-pipeline demonstrations and unrest. Protesters have also repeatedly called for CNPC to supply the surrounding area with electricity, a basic utility still lacking there, and to offer more job opportunities for local workers.

The Myanmar government is a major stakeholder in the pipeline, as it owns a major stake in the Shwe field’s production of natural gas and is set to earn $7 million per year in annual right-of-way fees for the pipelines once both are completed. Given that public opposition forced Myanmar to suspend China’s Myitsone Dam project in Kachin state in 2011, the government is acutely aware that unchecked local resistance to the pipelines could potentially deprive it of millions of dollars in annual revenue. Thus, Myanmar’s military has been ardently pursuing the Rohingya, citing vengeance for periodic attacks launched by regional insurgents as a pretext for the violence that has forced hundreds of thousands from their homes.

A manufactured insurgency financed by Saudi Arabia

Ataullah abu Ammar Junjuni, a Pakistani national with deep ties to Saudi Arabia, center, and leader of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. (Photo: screenshot)

Ataullah abu Ammar Junjuni, a Pakistani national with deep ties to Saudi Arabia, center, and leader of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. (Photo: screenshot)

The “Rohingya insurgency” in Rakhine state is hardly the organic, local response to long-standing state suppression it claims to be. The group, now known as the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and formerly known as Harakah al-Yakin, is led by Ataullah abu Ammar Junjuni, a Pakistani national who worked as a Wahhabi imam in Saudi Arabia prior to arriving in Myanmar. According to a Reuters report from last year, the group is financed by both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia — and “a committee of 20 senior Rohingya emigres,” headquartered in Mecca, “oversees” the group.

ARSA is directly responsible for both last year’s and the current crackdown on Rohingya civilians and communities, as its attacks on Myanmar military installations and bases have precipitated the military’s violent response. ARSA has also targeted Buddhist civilians in Rakhine state, fomenting support among extremist Buddhists elsewhere in the country for the continued persecution of the Rohingya.

ARSA is also likely to have no shortage of recruits, as Saudi Arabia is spending over a billion dollars to construct 560 Wahhabi mosques in nearby Bangladesh, the nation where most Rohingya have fled to escape the violence.

Despite this, international corporate media outlets such as CNN and Al Jazeera have published sympathetic portrayals of the Wahhabist insurgency, asserting that the group “is not a terrorist group aimed at striking at the heart of Myanmar society as the government claims it is” but rather “a group of hopeless men” working to protect their people. However, Myanmar’s Muslim organizations have overwhelmingly condemned ARSA for its tactics and extremist views. The parallels to the corporate media coverage of Saudi-funded Syrian “rebels” are obvious.

What does Saudi Arabia stand to gain from funding and driving the Rohingya conflict? A large crisis in Rakhine state, particularly one that has gained the attention of the UN, has the potential to derail the completion of the Shwe oil pipeline to China, which is set to begin functioning later this year. Preventing this pipeline from being built might directly benefit Saudi Arabia to some extent, but would be far more profoundly beneficial to a major ally of the Saudis, the United States. Another U.S./Saudi ally, Israel, also stands to profit as a significant supplier of weapons to the Myanmar regime, a role that has continued unimpeded despite the conflict.

U.S.’ noncommittal response a product of its long-game cynicism

While China’s tacit support of Myanmar’s response to the Rohingya crisis was expected given its clear economic and strategic interests in the nation, some reports expressed surprise that the U.S. — the reputed, if selective, global “defender” of human rights — was “wary of involvement” in the conflict despite the outrage expressed by the UN and the corporate media. According to the Associated Press, the U.S. is concerned its involvement could “undermine the Asian country’s democratic leader,” Aung San Suu Kyi, whose rule is largely a product of Western funding.

U.S. interest in Myanmar is hardly new, as the U.S. government, along with various U.S. nongovernmental organizations, have spent millions on “democracy promotion” — specifically on funding the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Suu Kyi. In 2003, a document titled “Burma: Time for Change” by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) noted that the NLD, and its leader, “cannot survive in Burma [Myanmar] without the help of the United States and the international community.”

In the years since, the U.S. government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in order to cultivate “democratic institutions” and spur “economic development” in order to push for a new form of government in Myanmar. Between 2012 and 2014, the Obama administration gave $375 million to Myanmar for such efforts.

Furthermore, in 2015, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was the “leading donor” in Myanmar’s 2015 election, which saw Suu Kyi and her party claim decisive victories. It also funded the creation of Myanmar’s entire voter database that year and the use of all technology used in the election and subsequent elections. Ultimately, over $18 million was spent on the election by USAID.

In addition, several nongovernmental organizations, often funded by controversial U.S.-Hungarian billionaire George Soros, have been involved in Myanmar “democracy promotion.” Two such examples are the London-based Prospect Burma and the CFR umbrella group known as the Burma Task Force, which has taken up the Rohingya’s plight as its flagship issue since 2013. Soros’ Open Society Foundations have also been involved in Myanmar for some time, specifically in attempting to pressure Indian shareholders of the Shwe natural gas pipeline into abandoning the project.

Suu Kyi’s election marked a reversal for Myanmar in several ways, particularly economically. While Suu Kyi’s predecessors had favored investment from China and South Korea, Suu Kyi’s rise to power has seen increased U.S. investment in Myanmar, partly because the U.S. waited to remove sanctions against the country until she became the nation’s leader. Soon after her election, U.S. investment increased precipitously and is expected to double its current level by 2020. As of last month, U.S. companies had invested $250 million in Myanmar following Suu Kyi’s assumption of power.

However, this new surge in investment is not as new for U.S. oil and gas companies, who have been allowed to invest in Myanmar, despite U.S. sanctions, since 2012. The Obama administration made the exception due to the fear that the U.S. “would lose out to foreign competitors” before sanctions were fully lifted, a clear allusion to the Chinese and South Korean companies which had claimed large swaths of the Shwe gas field a year prior. However, Suu Kyi’s rise to prominence led to more lucrative contracts for U.S. and Western companies, particularly Shell Oil and ConocoPhillips.

“Puppets” with ideas of their own

Image result for myanmar china

Source: news.xinhuanet.com

While the uptick in U.S. corporate investment and U.S. ties is unsurprising given the U.S.’ own massive investment in Suu Kyi and her political party, the U.S. is less than pleased with Suu Kyi’s tenure thus far. As The New York Times recently noted, Suu Kyi has maintained and even strengthened her nation’s ties with China, failing to favor the U.S. interests responsible for her rise to power.

For instance, Suu Kyi has visited Beijing twice since becoming Myanmar’s leader yet has rejected an invitation to a conference organized by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. She has expressed her feelings that China “will do everything possible to promote our peace process,” referring to China’s eagerness to end sectarian fighting in Rakhine State and other area of Burma. There are also suggestions that the Chinese are seeking to develop a naval base in the port city of Kyaukpyu, something the U.S. desperately wants to avoid.

Min Zin, executive director of the Institute for Strategy and Policy in Myanmar, told the Times that

“As the United States recedes, Aung San Suu Kyi is relying more and more on China in Myanmar and on the international stage.”

Suu Kyi’s decision to keep China close is similar to the stance taken by Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte, who has fought to diminish the U.S.’ historically strong influence in his country and forge closer ties to both China and Russia. Interestingly, following the strengthening of ties between these two nations and China, Myanmar and the Philippines became the only Southeast Asian nations forced to battle against Saudi-funded Wahhabist insurgencies — ARSA in Myanmar and Daesh (ISIS) in the Philippines. Duterte has implicitly blamed the U.S. for the rise of Daesh in his country.

The rise of both Wahhabist groups has offered a convenient excuse for the U.S. to boost its military presence in both nations. In Myanmar, the U.S. State Department in late June removed Myanmar from its list of nations using child soldiers, despite having no valid reason for doing so, as Myanmar continues that odious practice.  The move — which conveniently ended the U.S.’ prohibition on providing U.S. military aid, training and U.S.-made weapons to Myanmar — was carried out over the objections of experts in the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which typically shapes U.S. policy on the issue.

The U.S. is set to further expand its direct military ties with the nation by way of an amendment hidden within the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). If passed, the NDAA would allow for the full normalization of ties between the militaries of the U.S. and Myanmar, and would enable the U.S. to provide the same level of technical and logistical assistance as well as training it currently provides in the Philippines. It would also open the path for the U.S. to establish a military base, which would definitively end Chinese hopes for its own naval base in Myanmar. Meanwhile, Israel, a strong ally of the United States, has continuously been selling arms to Myanmar’s military.

Playing both sides: a high-stakes geopolitical protection racket

In the context of the Rohingya crisis, the U.S. is playing both sides of the conflict. On one hand, its close ally Saudi Arabia is funding and fomenting the insurgency responsible for the worst recent escalation of the crisis, while the U.S. corporate media paints this insurgency as “freedom fighters” and focuses public attention on the issue at a critical time. On the other hand, the U.S. is offering Myanmar deeper military cooperation to help combat the very insurgency problem it is helping to create, while also offering increased U.S. corporate investment in Myanmar’s economy.

With calls for Suu Kyi to take drastic action to address the issue growing by the day, the U.S. has the ability to force her hand, both covertly and overtly. If the crisis continues to worsen, the possibility that Suu Kyi will request U.S. military assistance to combat an outbreak of “terrorism” will grow. Such an outcome would greatly benefit the U.S., which would gain a new military foothold in another Chinese border nation and also secure Myanmar’s oil and gas riches for itself.

U.S. strategic interest in Myanmar is hardly limited to dominating the exploitation of the nation’s lucrative oil and gas resources. A large part of the U.S. motivation to wrest influence from the Chinese is crucial to its larger regional “China containment” strategy — one that seeks to create a united front of U.S. influence surrounding China in order to reassert U.S. dominance in the region.

This goal was notably expressed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, in a private speech in 2013, stated “we’re going to ring China with missile defense. We’re going to put more of our fleet in the area.” This policy has been put into practice with Obama’s 2011 “pivot to Asia” — resulting in a massive increase in U.S. arms sales to countries neighboring China, as well as the proliferation of Saudi-backed insurgents in nations that seek to foster closer ties with Beijing, namely the Philippines and Myanmar.

Watch journalist John Pilger’s documentary, “The Coming War on China,” for a thorough examination of the U.S.’ China “containment” policy:

With so much to be gained in geopolitical goal-realization from a favorable veer in the current “crisis,” the U.S. is also acutely aware of what it stands to lose if the chips fall the other way. An opening of the Shwe oil pipeline to China would remove permanently the U.S.’ capacity to impose a blockade on 80 percent of China’s oil supply. Losing this massive strategic advantage would be disastrous for the U.S. were a major geopolitical conflict between the two rival powers to develop. With the U.S. threatening to remove China from the SWIFT banking system, tensions on the Korean peninsula flaring, and China touting a oil/gold/yuan alternative to the petrodollar, such a conflict is far from a remote possibility.

Thus, the U.S. interest in Myanmar is multi-faceted — a sinister union of the U.S.’ ever-growing demand for fossil fuels and its ruthless push to reassert political dominance in Asia at China’s expense. As with other recent U.S.-led efforts to control globally strategic hydrocarbon flows, the cloak is a Saudi-funded insurgency that has sparked and continues to foment a brutal crackdown against a disadvantaged minority group. The goal is simple: to force Myanmar to choose between either the United States or China as a “strategic partner.”

Ultimately, the Rohingya are the latest pawns of the United States’ desperate attempts to cling to global dominance under the guise of “humanitarianism.” If U.S. interests are successful and oust the Chinese, the Rohingya will continue to suffer all the same. The only difference will be that their tormentors will answer to different masters.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Oil, Gas and Geopolitics: US Hand in Playing the Rohingya Crisis against China

Featured image: A new working paper links the Flint water crisis to a “horrifyingly large” increase in fetal death rates. (Photo: Jay Weenig/flickr/cc)

Shedding new light on the human costs of the ongoing Flint water crisis—as well as underscoring the need for regulatory oversight—a new working paper links the city’s now infamous switch from the Detroit system to the Flint River as a water source with a decrease in fertility rates and a spike in fetal death rates.

