Global Research

Once again, the annual United Nations General Assembly is taking place in New York City with U.S. President Donald Trump set to take center stage as he is expected to focus on the North Korean Crisis and the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

As the Western media’s attention has been focused on the North Korea crisis (which is also another very serious matter), another development has been taking place in Tel Aviv, as calls for action by Israeli officials against Iran’s Nuclear Program although it’s not a new development (it’s been going on for many years). Channel 2 on Israeli TV reported that Mossad chief Yossi Cohen is calling on the Israeli government to take action against the Iranian government. The Times of Israel reported that

 “Channel 2 on Sunday paraphrased Cohen as asserting that “Today’s Iran is the North Korea of yesterday, and so we need to act now so that we don’t wake up to [an Iranian] bomb.”

The report also mentioned that other security officials

“are warning that Israel should not be pushing the US into another Middle Eastern adventure, given what happened when the US tackled Iraq and Saddam’s ostensible weapons of mass destruction over a decade ago.”

However, Netanyahu wants the 2015 Iran nuclear deal to be amended or canceled.

“Our position is straightforward. This is a bad deal. Either fix it — or cancel it. This is Israel’s position,” said Netanyahu in Buenos Aires” the report said.

Netanyahu will meet with Trump and will hold a brief press conference before they go behind closed doors to talk about the Iran Nuclear Deal, Syria and Israel’s future conflict with Hezbollah. The Associated Press (AP) mentioned that the Trump administration has threatened to walk away from the nuclear deal:

U.S. President Donald Trump warned Monday that Washington will walk away from a nuclear deal it agreed to with Iran and five other nations if it deems that the International Atomic Energy Agency is not tough enough in monitoring it

U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry quoted Trump at the U.N. agency’s annual meeting in Vienna according to the AP report and said that the deal could either “stand or fail on IAEA access to Iranian military sites, declaring “we will not accept a weakly enforced or inadequately monitored deal.” Arutz Sheva 7 (www.israelnationalnews.com) also reported on what Amos Yadlin, the Executive Director at the Tel Aviv University Institute for National Security Studies had said about Barack Obama who he claims was not an appropriate partner and that the Trump White House was supportive to Israel’s cause:

According to Amos, Netanyahu did not act before now because former US President Barack Obama was not an appropriate partner.

“In 2015, I suggested the Prime Minister sit with the US government and make a strategy for dealing with this problematic agreement,” he explained. “Back then, Netanyahu said we didn’t have a partner in the White House.”

“Thankfully, today we have a supportive government which understands the threat very well, especially in light of what is happening with North Korea. We can’t let this opportunity deteriorate into simple rhetoric, we need to make a general strategy. We need to fight Iran determinedly in every way, including those not included in the Iran deal, such as ballistic missiles, Iran’s support of terror, and their involvement in Syria. We also need to strengthen our supervision of them and collect better intelligence.

“There needs to be an Israeli-American agreement which supports our understanding that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon, and detailing when and how we will work together to ensure our success”

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano confirmed that Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitment’s. Amano said that the

“the nuclear-related commitments undertaken by Iran under (the 2015 nuclear deal) are being implemented.” Amano continued “the verification regime in Iran is the most robust regime which currently exists. We have increased the inspection days in Iran, we have increased inspector numbers … and the number of images has increased,” he said, “From a verification point of view, it is a clear and significant gain.”

Will the Trump administration ignore the IAEA’s statement that Iran is in compliance with the nuclear deal? Haaretz also reported what Yisrael Katz, Israel’s Intelligence Affairs Minister had said about Iran’s Nuclear Deal:

Intelligence Affairs Minister Yisrael Katz (Likud) said:

“The first mission of the Israeli prime minister during his upcoming visit to the United States is to demand that the U.S. president suspend, amend or annul the nuclear agreement with Iran,” said Katz. “Iran is the new North Korea. Action should be taken against it now, lest we regret tomorrow what we did not do yesterday”

Israel wants Iran destabilized just like its neighbor, Iraq to weaken its political and economic standing in the Middle East. Iran’s allies are Hezbollah and Syria, enemies to both Israel and Saudi Arabia.  Iran is an economic and military power which can challenge the U.S. and Israel’s hegemonic power in the region. Netanyahu is trying to influence Trump’s decision to terminate the nuclear deal, which would put the U.S. on the fast track to war with Iran. Netanyahu would welcome an attack on Iran by U.S. forces which would free Israel’s military and allow it to focus on Hezbollah and possibly Syria in the next conflict with help from Saudi Arabia. It’s been a long-term goal of Washington’s political establishment and Netanyahu to realign the Middle East in Israel’s favor. With Trump in the White House, the Israeli’s see an opportunity while the rest of the world sees pure madness.

This article was originally published by Silent Crow News where the featured image was sourced.

On September 18th, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the Syrian Republcian Guard (SRG) officially crossed the Euphrates River using a pontoon bridge and amphibious vehicles.  They then engaged ISIS terrorists on the eastern bank.

The SAA and the SRG advanced on ISIS positions in the Saqr Island and captured a major part of it, liberated the village of Sabha, and entered the villages of Marrat and Mazlum.

ISIS counter-attacked against government forces in both areas with the support of 3 VBIEDs but failed to stop the government advance.

According to the ISIS-linked news agency Amaq, about 40 SAA troops were killed in the clashes there.

On the northeastern flank of Deir Ezzor city, government forces liberated Hawi, Zughayr, Hamad, and Shumaytah villages and entered the nearby oil wells area.

On September 19th, the SAA and the SRG continued developing their advance on the eastern bank in order to liberate Khasham Fooganni, al Abd, at Tabiyah, Albu Muayt, and the al-Tabiyah oil field and to build a buffer zone near the SDF-held area.

Meanwhile, Russian-US negotiations continued behind the scene as the sides were attempting to reach an agreement dividing spheres of responsibility in combating ISIS in eastern Syria.

The SDF, supported by the US-led coalition, has advanced against ISIS in Ramilah, Tishrin, Al-Amin, and the Al-Hani neighborhoods of Raqqah city and captured a notable part of Ramilah and Tishrin.

Since the start of the operation in the city, the SDF has realized major progress and is now pushing towards a final stage of the operation.

Voiceover by Harold Hoover

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

Featured image is from South Front.

Featured image: September 7, 2017, in Soseongri, South Korea. Photo by Park Jung-yeop of Newsmin. Used with permission. (Source: The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)

Apocalyptic panic and glib memes frame much of American discourse about the current North Korean nuclear crisis. Yet the North Korean crisis poses a challenge to the mandate of South Korea’s new liberal president, Moon Jae-in, to usher in an era of truly democratic politics, and indeed, to the fate of his administration. On the critical issue of US plans to install a terminal high area altitude defense (THAAD) system, an issue that has roiled the waters among South Korea, the United States and China, Moon has chosen to leave intact former conservative president Park Geun-hye administration’s undemocratic legacy.

THAAD is a controversial US-operated technology designed to intercept ballistic missiles in their terminal phase. One THAAD battery is comprised of six truck-mounted launchers and a powerful radar system. Following a 2016 bilateral agreement to deploy one THAAD battery in South Korea, in April 2017 the US delivered two launchers and the radar system to a golf course-turned-US installation near the remote village of Soseongri. As a presidential candidate, Moon had criticized the undemocratic and opaque decision-making processes of the original THAAD agreement, as well as the partial THAAD deployment in April. He also called for increased dialogue with North Korea.

Shortly after assuming the presidency, however, following a July 28 North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile test, Moon began calling for a tougher stance toward North Korea. He held an emergency meeting with the National Security Council and, in a reversal of his position on THAAD, announced that he would agree to allow the US to deploy the four remaining launchers to complete the THAAD battery. This decision touched off a fierce sixteen hour confrontation on September 6 and 7 between 8,000 police and 600 protesters in Soseongri as his administration cleared the way for US delivery of the launchers and other equipment.