The paper (pdf) from researchers from the University of Kansas and West Virginia University is the first to look at lead-poisoned water’s impact on fertility and birth outcomes. It compares birth and fetal death rates, which refers to miscarriages after 20 weeks of gestation, in Flint with those in other Michigan cities from 2008 to 2015—before and after the 2014 water switch.

Following the change in the water source, women in Flint aged 15-49 had a general fertility rate (GFR) decease of 12 percent. Fetal death rates for the group increased by 58 percent—a magnitude the researchers describe as “horrifyingly large.”

“We find no evidence of avoidance behavior,” said David Slusky, assistant professor of economics at the University of Kansas. “Either Flint residents were unable to conceive children, or women were having more miscarriages during this time.”

If water switch had not occurred, the researchers estimate that between November 2013 and March 2015 between 198 and 276 more children would have been born.

They write:

It is very possible that many residents who may have had a stillborn baby or miscarried during the water switch do not realize that exposure to lead increased their risk of these outcomes. While researchers are aware of these risks, the public may not be. Therefore, this work may inform citizens that they should sign up for this registry as they were more affected by the water switch than they may have previously realized.

Given the harm lead-tainted water can cause, the researchers say their work speaks to the need for more stringent regulatory agencies.

“In the future we would like to have a government that is more responsive and more active in ensuring that the water that comes out of people’s taps is safe,” Slusky said.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Research Links Flint Water Crisis to ‘Horrifyingly Large’ Spike in Fetal Death Rates

Alongside Washington and Venezuela’s elite, the Trudeau government is seeking to oust President Nicolás Maduro. While Ottawa’s campaign has recently grown, official Canada has long opposed the pro-poor, pro-working class Bolivarian Revolution, which has won 19 of 21 elections since 1998.

Following a similar move by the Trump Administration, Global Affairs Canada sanctioned 40 Venezuelans on Friday. In a move that probably violates the UN charter, the elected president, vice president and 38 other officials had their assets in Canada frozen and Canadians are barred from having financial relations with these individuals.

In recent months foreign minister Chrystia Freeland has repeatedly criticized Maduro’s government. She accused Caracas of “dictatorial intentions”, imprisoning political opponents and “robbing the Venezuelan people of their fundamental democratic rights”. Since taking office the Liberals have supported efforts to condemn the Maduro government at the Organization of American States (OAS) and promoted an international mediation designed to weaken Venezuela’s leftist government (all the while staying mum about Brazil’s imposed president who has a 5% approval rating and far worse human rights violations in Mexico).

Beyond these public interventions designed to stoke internal unrest, Ottawa has directly aided an often-unsavoury Venezuelan opposition. A specialist in social media and political transition, outgoing Canadian ambassador Ben Rowswell told the Ottawa Citizen in August:

We established quite a significant internet presence inside Venezuela, so that we could then engage tens of thousands of Venezuelan citizens in a conversation on human rights. We became one of the most vocal embassies in speaking out on human rights issues and encouraging Venezuelans to speak out.”

(Can you imagine the hue and cry if a Russian ambassador said something similar about Canada?) Rowswell added that Canada would continue to support the domestic opposition after his departure from Caracas since “Freeland has Venezuela way at the top of her priority list.”

While not forthcoming with information about the groups they support in Venezuela, Ottawa has long funnelled money to the US-backed opposition. In 2010 the foremost researcher on U.S. funding to the opposition, Eva Golinger, claimed Canadian groups were playing a growing role in Venezuela and according to a 2010 report from Spanish NGO Fride, “Canada is the third most important provider of democracy assistance” to Venezuela after the US and Spain. In “The Revolution Will Not Be Destabilized: Ottawa’s democracy promoters target Venezuela” Anthony Fenton details Canadian funding to anti-government groups. Among other examples, he cites a $94,580 grant to opposition NGO Asociación Civil Consorcio Desarrollo y Justicia in 2007 and $22,000 to Súmate in 2005Súmate leader Maria Corina Machado, who Foreign Affairs invited to Ottawa in January 2005, backed the “Carmona Decree” during the 2002 coup against President Hugo Chavez, which dissolved the National Assembly and Supreme Court and suspended the elected government, Attorney General, Comptroller General, governors as well as mayors elected during Chavez’s administration. (Machado remains a leading figure in the opposition.)

Most Latin American leaders condemned the short-lived coup against Chavez, but Canadian diplomats were silent. It was particularly hypocritical of Ottawa to accept Chavez’s ouster since a year earlier, during the Summit of the Americas in Québec City, Jean Chrétien’s Liberals made a big show of the OAS’ new “democracy clause” that was supposed to commit the hemisphere to electoral democracy.

For its part, the Harper government repeatedly criticized Chavez. In April 2009 Prime Minister Stephen Harper responded to a question regarding Venezuela by saying,

I don’t take any of these rogue states lightly”.

After meeting only with opposition figures during a trip to Venezuela the next year Peter Kent, minister of state for the Americas, said:

Democratic space within Venezuela has been shrinking and in this election year, Canada is very concerned about the rights of all Venezuelans to participate in the democratic process.”

The Bolivarian Revolution has faced a decade and a half of Liberal and Conservative hostility. While the NDP has sometimes challenged the government’s Venezuelan policy, the party’s current foreign critic has echoed Washington’s position. On at least two occasions Hélène Laverdière has demanded Ottawa do more to undermine the Maduro government. In a June 2016 press release Laverdière bemoaned “the erosion of democracy” and the need for Ottawa to “defend democracy in Venezuela” while in August the former Foreign Affairs employee told CBC

we would like to see the (Canadian) government be more active in … calling for the release of political prisoners, the holding of elections and respecting the National Assembly.”

Conversely, Laverdière stayed mum when Donald Trump threatened to invade Venezuela last month and she has yet to criticize the recently announced Canadian sanctions.

NDP members should be appalled at their foreign critic’s position. For Canadians more generally it’s time to challenge our government’s bid to undermine what has been an essentially democratic effort to empower Venezuela’s poor and working class.

Yves Engler is the author of A Propaganda System: How Canada’s Government, Corporations, Media and Academia Sell War and Canada in Africa: 300 years of aid and exploitationRead other articles by Yves.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trudeau Government Seeking to Oust Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro

This article was first published in December 2011. Does the DPRK constitute a security threat to the USA?

The American people should, in the words of Vietnam War Veteran Brian Willson  “place themselves in the position of people living in targeted countries. That North Korea, a nation of 24 million people, i.e., one-twentieth the population of the U.S., many of them poor, a land slightly larger in area than the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, continues to be one of the most demonized nations and least understood, totally perplexes the Korean people.”

What most people in America do not know –and which is particularly relevant when assessing the “threats” of the DPRK to World peace– is that North Korea lost thirty percent of its population as a result of  US led bombings in the 1950s. US military sources confirm that 20 percent of North Korea’s population was killed off over a three period of intensive bombings:

After destroying North Korea’s 78 cities and thousands of her villages, and killing countless numbers of her civilians, [General] LeMay remarked, “Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population.” It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long “hot” war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerance of another.” (quoted in Richard Rhodes, “The General and World War III,” The New Yorker, June 19, 1995, p. 53.)

In comparison, during the Second World War the United Kingdom lost 0.94% of its population, France lost 1.35%, China lost 1.89% and the US lost 0.32%. During the Korean war, North Korea lost 30 % of its population, which means that every single family in North korea lost a loved one in the course of the Korean War.

These figures of civilian deaths in North Korea should also be compared to those compiled for Iraq by the Lancet Study (John Hopkins School of Public Health). The Lancet study estimated a total of 655,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, following the US led invasion (March 2003- June 2006).

The US never apologized for having killed 30 percent of North Korea’s population. Quite the opposite. The main thrust of US foreign policy has been to demonize the victims of US led wars.

For more than half a century, Washington has contributed to the political isolation and impoverishment of North Korea. Moreover, US sponsored sanctions on Pyongyang have contributed to destabilizing the country’s economy.

North Korea has been protrayed as part of an “axis of evil”. For what?

The unspoken victim of US military aggression, the DPRK is portrayed as a failed war-mongering “Rogue State”, a “State sponsor of terrorism” and a “threat to World peace”. These stylized accusations become part of a consensus, which we dare not question. The Lie becomes the Truth. North Korea is heralded as a threat. America is not the aggressor but “the victim”.

Washington’s intent from the very outset was to destroy North Korea and demonize an entire population. The US has also stood in the way of the reunification of North and South Korea.

People across America can put politics aside and relate to the suffering and hardships of the people of North Korea. War Veteran Brian Willson provides a moving assessment of the plight of the North Korean people:

“Everyone I talked with, dozens and dozens of folks, lost one if not many more family members during the war, especially from the continuous bombing, much of it incendiary and napalm, deliberately dropped on virtually every space in the country. “Every means of communication, every installation, factory, city, and village” was ordered bombed by General MacArthur in the fall of 1950. It never stopped until the day of the armistice on July 27, 1953. The pained memories of people are still obvious, and their anger at “America” is often expressed, though they were very welcoming and gracious to me. Ten million Korean families remain permanently separated from each other due to the military patrolled and fenced dividing line spanning 150 miles across the entire Peninsula.

Let us make it very clear here for western readers. North Korea was virtually totally destroyed during the “Korean War.” U.S. General Douglas MacArthur’s architect for the criminal air campaign was Strategic Air Command head General Curtis LeMay who had proudly conducted the earlier March 10 – August 15, 1945 continuous incendiary bombings of Japan that had destroyed 63 major cities and murdered a million citizens. (The deadly Atomic bombings actually killed far fewer people.).Eight years later, after destroying North Korea’s 78 cities and thousands of her villages, and killing countless numbers of her civilians, LeMay remarked, “Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population.” It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long “hot” war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerance of another.

Virtually every person wanted to know what I thought of Bush’s recent accusation of North Korea as part of an “axis of evil.” I shared with them my own outrage and fears, and they seemed relieved to know that not all “Americans” are so cruel and bellicose. As with people in so many other nations with whom the U.S. has treated with hostility, they simply cannot understand why the U.S. is so obsessed with them.”(Brian Willson, Korea and the Axis of Evil, Global Research, October 12, 2006 emphasis added)

Regime Change: What Lies ahead for North Korea?

While US-NATO led wars waged in the wake of what is euphemistically called the post War era, have resulted in millions of civilians deaths, America is upheld as the guardian of democracy and World Peace.

In a bitter irony, Washington’s “peace-making role” in relation to North Korea was casually reconfirmed in a statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton following the death of the DPKR’s leader Kim Jong Il.  Clinton “urged North Korea’s new leadership to embrace “the path of peace”: “We are deeply concerned with the well-being of the North Korean people and our thoughts and prayers are with them during these difficult times.”

The State Department spokesperson clarified that Clinton’s words did not constitute as an expression of “condolence” but rather were meant as “a signal of our expectations and hopes for the new regime.” pointing to a scenario of  US sponsored “democratization” and “regime change” under the banner of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).

In the words of Hillary Clinton, Washington’s mandate is the “well-being of the North Korean people”, of which, lest we forget, 30 percent were killed in the 1950s during a 37 month-long “humanitarian bombing campaign”…

 

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on North Korea versus the United States: Who are the Demons? North Korea Lost 30% of Its Population as a Result of US Bombings in the 1950s

This article was first published in December 2011. Does the DPRK constitute a security threat to the USA?

The American people should, in the words of Vietnam War Veteran Brian Willson  “place themselves in the position of people living in targeted countries. That North Korea, a nation of 24 million people, i.e., one-twentieth the population of the U.S., many of them poor, a land slightly larger in area than the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, continues to be one of the most demonized nations and least understood, totally perplexes the Korean people.”

What most people in America do not know –and which is particularly relevant when assessing the “threats” of the DPRK to World peace– is that North Korea lost thirty percent of its population as a result of  US led bombings in the 1950s. US military sources confirm that 20 percent of North Korea’s population was killed off over a three period of intensive bombings:

After destroying North Korea’s 78 cities and thousands of her villages, and killing countless numbers of her civilians, [General] LeMay remarked, “Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population.” It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long “hot” war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerance of another.” (quoted in Richard Rhodes, “The General and World War III,” The New Yorker, June 19, 1995, p. 53.)

In comparison, during the Second World War the United Kingdom lost 0.94% of its population, France lost 1.35%, China lost 1.89% and the US lost 0.32%. During the Korean war, North Korea lost 30 % of its population, which means that every single family in North korea lost a loved one in the course of the Korean War.

These figures of civilian deaths in North Korea should also be compared to those compiled for Iraq by the Lancet Study (John Hopkins School of Public Health). The Lancet study estimated a total of 655,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, following the US led invasion (March 2003- June 2006).

The US never apologized for having killed 30 percent of North Korea’s population. Quite the opposite. The main thrust of US foreign policy has been to demonize the victims of US led wars.

For more than half a century, Washington has contributed to the political isolation and impoverishment of North Korea. Moreover, US sponsored sanctions on Pyongyang have contributed to destabilizing the country’s economy.

North Korea has been protrayed as part of an “axis of evil”. For what?

The unspoken victim of US military aggression, the DPRK is portrayed as a failed war-mongering “Rogue State”, a “State sponsor of terrorism” and a “threat to World peace”. These stylized accusations become part of a consensus, which we dare not question. The Lie becomes the Truth. North Korea is heralded as a threat. America is not the aggressor but “the victim”.

Washington’s intent from the very outset was to destroy North Korea and demonize an entire population. The US has also stood in the way of the reunification of North and South Korea.

People across America can put politics aside and relate to the suffering and hardships of the people of North Korea. War Veteran Brian Willson provides a moving assessment of the plight of the North Korean people:

“Everyone I talked with, dozens and dozens of folks, lost one if not many more family members during the war, especially from the continuous bombing, much of it incendiary and napalm, deliberately dropped on virtually every space in the country. “Every means of communication, every installation, factory, city, and village” was ordered bombed by General MacArthur in the fall of 1950. It never stopped until the day of the armistice on July 27, 1953. The pained memories of people are still obvious, and their anger at “America” is often expressed, though they were very welcoming and gracious to me. Ten million Korean families remain permanently separated from each other due to the military patrolled and fenced dividing line spanning 150 miles across the entire Peninsula.

Let us make it very clear here for western readers. North Korea was virtually totally destroyed during the “Korean War.” U.S. General Douglas MacArthur’s architect for the criminal air campaign was Strategic Air Command head General Curtis LeMay who had proudly conducted the earlier March 10 – August 15, 1945 continuous incendiary bombings of Japan that had destroyed 63 major cities and murdered a million citizens. (The deadly Atomic bombings actually killed far fewer people.).Eight years later, after destroying North Korea’s 78 cities and thousands of her villages, and killing countless numbers of her civilians, LeMay remarked, “Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population.” It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long “hot” war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerance of another.

Virtually every person wanted to know what I thought of Bush’s recent accusation of North Korea as part of an “axis of evil.” I shared with them my own outrage and fears, and they seemed relieved to know that not all “Americans” are so cruel and bellicose. As with people in so many other nations with whom the U.S. has treated with hostility, they simply cannot understand why the U.S. is so obsessed with them.”(Brian Willson, Korea and the Axis of Evil, Global Research, October 12, 2006 emphasis added)

Regime Change: What Lies ahead for North Korea?

While US-NATO led wars waged in the wake of what is euphemistically called the post War era, have resulted in millions of civilians deaths, America is upheld as the guardian of democracy and World Peace.

In a bitter irony, Washington’s “peace-making role” in relation to North Korea was casually reconfirmed in a statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton following the death of the DPKR’s leader Kim Jong Il.  Clinton “urged North Korea’s new leadership to embrace “the path of peace”: “We are deeply concerned with the well-being of the North Korean people and our thoughts and prayers are with them during these difficult times.”

The State Department spokesperson clarified that Clinton’s words did not constitute as an expression of “condolence” but rather were meant as “a signal of our expectations and hopes for the new regime.” pointing to a scenario of  US sponsored “democratization” and “regime change” under the banner of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).

In the words of Hillary Clinton, Washington’s mandate is the “well-being of the North Korean people”, of which, lest we forget, 30 percent were killed in the 1950s during a 37 month-long “humanitarian bombing campaign”…

 

To the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources  (DNR), regarding PolyMet’s most recent permitting request:

(Email address: [email protected]):

Here are my reasons that the DNR should reject PolyMet’s permit applications for their earthen tailings dam, their liquid slurry pipeline pumping operation and their open pit sulfide mine near the headwaters of the St Louis River:

For starters, it is critically important to understand that the foreign Penny Stock company called PolyMet has a current share price of $0.63 per share, down from $1.50 per share in 2014. PolyMet, a total amateur in the business, has never operated a single mine in its short corporate life nor has it earned a single penny from mining. Their only income comes from selling shares to speculators and borrowing money from investors to pay their executives and employees. In addition, PolyMet, being an inanimate money-making corporation (that by definition has no conscience), cannot be trusted to tell the public about all the risks to the environment (including wildlife, fish, water, soil and air) that their exploitation of the earth could generate.

Therefore PolyMet can be expected to hide the fact that their operations could easily cause a massive environmental catastrophe similar to what happened at Mount Polley, British Columbia in 2014 (carefully study the article further below for the frightening details). Mount Polley was a state of the art copper mining operation.

Every citizen stakeholder that is potentially adversely affected by PolyMet’s operation deserves to be fully informed by (theoretically) unbiased regulators such as the MN DNR about the potentially catastrophic risk to the water users who happen to live downstream from the massive tailings lagoon, whose (eventual) 250 foot high earthen dam is at a high risk of failing in some way or other sometime in the future, especially in the event of a large deluge of rain, an earthquake or a design flaw that could cause the earthen dam to dissolve, leak, over-top or structurally fail in some other way, including being damaged by sabotage. The risks will exist for eternity, since the toxic metals (see list below) in the lagoon will never degrade into non-toxic forms.

In addition, the vulnerable pipeline that will carry the toxic sludge from the processing plant to the slurry pond is at high risk of sabotage, with serious environmental contamination that could possibly be even worse than the bursting of a dirty frack oil pipeline such as could happen from the foreign pipeline company Enbridge as it transports dirty oil from the tar sands in Canada or from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota. I don’t believe that PolyMet has dealt with the possibility of sabotage.

Up to this point, both PolyMet and Twin Metals (and all of the governmental agencies that have been involved in the approval process) have been seriously neglectful in educating the public about all the potential lethal dangers of either the pipeline or the massive amount of toxic liquids that will forever cause the deaths of any water bird that lands on the lake-like lagoon (a la Butte, Montana’s ever-lastingly poisonous mining tailings “pond” and the nearby defunct Berkeley open pit mine [now a toxic “lake”] that has had its water pumps shut down and is now nearly filled to the brim with poisonous water that has high levels of dissolved toxic metals and a pH approximating that of stomach acid!).

It seems to me that the MN DNR would be exceedingly naïve if it trusts PolyMet’s promises to treat the water from the tailings pond by some pie-in-the-sky reverse osmosis or other de-watering plan that has not yet been tried on a commercial level. Those promises are theoretical and should not be trusted.

To more fully understand the importance of the Butte, Montana disaster, I attach below an aerial view photo of Butte’s serious SuperFund site that will be impossible for the EPA to remediate. Every attempt to de-acidify or alkalinize the tailings lagoon has failed miserably. And now, the future of the city of Butte, which was once happily promised jobs, jobs, jobs by the copper bosses, is extremely bleak. Butte, whose rivers and streams experience regular fish kills due to the copper mine-caused water contamination, is becoming de-populated. Could the same thing happen to downstream communities in northern Minnesota?

(See my article about the Butte environmental catastrophe.)

The DNR, the EPA, and the Forest Service are surely ethically – and also legally, I hope – obligated to adequately educate and fully inform every citizen that relies on the drinking water that is in the nearby aquifers about all of the dangers of extracting (and grinding up into a fine powder) low-grade copper sulfide or nickel sulfide ore (99+% of which is hazardous waste material), whether the risks are catastrophic or minor.

One cannot expect the full disclosure of all risks by any corporation, whether it is a major trans-national mining corporation like Glencore or Antofagasta or a rookie Penny Stock company like PolyMet or Twin Metals. Their share-holders and corporate executives would not stand for totally full disclosure, because such information could adversely affect their investments or the company’s prestige.

Regulatory agencies like the DNR are ethically obligated to inform those of us whose precious and increasingly threatened water is at high risk of being contaminated, especially if the culprits are foreign corporations that have investors who don’t live here. The St Louis River – and thus Lake Superior – is definitely at risk of contamination if the dam fails or the pipeline breaks or is sabotaged. Any such failure – whether gradual or sudden – will impact millions of people, animals and plants downstream.

In the worst case scenario (the Mount Polley scenario), the St Louis River watershed (and therefore Lake Superior) will be poisoned to such a degree that it will never be remediable or usable for fishing, hunting, farming, wild rice harvesting, canoeing, swimming and drinking by those who will never benefit from a copper mine. Even a trillion dollar escrow account posted by PolyMet would be woefully inadequate to meet the costs of an environmental catastrophe like Mount Polley.

The chances of the failure of an earthen tailings dam with walls that are 250 feet high and resulting in an environmental disaster in northern Minnesota will significantly increase every time the dam needs to be raised. The raising of an earthen dam by large bulldozers adding potentially dissolvable additional earth (of what consistency?) is of itself a risky effort, since each level will necessarily have to be narrower and narrower and therefore increasingly more likely to leak, liquefy and/or burst.

Why we Should Fear the Creatures from the Black PolyMet Lagoon

The public needs to understand that the liquid slurry that is piped into the lagoon by a pipeline system of uncertain length or safety will surely contain toxic levels of some of the following common sulfide-mining toxic by-products (that are only safe if the remain buried in the ground as sulfide ore: Lead, Arsenic, Nickel, Zinc, Cadmium, Vanadium, Antimony, Manganese and Mercury. This list of hazardous waste minerals were the ones that were present in large quantities in the contaminated sludge that destroyed Mount Polley’s Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake and contaminated the Fraser River.

Duluth residents, representing the largest concentrated population that could be adversely affected by a copper/nickel mine disaster upstream, need to be fully informed that, in the event of a leak or full-fledged collapse of the dam, the fishable, swimmable St Louis River and eventually Duluth’s drinking water from Lake Superior will be contaminated, perhaps mortally and irretrievably.

Earthen dams are notorious for dissolving and collapsing, especially in the presence of certain weather circumstances that are out of the control of any mine operator. One only has to consider the frequent flash floods that result from a sudden deluge of rain similar to the one Duluth experienced a few years ago – and which are increasingly common all over our warming, climate-unstable planet.

To back up this testimony, I offer the following videos – plus an eye-opening article about the Mount Polley environmental disaster of 2014, which should make the DNR decision-makers reject PolyMet’s permits. Mount Polley is considered the worst environmental catastrophe in the history of Canada. And it was man-made (actually corporate-made).

Thank you for your attention. Gary G. Kohls, MD, Duluth, MN


PS: I ask the MN DNR committee that is evaluating the PolyMet’s permit applications to please watch the following videos:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33lhPsd7L1c

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmJY5D4fNM8

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfanpPz8HeA

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAItFxc8bME&feature=youtu.be

5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg3yd8GPSnA

Then study the following article:

The PolyMet and Twin Metals Copper Mining Projects and the Lethal Risks to the St Louis River Watershed, Lake Superior and the BWCA

Acceptable Risks for Foreign Investors, but What About the Potential Victims Downstream?

Gary G. Kohls, MD – 1-31-17

“ALL tailings “ponds” are problems. If they don’t breach and spill massive amounts of toxic sludge into the environment like at Mount Polley, they leach that contamination slowly, poisoning the waters and lands around them.”  – Source

In 2016, the Duluth News-Tribune published a Local News article with the title “EPA signals its support for final PolyMet review”.

The article ended with what I regard as an intentionally deceptive and woefully insufficient sentence: “Critics say the project is likely to taint downstream waters with acidic runoff.”

In a column for the Duluth Reader, which I wrote in response, I attempted to correct the notion that “acidic runoff” is the major reason for the widespread opposition to PolyMet’s proposed copper/nickel mining project (and the Twin Metals Project, which is adjacent to the pristine In a column for the Duluth Reader, which I wrote in response, I attempted to correct the notion that simple “acidic runoff” is the major reason for the widespread opposition to PolyMet’s proposed copper/nickel mining project (in addition to the Twin Metals Project, which is adjacent to the pristine Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness). Both PolyMet and Twin Metals, it should be mentioned, are Penny Stock companies from Canada and are total novices when it comes to operating copper/nickel sulfuric acid-producing mines. The companies have never earned a penny producing a product. All their operating budgets have come from loans, speculators, major transnational mining corporations and other investors that are hoping that the regulatory agencies will succumb to corporate and public pressure,so that the mines will be built and they can cash in on their investments.

Typical of many media outlets that depend on advertising revenues from Big Business, the Duluth News-Tribune failed to report on a recent catastrophic “tainting of downstream waters” that had happened a couple of years earlier in Canada.

The Mount Polley Copper Mining Disaster of 2014

On August 4th, 2014 the earthen dam holding back the massive mine tailings lagoon at the Imperial Metals Mount Polley (British Columbia) gold and copper mine burst. The dam breach suddenly unleashed around 25 million cubic meters of toxic sludge containing heavy metals, processing chemicals and other hazardous waste material that could have filled 9,800 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The toxic sludge flowed into Polley Lake, then into the tiny Hazeltine Creek and then into the previously pristine Quesnel Lake and the Quesnel River, a tributary of the 800 mile-long Fraser River, a migratory Sockeye salmon-bearing river that empties into the Georgia Strait and the Pacific Ocean at Vancouver, B.C.

Typical of most government and industry responses to such catastrophic mining industry failures, Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party government of Canada – not to mention the ruling Liberal Party government of British Columbia – tried to cover up the disaster. Therefore most North Americans on either side of the border (certainly us Minnesotans) were unaware of the event, thanks in part to our co-opted corporate-controlled media that failed to adequately report on the disaster.

Immediately below are links to dramatic photos and videos that have been available to the US government and media agencies, but which were not reported on the evening news of either local or regional media outlets.

Imperial Metals Corporation of Vancouver, the owner of the mine, acknowledged that they, as do all sulfide mining operations, had been regularly piping massive amounts of toxic metals into the slurry (aka “slime”) pond in the years leading up to the failure of the earthen dam. See the photos below. Click to enlarge.

A series of high-altitude photos of the progressively filling tailings lagoon from 2009 to just before it breached August 4, 2014

The following list of hazardous waste minerals that had been dumped into the “tailings” pond is taken from Environment Canada’s website. Environment Canada reported that the poisonous metallic contaminants that had been dumped in the tailings pond included: Lead, Arsenic, Nickel, Zinc, Cadmium, Vanadium, Antimony, Manganese and Mercury.

Each of these 9 heavy metal contaminants are highly toxic to all life forms and have no safe levels in drinking water or in the serum or tissues of humans or other animals. These contaminants, commonly found in hard rock sulfide mines, are also lethal to plant life, but only when the rock has been ground up into fine powder that is necessary in the copper extraction process.

It is important to understand that polluted aquifers can never be de-toxified by any known process.

Below is a selection of links to some of the many videos of the Mount Polley tailings pond dam failure:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33lhPsd7L1c

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfMolg5Ul_0

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfanpPz8HeA

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAItFxc8bME&feature=youtu.be

5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg3yd8GPSnA

And here is an important video of an experimental tailings dam breach that can happen to any earthen dam:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWEWVw7TGk4

The birds-eye view of the mouth of the tiny (normally about 6 feet wide) Hazeltine Creek (now 120-150 feet wide) as it enters into Quesnel Lake, the previously deepest, purest lake in British Columbia and a famous trout and salmon fishery; that is, until August 4, 2014, when 24,000,000 cubic meters of toxic water and sludge breached the Mt Polley mine’s tailings dam and exploded downstream. The tan material in the photo above represents millions of floating dead trees that were swept away in the massive sludge flood.

Also available above are satellite photos of Imperial Metals’ Mt Polley copper/gold mining facility before and after it suddenly dissolved and broke in 2014. Note the change in color of the tailings pond, the nearby lakes and the widening of the Hazeltine Creek that directed the toxic sludge into Quesnel Lake. The creek had been invisible to satellite photos until the flood.

A Final Thought

Northern Minnesotans, Native American Water Protectors (like the heroes at Standing Rock), sportsmen, environmentalists, downstream businesses, wild rice harvesters, fish, game, birds and just plain working folks whose babies and other vulnerable beings with developing brains need non-toxic water to thrive or simply survive must understand that such relatively common catastrophes could destroy the aquifers in the BWCAW, Birch Lake, the Partridge River, the Embarrass River, the St. Louis River, the city of Duluth and ultimately, Lake Superior.

In the considered opinion of many ethical thinkers, any human with an ounce of morality would conclude that the risks of allowing amateur mining companies such as PolyMet and Twin Metals – and other similarly amoral, non-human corporations like Switzerland’s GlencoreXstrata or Chile’s Antofagasta are too great. (Glencore and Antofagasta are the two major multinational mining corporations that control PolyMet and Twin Metals.) The plans to open and operate sulfuric acid-producing copper mines in pristine watersheds that are just upstream and upwind from children and other living things should be shelved for the good of the planet. But somehow, the legislators who are often in bed with their corporate paymasters are quite willing to ignore the risks in favor of a few temporary jobs. The risks seem to be OK for conscienceless corporations and their investors, but they don’t live here.

States that surround the potentially poisoned wilderness areas as well as Lake Superior and the other downstream great lakes should have a say in the issue. Bullying corporations, along with their co-opted friends in positions of power in state and national capitals are quite willing to risk permanent catastrophes such as Mt Polley.

They, being the sociopathic entities that they are, can’t be expected to act as ethical humans, especially when billions of dollars are involved.

Experimenting with copper mining in water-rich northern Minnesota should not be done. The risks are too high. It must be stopped.

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, the area’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination regimens, and other movements that threaten the environment, prosperity, democracy, civility and the health and longevity of the populace. Many of his columns are archived at

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

https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=017930374292714292268%3Avw5cotp1r2c&q=gary+kohls+articles&sa=Search&siteurl=consortiumnews.com%2Farchives%2F&ref=consortiumnews.com%2Fabout%2F&ss=3193j1359707j10#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=gary%20kohls%20articles&gsc.page=1 or at

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

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Environmental Pollution: There Should be no Experimental Copper Mines Dug in Water-rich Northern Minnesota

Trump at War with Dissent

September 25th, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Trump continues finding ways to disgrace himself, the latest episode Friday evening, criticizing legitimate dissent.

It’s the highest form of patriotism, the comment attributed to Thomas Jefferson, whether or not he actually said it.

In 1961, The Use of Force in International Affairs publication used the phrase, asking

“(i)f what your country is doing seems to you practically and morally wrong, is dissent the highest form of patriotism?”

During the height of the Vietnam war in 1969, New York Mayor John Lindsey said

“(w)e cannot rest content with the charge from Washington that…peaceful protest(s) (are) unpatriotic…The fact is that this dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

The late Howard Zinn and other distinguished figures said the same thing in similar or identical language.

During a Friday campaign rally in Alabama, Trump disgraced himself by irresponsibly blasting NFL players – kneeling, not standing, during the national anthem, their legitimate right of dissent, and why not. There’s plenty to dissent about America’s rogue state policies at home and abroad.

Black players protesting police brutality deserve respect for doing the right thing. Not according to Trump, bellowing

“(w)ouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! He’s fired. He’s fired!’ ”

“You know, some owner is going to do that. He’s going to say, ‘That guy that disrespects our flag, he’s fired.’ And that owner (will) be the most popular person in the country.”

During America’s 1899 – 1902 war on the Philippines, Mark Twain blasted another venerable US symbol.

Saying “I am an anti-imperialist,” he added “I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land,” harshly criticizing ruthless US mass slaughter and destruction.

Twain is an iconic figure in US history. Imagine what he’d say today about America smashing one country after another. He’d be a vocal Trump critic.

Image result for Colin Kaepernick

Unsigned NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick began what’s perhaps becoming a trend – during the national anthem, keeling, not standing, honorably protesting against cops killing unarmed Black men and youths, getting away with cold-blooded murder, Kaepernick so far punished by NFL owners for his righteous stand against injustice.

In response to Trump’s hostile remarks, Minnesota Vikings player Bishop Sankey tweeted:

“It’s a shame and disgrace when you have the president of the US calling citizens of the country sons of a bitches.”

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell issued a statement saying:

“The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture. There is no better example than the amazing response from our clubs and players to the terrible natural disasters we’ve experienced over the last month.”

“Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities.”

NFL players association executive director DeMaurice Smith separately said

“(t)he peaceful demonstrations by some of our players have generated a wide array of responses.”

“Those opinions are protected speech and freedom that has been paid for by the sacrifice of men and women throughout history. This expression of speech has generated thoughtful discussion in our locker rooms and in board rooms.”

“However, the line that marks the balance between the rights of every citizen in our great country gets crossed when someone is told to just ‘shut up and play.’ “

New York Giants co-owners John Mara and Steve Tisch said the following:

“Comments like we heard last night from the president are inappropriate, offensive and divisive. We are proud of our players, the vast majority of whom use their NFL platform to make a positive difference in our society.”

Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross said

“(o)ur country needs unifying leadership right now, not more divisiveness. We need to seek to understand each other and have civil discourse instead of condemnation and sound bites.”

San Francisco 49ers CEO Jed York sharply criticized Trump saying:

“The callous and offensive comments made by the president are contradictory to what this great country stands for. Our players have exercised their rights as United States citizens in order to spark conversation and action to address social injustice.”

Green Bay Packers President and CEO Mark Murphy said

“(i)t’s unfortunate that the president decided to use his immense platform to make divisive and offensive statements about our players and the NFL.”

Teresa Kaepernick, Colin’s mother, responded to Trump calling protesting NFL players “sons of bitches,” tweeting:

“Guess that makes me a proud bitch.”

Will other NFL owners individually or together by joint statement responsibly denounce Trump’s hostile remarks?

He disgraced himself. His reckless agenda speaks for itself.

A Final Comment

Trump extended his war on dissent to the NBA, disinviting Golden State Warrior’s star Stephen Curry to the White House – because of his public criticism of the president.

NBA star LeBron James responded calling Trump “U bum.” A spokesman for the University of North Carolina national championship team said a White House visit was cancelled, citing a scheduling conflict, likely polite criticism of the president.

The key issue isn’t Trump. It’s America’s deplorable state. He’s a front man for rogue state ruthlessness, threatening humanity’s survival – what warrants universal criticism and activism against.

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

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

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

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

Featured image is from AJC.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump at War with Dissent

Deportations and Harassment of Irish Group Traveling to West Bank

September 25th, 2017 by Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin

Departure

I joined the group in Dublin airport on the morning of September 8th and we flew out to Istanbul where we waited in a transit area cafe for a couple of hours. As it turned out our flight departure lounge for Tel Aviv was next to the cafe where we were sitting and we noticed that an extra layer of security was being prepared by ground staff for the Tel Aviv flight. After boarding, and a smooth Turkish Airlines flight to Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, we disembarked and queued up for passport control. I was on my own and after 2 or 3 questions (what was the purpose of my trip, had I been to Israel before, etc). I was given a one month visa and waved through.

Meanwhile, however, trouble was brewing as I could hear the two Irish girls at the kiosk next to me being asked to bring the group leader over. I went directly through to the arrivals hall as I had not checked in any bags. Then began a long wait as myself and the few who got through unhindered discovered that security had rounded up as many of the group as they could find including those who had decided to wait in the luggage hall rather than in the arrivals hall. In all 21 were detained and 6 questioned, and of those 4 were deported (Elaine Daly, Fidelma Bonass, Joan Nolan and Stephen McCloskey) a few hours later. The four who were detained were informed that they were being deported to prevent ‘illegal immigration’ even though they had valid passports and return tickets. Around 4am the others were released and we finally boarded the bus and made the journey to our hotel in Bethlehem.

West Bank wall and turnstiles

Fact Finding Program

Our tour, though coordinated in Dublin, was organised by the Siraj Centre, a non-profit organization licensed by the Ministry of Tourism and based in Palestine. Our Fact Finding Program included meetings with prominent peace activists, political officials, human rights organizations, settlers and Jewish tour guides. This makes the deportation of our group leader, Elaine Daly, even stranger as she has been organising trips with the Siraj Centre every year from Ireland since 2006.

Sat 9th Sept: Day 1 Bethlehem

On our first morning we attended a talk by Prof. Mazin Qumsiyeh, a local university professor and activist, at the Natural History institute who emphasised the strong link between biodiversity, political struggle for the land and its safeguarding for future generations. It was interesting to note that it had been his son who had first drawn the infamous ‘shrinking’ map of the Palestinian territories showing their loss of land from 1946, 1947, 1967 to the 2000s.

Entrance to Aida refugee camp

CS gas

Afterwards we headed over to the Lajee Center, a cultural centre beside the main Palestinian refugee camp in Bethlehem for a talk and a traditional dance display from the local children. Soon however they switched off the air-conditioning and when we asked why we were told that tear gas was coming through the system. Directly outside the window local youth were throwing stones at the Israeli army at the far end of the road. Soon more and more tear gas came into the building and the windows and doors were shut. For most on the tour it was their first experience of the burning effects of CS gas yet for the members of the Lajee Center it had become merely a nuisance. After about a half hour we were able to leave and go for a short tour of the area. We passed under the arch of Aida camp with a giant key symbolising the principle that Palestinian refugees, both first-generation refugees and their descendants have a right to return. On our left were simple concrete buildings while on the right the street is cut off from Jerusalem by the Israeli West Bank wall and covered in murals and graffiti.

Wall mural, Aida refugee camp

Sun 10th Sept: Day 2 Hebron

The next day on the way to Hebron we stopped off at a small park beside a main road containing the tomb of Baruch Goldstein, the religious extremist who carried out the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in Hebron. Goldstein killed 29 Palestinian Muslim worshippers and wounded another 125. He was then overpowered and beaten to death by the survivors. Goldstein was not allowed to be buried in a Jewish cemetery but his current burial site still attracts Jewish extremists. We drove on to the Cave of Patriarchs or Ibrahimi Mosque where the Goldstein massacre took place. There are now two separate entrances, one for Muslims and one for Jews, both of which we were able to enter. This building is over 2,000 years old is believed to be the oldest continuously used prayer structure in the world. However, it was outside the Mosque at the military checkpoints we witnessed Israeli apartheid for the first time. Palestinians are barred from the using the street and our guide was apprehended by two soldiers. Our group complained to the soldiers but only our guide responded saying he would get a taxi and meet us elsewhere. In the end, the group spontaneously applauded our guide for his patience and perseverance as he was removed from the area. Our waiting bus had only been 50 metres around the corner…

Ibrahimi Mosque, Hebron

We walked through streets of Hebron going through different stages of clearance. In some places only a few Palestinians were left in the old stone buildings and Israeli street signs had been erected pointing to Jewish places of interest. In other streets nets had been used to stop settlers throwing objects on the shoppers below. Afterwards we were brought to meet with a settler where some asked questions about the settlements and their legality but this ended up with some storming out and others realising how it easy it was to become an Israeli citizen and participate in the land confiscations.

Mon 11th Sept: Day 3 Jerusalem

Our guides were Palestinian and Jewish and both were equally as good when it came to explanations and answering questions from our group. As we drove through East Jerusalem it was pointed out by our Jewish guide that Palestinians pay taxes yet their areas had bad roads and poor rubbish collection services.

Tues 12th Sept: Day 4 Nablus

In Nablus we visited Jacobs Well Church, and then to Balata Camp to meet with a representative from the Yafa cultural Center. The centre was set up in 1996 by the Committee for the Defence of Refugee Rights and offers a range of educational and creative programs to camp residents. We were brought around the closely-built neighbourhoods of the camp where some ‘streets’ were less than one metre wide. After lunch we had a tour in the old city of Nablus and visited the Samaritans Museum. The bustling old city gave us a feel for what many areas should have looked like and felt like without occupation.

Yafa cultural Center, Nablus

Wed 13th Sept: Day 5 Ramalah

We began the day driving to Ramalah to meet with a speaker from Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS). BDS has become an extensive movement against Israeli apartheid and settler-colonialism. It is also a Palestinian-led movement made up of unions, academic associations, churches and grassroots movements across the world. We also met with a representative from Al Haq, an independent Palestinian non-governmental human rights organisation also based in Ramallah. According to their website: ‘Al-Haq documents violations of the individual and collective rights of Palestinians in the OPT, irrespective of the identity of the perpetrator, and seeks to end such breaches by way of advocacy before national and international mechanisms and by holding the violators accountable.’ In the afternoon the group were brought on a sightseeing tour of Jerusalem which I did not participate in due to feeling unwell. Instead, I went with our Palestinian tour guide back to Bethlehem on the public bus instead. As the bus approached the wall we all had get off and pass through the many turnstiles and barricaded-off pathways to get to the other side of the wall. The queues moved quickly enough as the military generally do not carry out checks on Palestinians going home to the West Bank from Jerusalem in the evening. It is in the early morning that the long queues form as workers are stopped and permits scrutinised on the way to work in Jerusalem.

Old City, Nablus

Thurs 14th Sept: Day 5 Bethlehem

The next day I went back to Jerusalem from Bethlehem on public bus No. 231. At a major checkpoint a male and female soldier got on the bus while about a third of the bus got off to have their permits checked outside. They questioned a Palestinian woman with children for about ten minutes on the bus before suddenly leaving the bus again and letting the others back on. These checks, the roadworks and traffic jams into Jerusalem added up to about 30 minutes onto our journey, a journey which should have taken only around 20 minutes. In the centre I crossed the road and entered into the Old City through Herod’s Gate. I headed through the old city markets to the Al-Aqsa Mosque but at various Israeli military check points I was stopped and informed that the Mosque was only open in the mornings. There were 4 or 5 groups of about 20 Israeli soldiers each walking and singing down the narrow streets towards the Western Wall. The area was being prepared for a swearing-in ceremony for Paratrooper recruits taking place that evening. After walking the Via Dolorosa and around to the Damascus Gate I got the bus back to Bethlehem. Later, after dinner with the group in a Palestinian restaurant in Bethlehem, a few of us took a taxi to visit the Banksy’s Walled Off Hotel about ten minutes drive away. The ‘Walled Off’ sits beside the massive wall which is covered in graffiti executed in many styles by various artists. Boasting the ‘worst view in the world’ the lobby contains a collection of art and there is a museum upstairs. People sat outside on the veranda between the hotel and the wall having a quiet drink in this most incongruous of places.

Mural near ‘Walled Off’ hotel

Fri 15th Sept: The Dead Sea

For our last day the group decided to visit the Dead Sea. After arriving at the resort, getting to the water’s edge meant walking down layer after layer of beaches as the Dead Sea evaporates. The recession of the water’s edge is believed to be about 1 m (3 ft) a year. The speed and breadth of the recession of the Dead Sea was a fitting symbol for the recession of the West Bank itself as more and more settlements and walls reduce further the size of the Palestinian territories.

Early the next morning we were back on the bus to Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion airport where there was some anxiety as the security checks were known to be more stringent in the departures area than in arrivals area. (Why? a form of damage limitation?) Once again our group was held up to the last minute for our flight to Istanbul. We had a much more pleasant time in Dublin airport where a welcoming committee was waiting for us with a Palestinian flag. Elaine and the other deportees had decided to hold off publicising the deportations so as not to create any unnecessary difficulties for the rest of the group’s departure from Tel Aviv. Of course, our problems were nothing compared to the daily experiences and hardships of the Palestinian people being forced through turnstiles, having to obtain multivaried permits, losing land and dwellings, enduring constant military checks and an oppressive political/legal system (like the 17C Penal Laws in Ireland) all because of a particular nationality or religion. The trip left an indelible impression on us as individuals and as a group which would not be easily removed by the self-serving rhetoric of an all-powerful occupying force.

Since our return the issue of the deportations has been raised in various articles in the national newspapers. It has also been brought up during question time in the Dáil (the Irish parliament). Despite not being able to return to the West Bank again, Elaine is already planning to organise two trips to the West Bank from Dublin for 2018. All aboard!

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 images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Deportations and Harassment of Irish Group Traveling to West Bank

NATO’s “Fake News” Russia Scare Increases Defense Waste

September 25th, 2017 by Moon of Alabama

The military of the Russian Federation is organized in four districts – west, central, east and south. Each year one of the districts will stage a division size maneuver. 10,000 to 15,000 soldiers leave their quarters to move against imaginary adversaries. Their training is complemented by various military and civilian staffs exercises. The active part of the medium-size maneuver takes about a week and includes some live firing.

This year, like in 2009 and 2013, the turn was on the western military district to run its quadrennial exercise. It included, as is usual in the western district, units from and within Russia’s ally Belarus. The name of this regular training event is simply “West”, Zapad in Russian. Zapad-2017 was publicly announced and foreign military observers were invited to watch it.

NATO and its associated media used the occasion to launch a gigantic fear- and warmongering campaign against the Russian Federation. Over months hundreds of news pieces were weaved around dark murmurs from various NATO officials and “experts”. Examples:

The Zapad 2017 maneuvers ended yesterday. They were exactly what Russia and Belarus had announced – a regular, medium-size training event with no special intent or effect.

NATO and its various spokesperson had done what they like to accuse Russia of. They created fakenews about the maneuver based on nothing but hot air:

Zapad-2017 concluded earlier this week, by which time it had seriously fizzled out, in Western media terms at least.

And the Russians are enjoying a rare last laugh. They point out, with some justification, that their numbers were accurate, there was no dissembling, international borders were respected. All the Russian troops introduced into neighbouring Belarus for the exercise are going home, too. After all the Western accusations that Russia has been waging an information war with the help of “fake news”, who is disseminating “fake news” now, they ask. Is this not further evidence that Western opinion formers are stuck in the rut of Cold War stereotypes? They have a point.

The Western “opinion formers” have, of course, reason to hype everything their selected boogeyman does. That reason is greed. This year nearly all NATO countries increased their military budgets. The U.S. Senate passed a record $700 billion trough for the Pentagon with 89 to 8 votes. The more than 10% budget increase was even higher that what President Trump had requested. It broke all earlier commitments:

The $700 billion is $91 billion beyond the spending caps outlined in the 2011 Budget Control Act, which demanded a “sequestration” of military spending in order to rein in federal costs.

There was no public outrage over this increase. Meanwhile Russia cut its 2018 defense budget by 25.5% down to a total of some $48 billion.

There is obviously little fear in Russia that the U.S. budget increase will effect U.S. military capabilities. The Russians are right. Most of the Pentagon budget goes to waste. The military as well as the politicians know this well. From a recent NYT piece about options against North Korean missiles:

Intercepting a warhead using missile defenses runs other dangers, White House officials have been told. If the American antimissile systems missed — against a single warhead, which should be the simplest target — it would undercut confidence in an infrastructure the United States has spent $300 billion to build over the past four decades.”

Missile defense is nonsense. Its principle is to hit one bullet with another bullet at several times the speed of sound and at distances of hundreds of miles. That is nearly impossible to do. Even the staged missile defense tests fail and the system as a whole does not work. The U.S. military is too afraid to use its $300 billion missile defense boondoggle because that would prove that it is one gigantic scam.

That does not restrain the politicians from adding money to it:

[The new budget] does authorize an additional $8.5 billion for the Missile Defense Agency to strengthen homeland, regional and space missile defense. That authorization is $630 million above the Trump administration’s request.

The fakenews warmongering by NATO and western politicians about the Zapad maneuver helped to convince the sheeple that additional welfare projects for the owners of the military-industrial complex are necessary and justified.

Meanwhile health care for all, which would cost much less than missile defense, is too expensive to pass.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO’s “Fake News” Russia Scare Increases Defense Waste

It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy…

Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III.

By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of

(1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or

(2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or

(3) the promotion of democracy; and/or

(4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P).

Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba.

Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this paper the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting.

Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D.

This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968):

The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind….

Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity.

After September 11, 2001 the people of the world witnessed successive governments in the United States that have demonstrated little respect for fundamental considerations of international law, human rights, and the United States Constitution. Instead, the world has watched a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international and domestic legal orders by gangs of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign affairs and American domestic policy. Even more seriously, in many instances specific components of the U.S. government’s foreign policies constitute ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and United States domestic law, and in particular the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950), as well as the Pentagon’s own U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 on The Law of Land Warfare, which applies to the President himself as Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

US army in Syria (Source: Inside Syria Media Center)

Depending on the substantive issues involved, these international and domestic crimes typically include but are not limited to the Nuremberg offences of “crimes against peace”—e.g., Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, and their longstanding threatened war of aggression against Iran. Their criminal responsibility also concerns crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare: torture, enforced disappearances, assassinations, murders, kidnappings, extraordinary renditions, “shock and awe,” depleted uranium, white phosphorous, cluster bombs, drone strikes, etc. Furthermore, various officials of the United States government have committed numerous inchoate crimes incidental to these substantive offences that under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles as well as U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) are international crimes in their own right: planning, and preparation, solicitation, incitement, conspiracy, complicity, attempt, aiding and abetting, etc. Of course the terrible irony of today’s situation is that seven decades ago at Nuremberg the U.S. government participated in the prosecution, punishment, and execution of Nazi government officials for committing some of the same types of heinous international crimes that these officials of the United States government currently inflict upon Peoples of Color all over the world. To be sure, I personally oppose the imposition of capital punishment upon any human being for any reason no matter how monstrous their crimes, whether they be Saddam Hussein, Bush Junior, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump.

According to basic principles of international criminal law set forth in paragraph 501 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, all high level civilian officials and military officers in the U.S. government who either knew or should have known that soldiers or civilians under their control (such as the C.I.A. or mercenary contractors), committed or were about to commit international crimes and failed to take the measures necessary to stop them, or to punish them, or both, are likewise personally responsible for the commission of international crimes. This category of officialdom who actually knew or should have known of the commission of these international crimes under their jurisdiction and failed to do anything about them include at the very top of America’s criminal chain-of-command the President, the Vice-President, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence, the C.I.A. Director, National Security Advisor and the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff along with the appropriate Regional Commanders-in-Chiefs, especially for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and now U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

Related image

Nuremberg Defendants (Source: news.dm)

These U.S. government officials and their immediate subordinates are responsible for the commission of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as specified by the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles as well as by U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 of 1956. Today in international legal terms, the United States government itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, because of its formulation and undertaking of serial wars of aggression, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the former Nazi regime in Germany. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of civil resistance designed to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to “defense” and “counter-terrorism.” They are the terrorists! They terrorize the entire world!

For that very reason, large numbers of American citizens have decided to act on their own cognizance by means of civil resistance in order to demand that U.S. government officials adhere to basic principles of international law, of U.S. domestic law, and of the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of foreign affairs and military operations. Mistakenly, however, such actions have been defined to constitute classic instances of “civil disobedience” as historically practiced in the United States. And the conventional status quo admonition by the U.S. power elite and its sycophantic news media for those who knowingly engage in “civil disobedience” has always been that they must meekly accept their punishment for having performed a prima facie breach of the positive laws as a demonstration of their good faith and moral commitment. Nothing could be further from the truth! Today’s civil resisters are the sheriffs! The U.S. government officials are the outlaws!

Here I would like to suggest a different way of thinking about civil resistance activities that are specifically designed to thwart, prevent, or impede ongoing criminal activity by officials of the U.S. government under well‑recognized principles of international and U.S. domestic law. Such civil resistance activities represent the last constitutional avenue open to the American people to preserve their democratic form of government with its historical commitment to the rule of law and human rights. Civil resistance is the last hope Americans have to prevent the U.S. government from moving even farther down the paths of lawless violence in Africa, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, military interventionism into Latin America, and nuclear confrontation with Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, and China.

Such measures of “civil resistance” must not be confused with, and indeed must be carefully distinguished from, acts of “civil disobedience” as traditionally defined. In today’s civil resistance cases, what we witness are American citizens attempting to prevent the ongoing commission of international and domestic crimes under well-recognized principles of international law and U.S. domestic law. This is a phenomenon essentially different from the classic civil disobedience cases of the 1950s and 1960s where incredibly courageous African Americans and their supporters were conscientiously violating domestic laws for the express purpose of changing them. By contrast, today’s civil resisters are acting for the express purpose of upholding the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, human rights, and international law. Applying the term “civil disobedience” to such civil resistors mistakenly presumes their guilt and thus perversely exonerates the U.S. government criminals.

Civil resistors disobeyed nothing, but to the contrary obeyed international law and the United States Constitution. By contrast, U.S. government officials grossly violated fundamental principles of international law as well as U.S. criminal law and thus committed international crimes and U.S. domestic crimes as well as impeachable violations of the United States Constitution. The civil resistors are the sheriffs enforcing international law, U.S. criminal law and the U.S. Constitution against the criminals working for the U.S. government!

Today the American people must reaffirm their commitment to the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles by holding their government officials fully accountable under international law and U.S. domestic law for the commission of such grievous international and domestic crimes. They must not permit any aspect of their foreign affairs and defense policies to be conducted by acknowledged “war criminals” according to the U.S. government’s own official definition of that term as set forth in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), the U.S. War Crimes Act, the Geneva Conventions, and the Hague Regulations, inter alia. The American people must insist upon the impeachment, dismissal, resignation, indictment, conviction, and long-term incarceration of all U.S. government officials guilty of such heinous international and domestic crimes. If not so restrained by civil resistance, the U.S. government could very well precipitate a Third World War. That is precisely what American civil resisters are doing today!

The future of American foreign policy and the peace of the world lie in the hands of American citizens—not the bureaucrats, legislators, judges, lobbyists, think-tankers, professors, and self-styled experts who inhibit Washington, D.C., New York City, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Hyde Park/Chicago, Illinois. Civil resistance is the way to go! This is our Nuremberg Moment now! Thank you.

Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law” (2010).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Unlimited Imperialism”, History of American Militarism: Light at the End of the Tunnel?

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Syria and its people are victims of US aggression – ISIS and like-minded terrorists used as imperial foot soldiers, along with Pentagon-led terror-bombing since September 2014, massacring tens of thousands of civilians, destroying vital infrastructure on the phony pretext of combating the Islamic State Washington supports.

Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Walid al-Moualem used his UN address to blast America and its rogue allies, while expressing gratitude to Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah for their vital support – combating the scourge of terrorism Washington supports.

Obama’s war, now Trump’s, has been raging for six-and-a-half years, ongoing because America rejects peace, wanting regime change, Syria transformed into a US vassal state, puppet governance replacing its sovereign independence.

Millions of Syrians remain internally and externally displaced. Humanitarian crisis conditions persist, aid forthcoming only from Russia and Iran.

None from Washington. None from other Western countries. None from regional ones besides Iran. Practically none from the UN.

Moualem explained

“a persistent standoff between two sets of forces: forces that seek to control and dominate nations and their riches, by turning back the clock, re-establishing a unipolar world order, fueling chaos and war, and violating international and humanitarian laws: and opposite forces that work tirelessly to create a more balanced, secure, and just world, one that respects the sovereignty of the states and the right of peoples to exercise self-determination and build their own future.”

It’s clear which nations he means on each side.

“Syria is determined, more than ever, to eradicate terrorism from every part of the country, without exception, thanks to the sacrifices of our army and the steadfastness of our people,” Moualem continued.

His nation has two objectives – eliminating the scourge of US-supported terrorism, along with preserving and protecting its sovereign independence and territorial integrity.

Russia, Iran and Hezbollah share the same objectives. America and its rogue allies oppose them.

Syrian and allied forces have come a long way from earlier times, on the offensive, smashing terrorists, liberating cities, towns and villages from their scourge.

Turkey remains an enemy of Syria, not an ally or neutral party.

“Erdogan has persisted in (his) aggression…under the illusion that terrorism will help serve its subversive agendas in Syria and the countries of the region. Turkey’s position stands in stark contrast to the positive and constructive role played by Russia and Iran,” said Moualem.

Syria is committed to restoring peace and stability through responsible diplomacy, combating ISIS and other terrorists continuing their reign of terror on defenseless civilians.

Moualem blasted Israel for “its unscrupulous thuggish actions with full impunity,” adding:

“This usurper entity has occupied Arab territories in Palestine and the Golan for more than seventy years and has committed horrific crimes against innocent civilians.”

“It has publicly interfered in the Syrian crisis since its early days. Israel has provided all forms of support to Takfirist terrorist gangs, including funds, weapons, material, and communication equipment.”

“Israel has also bombed Syrian Army positions to serve terrorist agendas.”

“Coordination between the two was at its best when terrorist groups decided to target Syrian air defense assets used to defend Syria against Israeli aggression.”

Moualem blasted the so-called US-led coalition, massacring “innocent civilians…destroy(ing) vital infrastructure,” using banned weapons, supplying CWs to terrorists, Syria falsely blamed when they’re used.

Moualem criticized the UN’s “failure to uphold its own Charter and the principles of international law” – failing to condemn US-led aggression on Syria, complicit in its war crimes through silence, falsely blaming Damascus for responsibly defending the country and its people.

Moualem concluded saying

“(t)he Syrian people have stood their ground, against all odds, because they knew that this was a war that sought to eliminate their country, and with it, their own existence.”

“They are an example to follow by any people who might face, now or in the future, similar attempts to break their will and deny them their freedom and sovereignty.”

One day, Syria will be free from the scourge of US-supported terrorism and its occupation of parts of the country – because of the commitment of its military and allied forces to continue their liberating struggle.

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.


Below is the link to the full speech of Walid Al-Moualem at the UN General Assembly.

Statement by Syria’s Deputy Prime Minister H.E. Walid Al-Moualem at the UN General Assembly

By Walid Al-Moualem, September 25, 2017

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “The Syrian People Knew that This War Was to Eliminate Their Country”: Syria’s Deputy Prime Minister’s Impassioned UN Address

Poroshenko and Trudeau: Canada’s Ukrainian Attitude

September 25th, 2017 by Jim Miles

“We continue to stand with Ukraine against the illegal illegitimate incursion of Russia into Ukrainian territorial sovereignty and their attempts to destabilize Ukraine economically and many other ways,” Trudeau said. CBC, September 22, 2017.  

Donbass

The Canadian government operates under as many double standards as that of the U.S. and its other NATO allies.  Russia did not invade Donbass, but more than likely supplied the rebel defenders with equipment, (much as the U.S. does globally). And what were they rebelling against, you dare not ask?

Well, they rebelled against the U.S. covert actions against the democratically elected government of Yanukovich, not wanting the newly installed neonazi Maidan strongmen (e.g. Arseniy Yatsenyuk) to control their region of the country. Further, the same bunch also used language that indicated they wished for ethnic cleansing and even genocide – Yulia Tymoshenko, the new revived darling of the western backed government, called for their complete destruction. The criminal Saakashvili (wanted for crimes in Georgia, his home state) is attempting to do something now that he has returned to Cherkasy in the geographical centre of Ukraine, another CIA sponsored overthrow of their first internationally illegal operation?

The Minsk agreement is an agreement signed between Donetsk-Luhansk on one side and Ukraine on the other, with France and Germany as co-signees – not the Russians. The agreement calls for unconditional ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front line, release of prisoners of war, and constitutional reform in Ukraine. All of these are dependent on the Ukraine government in Kiev to act upon (not Russia) and they have not acted on any of them.

Heavy weapons have not been withdrawn and continue to fire daily and nightly from the front line into the Donbass region, mostly at civilian targets. Some prisoners were exchanged, but many from the Minsk side were simply civilians rounded up to use as ‘trade’. There has been no constitutional reform from the Ukrainian Rada.

The current desire to place peacekeepers inside Donbass is a non-starter for Donbass residents who have suffered under continual artillery fire since the Minsk agreement was signed. If the peacekeepers were on the ceasefire line, that might be acceptable, but for Poroshenko that obviously recognizes that the real problem is internal rather than with Russia.

Canada’s integrity

So where else is Canada concerned about territorial integrity? Hmmm, perhaps Syria, with its support for U.S. actions against Assad – nominally against terrorism, but the intelligent broad reader would know that the real target is Assad astride a critical oil route (as well as having ongoing troubles with Israel, the country that illegally annexed the Golan Heights, an action that the Canadian government never criticizes.)

Or perhaps Libya? Canada was one of the lead brave bombers that destroyed that country, aggravating the ISIS terror nexus, aggravating the immigrant problem to the EU, once again supporting U.S. international criminal actions under the false accusation of genocide (there wasn’t any, Gaddafi was fighting against ISIS affiliates in his eastern provinces).

Or maybe Yugoslavia/Serbia, where once again the brave Canadian bombers destroyed civilian infrastructure and more in order to carve apart another country that did not fit the U.S. definition of what a country should be – that is, subservient to the U.S., as Canada is.

Crimea

Trudeau and cohorts would of course cry out that Crimea is an obvious illegal international intervention. But consider….Crimea had always wanted independence from Ukraine ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. Twice they voted for it, twice they were denied it by Ukraine, and Russia at that time was to weak to do anything to assist them (remember originally Crimea had been ‘gifted’ to Ukraine by Khrushchev).

When the U.S./Yatsenyuk team overthrew the duly elected (if corrupt) government, the Russian forces already in Crimea blocked any attempts of the Ukraine towards violent actions such as happened at the Maidan, in Odessa, and in Donbass. Really they should be thanked for the prevention of another area with a large loss of life due to U.S. imperial desires (sort of like they should be thanked for destroying most of ISIS in Syria, you know, the Saudi backed group the U.S. covertly supports).

It also became known that U.S. warships were bound for the Crimean port of Sevastopol, an action prevented by the quick move of the Russian forces stationed there. What would have happened if the U.S. had arrived first, once again violating an international boundary – well of course, the sycophantic Canadian government would have lauded the action, while the Ukrainian forces rampaged against all things Russian in Crimea – which is most of it.

Following that a referendum was held to know if the people wished to join with Russia. The vast majority said yes, not at gunpoint as the western MSM wished to argue, and the Russian Duma accepted the request. Peaceful, no lives lost, and Crimea is better off than the rest of Ukraine and the Donbass.

Trudeau can lament that all he wants, there is no way Crimea will voluntarily return to Ukraine. But as long as the U.S. wants it, so long as the domestic Ukrainian lobby wants it, so the lament will continue.

Economic destabilizing

If the actions of the countries involved are looked at closely, the main economic destabilizing factor for Ukraine has been its own actions. It was Ukraine that blocked coal shipments from Donbsas. It was Ukraine that stopped the farmers and citizens of Kherson from trading with Crimea. It was Ukraine that knocked down power lines to Crimea, and cut of water to Crimea as well as parts of Donbass. It is Ukraine that continues to shell civilian structures in Donbass (water pumping stations, power stations, railways, schools, hospitals et al) causing serious economic damage to that region. Donbass has not responded in kind, and has withdrawn its heavy weapons from the contact line.

Ukraine itself has devolved into familiarity, with various oligarchs controlling the political, industrial, and financial actions both domestically and internationally that have ruined much of what little the Ukrainian people had. Factories are closing (lack of coal, lack of orders, for the latter a significant part being industries that used to sell equipment to Russia). The war effort of Kiev against Donbass is itself a costly affair, both in human lives and in economic losses to the economy.

Canada’s Ukrainian attitude

Canada’s Ukrainian attitude – that is its anti-Russian attitude – is a combination of both domestic politics as well as its subservient role to U.S. interests via NATO. The ultimate U.S. goal is to deconstruct if not destroy Russia, to make it part of the U.S. empire as it tries for global hegemony. Unfortunately for the world it is that very U.S. imperial desire that has wreaked havoc across many countries on all continents of the world.

Personally, I support the actions of Russia in Syria, an area where they are operating within international law, as opposed to the U.S., Canada and all the other uninvited nations fighting – theoretically – against terrorism. Given the global method that the U.S. uses to destabilize nations – through economics (sanctions, embargoes et al) combined with covert military means that frequently become overt military means – I support the growing positive relations between Russia and China and their efforts at building infrastructure and economic relationships across Eurasia (and Africa and Latin America), without using the military.

That of course is another reason for Ukraine being used as it is – to keep Eurasia from developing independence from the U.S. economic system and the reserve currency status of the US$. With Ukraine as another puppet U.S./EU/NATO government, it will be easier to try and block the Chinese BRI (Belt and Road Initiative). That then spreads globally to U.S. actions in Syria, Iran and anywhere else in the Greater Middle East where Canada plays its supporting role in all things imperial. After all it’s only natural – the U.S. and Canada are children of the once greatest colonial-settler imperial nation in the world, the U.K.

In short then, Canada’s Ukrainian attitude is supported by its internal Ukrainian cohort and more broadly by its warmongering imperial backing of U.S. adventurism to capture…well, the world.

Featured image is from Radio Canada International.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Poroshenko and Trudeau: Canada’s Ukrainian Attitude

Art and Politics, and Why Happiness Is Overrated

September 25th, 2017 by Prof Susan Babbitt

As the thinking man was overtaken by a great storm, he was sitting in a big car and took up a lot of space.

The first thing he did was to get out of his car.

The second was to take off his jacket. The third was to lie down on the ground.

Thus reduced to his smallest magnitude he withstood the storm.

Such was the lesson Bertoldt Brecht took from ancient Chinese theatre. 1 It was how he survived. The Nazis forced him from Germany into impoverished exile in Scandinavia. Later, he suffered humiliating anti-communist harassment in the U.S. His strategy was always: the best resistance is no resistance.

It doesn’t mean to cave. Brecht opposed his “thinking man” to an image common in European theatre: the individual “standing tall” against the wind, fighting the storm. Brecht’s realism was to see a situation for what it is, discover its real opportunities, and survive knowingly, until the storm passed.

It is not easy to do. It means seeing things as they are, not as you want them to be, suspending expectations, or at least not being defined by them. Some think it is not possible to be realist in Brecht’s sense. They say we can’t live without “dreams”, without things to “look forward to”.

They call that “hope”. The medical establishment is obsessed with it. As a cancer patient for many years, I got tired of hope. It seemed delusional. It was as if seeing things as they are – bad! – was not allowed. Realism means we can discover truth, even unexpected.

And we can learn to live with it, fully, with open eyes.

In the rich North, culturally, we don’t believe in truths. We believe in happiness and choice. Truth and happiness don’t always go together. There’s a simple reason. We are happy when expectations are realized, when dreams come to pass, when we get what we want. But expectations, dreams and desires come from society. Truth, if we believed in it, removes their lustre.

One truth, for instance, is that a fraction of the world’s population “lives well”. Another is that we live well because others don’t. We kill and rob them to be “happy”. A further truth is that we think we live well precisely because we don’t think about these truths. The people we kill and rob, after all, don’t count. Finally, it happens to be true that we don’t live well. We are mostly depressed and anxious.

French poet, novelist and dramatist Victor Marie Hugo is shown in this undated photo. Hugo was born on May 22, 1802 in Besancon, France, and died in 1885 in Paris. (AP Photo)

Truth is an “implacable foe” of happiness. This is how Victor Hugo saw it. He wrote:

“Thoughtful people rarely use the terms, the happy and the unhappy…. The true division of humanity is this. Those filled with light and those filled with darkness”.

Hugo was a realist, like Brecht, Marx, José Martí.

It is why he valued art. He thought art, including the beauty of nature and people, matters for politics. 2 He didn’t look to art for fun, tranquility or escape. He looked for realism. Art is best experienced for what it is, not for its purpose. It might have a purpose but its value is not mainly instrumental.

Hugo thought human actions can be art. He called it “social beauty”. 3

Consider Inspector Javert. He relentlessly pursues ex-convict Jean Valjean. When Valjean has a chance to kill Javert, he frees him. Javert wants Valjean to kill him because that is what every part of him expected: an act of revenge. And when it doesn’t happen Javert feels “cut off from his past life”. Hugo writes that Javert saw what was “terrible .… He was moved”: by an instance of social beauty.

Hugo was not a liberal, as sometimes claimed. True, he valued individual freedom. But it was not the sort that liberalism proclaims: the individual “standing tall”, seizing their destiny.

We can’t do that, not as individuals.

It’s a lie, and leads to lies, like the medical establishment’s insistence on “hope”: Just believe everything will go back to where it was. It doesn’t happen, and believing it does not empower.

Hugo writes,

“There are those who ask for nothing more, living beings who, having bright blue skies above, say: This is enough …  people who, as long as there are clouds of purples and gold above their heads … are determined to be happy until the stars stop shining and the birds stop singling. These are the darkly radiant. They have no idea they are to be pitied. … Whoever does not weep does not see”.

The “darkly radiant”! Brecht saw an existential need for “every kind of truth”. He writes,

“When the thinking man conquered the storm, he did so because he recognized the storm and agreed to it. Thus, if you want to conquer death, you should recognize it and agree to it”.

It is a more interesting view of freedom than the one we’ve been saddled with for centuries of liberalism. It would be good if philosophers and political theorists looked further afield: Martí, Marx, even the Buddha. (He thought the “standing tall” image was evil).

Truth is only ever approximate. But we can keep moving in the direction.

Raúl Roa, student leader in the 1930s uprising in Cuba, later Cuba’s foreign minister, once defined humanism as the identification of lies. Humanism, he wrote, is “awareness in the face of conceptions that undermine, deform and eliminate the human personality”.4

Roa had in mind the lies of imperialism, including liberalism’s naïve freedoms: See the lies, and you’ll start to see beauty: social beauty.

Ana Belén Montes is social beauty, locked up under undeservedly harsh and demeaning conditions. 5

Please sign petition here.

Susan Babbitt is author of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014) and José Martí, Ernesto “Che” Guevara and Global Development Ethics (Palgrave MacMillan 2014).

Notes

1. Stephen Parker, Bertoldt Brecht: A literary life (2014)

2. Carmen Suárez León, José Martí y Victor Hugo, en el fiel de las modernidades (Havana: Centro de investigación y desarrollo de la cultura cubana, 1996)

3. I am grateful to Dr. Robert Rennebohm for pointing this out.

4. Bufa subversiva Havana: Ediciones la memoria,  2006

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Art and Politics, and Why Happiness Is Overrated

Slow Boat to China

September 25th, 2017 by Dr. T. P. Wilkinson

There was a day
It was still called Cathay
By those in the West
Who travelled that way
Silk and tea
Porcelain and spice
They brought us
spaghetti
We even took rice.
For centuries
We bought there
Things we don’t need
Brought for those
Whose moral was greed
The rice we still eat
The tea we still drink
But with preference
For substances
By which we don’t think.
They sold us their goods
For silver we stole
We blasted their ports
Filled their cities with holes
Now that they make
All the things that we take
Our vanity cries
To tell them more lies
With centuries past
Recovery fast
No longer the first
We’re afraid to be last.

***

Dr T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa (Maisonneuve Press, 2003). Read other articles by T.P..

This poem was originally published by Dissident Voice.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Slow Boat to China

“Saldremos adelante!” (“We can only move forward!”). This is what a colleague exclaimed during one of my several phone calls to Havana in the days after Irma unleashed its wrath on the capital.

Others, when asked how they, their families, colleagues and neighbours were faring, declared in a similar manner, “We are fighters,” “We are never defeated” and “We are in the battle for recovery.”

Despite this attitude, they were unanimous in their emphasis that Cuba’s situation is “critical,” having suffered the most devastating hurricane in about 85 years. This coincides with Raúl Castro’s message to the people, when he said,

“No one should be fooled; the task we have before us is huge.”

Another colleague remarked that the Cubans’ trademark solidarity immediately became stronger and more widespread in the course of Irma’s fury on Havana. For example, in a small apartment building without gas or electricity for cooking, one family used charcoal to prepare meals for all the residents, using everyone’s food that was otherwise perishing in their refrigerators. Another colleague, a journalist, recounted how she was able to meet the deadline for her story despite her office building remaining without electricity, thanks to being granted access to the headquarters of another news outlet. One can hardly imagine a similar situation taking place in the US! Would CNN and FOX collaborate this way? Would the capitalist New York Times share its offices with its diehard competitor The Wall Street Journal? In the same manner, in Canada, can anyone imagine such cooperation between archrivals The Globe and Mailand the Toronto Star? This is just one great advantage of the Cuban press not being privately controlled. All of the above and countless other examples are also reflected in Raúl’s statement “with a people like ours, we will win the most important battle: recovery.”

In fact, only three days after these initial phone conversations, the same people reported that their electricity and gas had been restored but that, sadly, many small towns on the north coast have been devastated to the extent that normal services and housing had not yet come close to being restored.

The Cuban Revolution and Notions of Defeat Are Incompatible

The Cuban Revolution does not know the meaning of defeat. It likewise does not accept in its collective and individual minds the notion of fear or despair. This new consciousness began developing in Cuba since 1959, solidifying and deepening over the decades in the face of adversity. This unique feature was noticeable before Irma, but it has become ever more evident these past two weeks. Its latest expression in the dramatic days during and after Irma could not help one to think of the first two sentences of the Cuban Constitution, which states that Cuban citizens express “combativity, firmness, heroism and sacrifice fostered by our ancestors.” An early example of this consists of “the Indians who preferred extermination to submission.” The 16th-century Taíno Indian chief Hatuey is a legend in Cuba. On February 2, 1512, Hatuey was tied to a stake at the Spanish camp, where he was burned alive. Just before lighting the fire, a priest offered him spiritual comfort, showing him the cross and asking him to accept Jesus and go to heaven. “Are there people like you in heaven?” he asked. “There are many like me in heaven,” replied the priest. Hatuey answered that he wanted nothing to do with a god that would allow such cruelty to be unleashed in his name.

Raul Castro cropped.jpg

Raul Castro (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

This fierce characteristic of the native people remains true of the Cuban people today. The same cannot be said of the European peoples, nations and their descendants as a whole, with the exception of the Cuban nation, which, faced with one adversity or another ­– whether it be successive hurricanes, Moncada, post-1959 terrorist attacks on the island, the Bay of Pigs or the fall of the former USSR and Eastern European socialist countries (with which 85% of Cuba’s economy was entangled) – have demonstrated an indelible feature of their collectivity: the impossibility to accept defeat.

Cuba accomplished this not only since 1959, but also as far back as the wars of independence in the second half of the 19th century. One notable example of this historical period is the Protest of Baraguá. Cuban independence fighter Antonio Maceo could not accept defeat because he did not feel defeated – he had been winning his battles and had a good military organization. In the Baraguá (eastern Cuba) meeting with the Spanish, he strongly objected to the terms of the peace agreement, which the conciliatory section of the resistance to the Spanish accepted, deeming the agreement to be insulting and brushing aside its promise of concessions. Cuba is an eternal Baraguá, as they say.

This feature of the Cuban people having revolutionized their mentality as a people and a nation in a protracted process, obliterating any notion of fear and defeat while replacing it with a firmly based new consciousness, is not only inspired by the inevitable victory over adversity, but is also of historic importance for this century. In Latin America, the Bolivarian Revolution (with its more than 8 million proactive people) is another example, even though it has not yet penetrated the Venezuelan people or nation as a whole.

It seems as if the overwhelming majority of Cuban people have reached this new consciousness, as it existed among the native peoples for thousands of years. The latter’s mindset constitutes an entirely different mentality generally not found as a distinguishing characteristic among European nations and their descendants. The Cuban off-springs of the Spanish and other Europeans, Africans, Chinese and others as a new nation have been evolving in the course of revolutionary struggles since 1868, with a renewed spark after the 1953 Moncada attack. This fearless way of thinking and corresponding actions seems to have merged into an entirely new national idiosyncrasy that has far more in common with the heritage of the native peoples than with that of the Europeans.

“Survival of the Fittest?”

The words that follow may stir some interest as well as cackles. It is a historical fact that the Cuban Revolution has survived against all odds and predictions despite, among other factors, the five-decade-long blockade and the earthshaking fall of the USSR, which was supposed to have sounded the death knell for the socialist revolution. Instead, rather than merely surviving it, Cuba has evolved further – socially and culturally – while constituting an unprecedented model of international solidarity. And, let us not forget, all this has transpired within the limits of the blockade, whose goal, it must always be recalled, is the protracted genocide of the Cuban people.

While social science is far from able to provide an exhaustive analysis, explanation or encouragement of this rare phenomenon that is the Cuba Revolution, the metaphoric use of natural science may be of assistance in reflection. Charles Darwin showed that, as part of natural evolution, only the fittest survive extinction. The Cuban Revolution is indeed the “fittest,” in the sense that it has imbued the vast majority of Cuban people composing the nation to overcome even the most difficult and seemingly insurmountable challenges.

This mentality of refusing to accept defeat was also reflected in the call by Raúl to his people, when he ended by saying,

“We face the recovery with the example of Comandante en Jefe de la Revolución Cubana, Fidel Castro Ruz, who, with his unwavering confidence in victory and iron will, taught us that nothing is impossible. In these difficult hours, his legacy makes us strong and unites us.”

Fidel is at once the main impulse and guide, through his thinking, action and example for the Cuban Revolution. He embodies this iron will to fight off attacks from all hostile tendencies inside and outside Cuba to defeat any challenge that stands in its way and thus come out victorious.

International Solidarity

The Cuban people have proven themselves to be world leaders when it comes to international solidarity, and the love they have extended to others has been rewarded with the rapid material and moral support of Russia, Vietnam and countries in Latin America. For example, in a briefing after Irma hit Cuba, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, with his Chavista flair, showed a video of a Hercules plane loaded with material support landing on a makeshift runway cleared by the Cuban government as part of reopening of the Havana airport.

More than ever before, Cuba needs and deserves such material and moral support. While Cuba receives this type of solidarity from around the planet, Trump has signed the Trading with the Enemy Act once again, and made a statement on September 13 about human rights violations in Cuba and Venezuela. This was followed by the callous statement of his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. He stated on September 16 that, in light of the alleged and totally non-founded sonic interference by Cuba against the American diplomats in Havana, the US is considering closing its Embassy in Havana. He said with a callousness completely oblivious to the suffering of the Cuban people by the very real Irma:

“It’s a very serious issue with respect to the harm that certain individuals [American diplomats] have suffered.”

Canadian PM Justin Trudeau

Justin Trudeau’s Canadian government is among the Western countries that have not issued any statement of support or solidarity with Cuba. This is a sad reality, given Canada’s special relationship with Cuba, having not ever broken diplomatic ties with the country. In fact, Justin Trudeau’s father was the first Western leader to visit Cuba and express solidarity with Fidel Castro and “Cuba Libre.” Justin Trudeau himself visited Cuba and met with Raúl Castro only days before Fidel passed away. Furthermore, Canada has been the biggest source of tourism for Cuba for several decades, to the extent that millions of Canadians have visited the island not only once, but multiple times, making Cuba practically a home away from home for many.

One may hope that the Trudeau government will rectify and at least express its moral support, which would very much encourage the Cubans, who are conscious of this special Cuba–Canada relationship forged to an extent by the Trudeau tradition. As far as critically needed financial and material support, Canada should overcome its self-imposed bureaucracy and provide immediate aid. According to the website of the Cuban Mission in Ottawa, the first on the list of material needs is construction material. Canada is the fifth in the world as far as lumber production and hovers between the first and second of the world’s top exporters of timber products. Should Canada not immediately consider overcoming any obstacle and make use of this plentiful natural resource that is so necessary for Cuba in this critical situation?

This obstinacy by some Western governments – such as the US, Canada, the UK, the rest of Europe, Australia and New Zealand, as well as others – is in contrast to the attitude of solidarity organizations and other institutions in these countries that are going all out to raise relief funds at the grassroots level to support Cuba. While all countries in the Caribbean also need this support, Cuba was the hardest hit in terms of quantity of infrastructure and the number of people affected by Irma. It is also a political issue, in terms of supporting the survival of the Cuban Revolution, which is now facing an unprecedented climate challenge. Furthermore, the hurricane season still has close to another three months to go, as some of my colleagues in Havana have pointed out.

The American Blockade and Irma

Cuba is also facing a new disinformation campaign from mass media and others. Many are having a field day describing housing, roofs and other structures as being “dilapidated,” which to an extent is true, especially in cities such as Havana. But is this a feature of the Cuban system? The impression given is that any problematic housing and infrastructure is entirely Cuba’s fault and thus proof of the “failure of socialism.” However, what about the effects of the blockade, which was mainly completely ignored in these reports or reduced to a footnote? As mentioned by Cuban colleagues in Havana who were consulted on this issue of disinformation,

“It is no accident that these media hide or minimize the effects of the blockade.”

The cumulative effect of the blockade since 1961 seriously hinders normal economic development in Cuba. The blockade itself resulted from the original genocidal goal to make Cuba bend to its knees and give in to the US empire. Watching Cuban TV during and immediately after Irma, it was clear that the blockade has had a cataclysmic effect on the damage, just as it is having now with the recovery.

Take, for example, construction and infrastructures, where “dilapidated” housing is more likely a direct result of the blockade, which led to $30,868,200 in damages in a single year alone, spanning 2015–2016. One of the main causes of damages was the lack of access to lightweight and efficient construction technologies and energy components, which are available on the US market or are produced by subsidiaries of US-based companies. Could this not be the main cause of the “dilapidated” housing, notwithstanding any Cuban domestic insufficiencies?

This situation requires that we outside of Cuba counter the disinformation campaign against the Cuban Revolution and demand the complete lifting of the blockade, as part of our expression of financial, material and moral solidarity with Cuba.

Arnold August, a Canadian journalist and lecturer, is the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion and the recently released  Cuba–U.S. Relations: Obama and Beyond. Arnold can be followed on Twitter @Arnold_August and FaceBook

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Facing Irma in Cuba: “¡Saldremos adelante!” (“We Can Only Move Forward!”)