A portion of the emergency roadblock set up by protesters early on the evening of September 6, 2017.

Moon has claimed that the deployment of the four launchers is only temporary. However, given US insistence on the deployment, and in light of the tense militarized situation on the Korean peninsula, “temporary” could turn out to be a very long time. Earlier in his term Moon said that he was “shocked” to learn that four more THAAD launchers—the very ones he would later allow to be deployed—had been brought into South Korea from the US. They had arrived secretly without his knowledge. Moon was so dismayed that he ordered a probe into the issue.¹

Moon’s late June summit with Donald Trump, which occurred within the context of increasing tensions with North Korea, set the stage for his THAAD reversal. As Tim Beal has argued, Moon displayed a servile attitude at the summit, easily yielding to US demands and avoiding discussion of the THAAD issue altogether in order to ensure a smooth meeting. He squandered his momentum as a popular new president and effectively established a dynamic in which South Korean international affairs would be subsumed within the US-South Korea alliance.² This dynamic, and the THAAD deployment in particular, severely limits the possibility of dialogue with North Korea and strains South Korea’s relationship with China.

Moon’s reluctance to reverse Park’s THAAD decision, and his failure to assert South Korean interests in his summit with Trump, have been heavily criticized by anti-THAAD activists. Although the US does not advertise its intention to encircle China, THAAD’s technical specifications suggest that the primary US interest in deploying THAAD is to deprive China of a second-strike capability in a nuclear war, and to increase US monitoring capabilities in the region.³ In a comparable moment during the Roh Moo-hyun administration, activists pointed out that South Korea was stuck with much of the bill for the spatial reorganization of US bases in South Korea. Base reorganization is part of the US pursuit of “strategic flexibility”, a euphemism for a more regional approach to security in which the US uses South Korea as one of many bases to achieve broader objectives.

The Chinese government has openly expressed dissatisfaction and anger at South Korea’s increasingly obvious role as a base for broader regional US objectives as illustrated by the Moon regime’s decision to accept the deployment of THAAD. China responded to South Korea’s decision to deploy THAAD by banning package tours to South Korea in the spring of 2017, with devastating effect on the tourist industry in places such as Jeju Island. It also retaliated against the Lotte Group, which turned over a golf course near Soseongri to the US to be used as a THAAD deployment site. The Chinese government closed down seventy-four of 99 Lotte stores in China for “fire violations” and encouraged citizen boycotts of Lotte and other South Korean companies.⁴ In the first half of 2017 alone, South Korean companies lost an estimated $4.3 billion as a direct result of conflict with China over THAAD.⁵ While this economic loss is not driving the activism at the center of the anti-THAAD movement, the tangible effects of a degraded relationship with China signal that THAAD is much more than a fringe theme in South Korea, whose largest trade partner is China.

Given North Korea’s ongoing missile testing and its threats against both the US and South Korea, common sense might seem to dictate that South Korean citizens would welcome THAAD as a defensive technology providing US protection against North Korean attack. Indeed, proponents of the system insist that it is the best defense available to protect South Korea from the North. Two successful THAAD tests in the Pacific this summer strengthened this confidence.⁶

Yet prominent experts such as MIT weapons physicist Theodore Postol claim that the system will not work to defend South Korea from North Korea. Not only is the capital city of Seoul, located just thirty miles from the North Korean border, excluded from THAAD’s defense area, but North Korea could also easily trick interceptors by using decoys.⁷ Additionally, the system is only capable of intercepting high altitude missiles, which North Korea would be unlikely to use against its immediate neighbor. Former US defense secretary William Perry also commented on the system in June:

“The US probably gave South Koreans a positive impression about THAAD’s defensive capabilities. But objectively speaking, THAAD probably wouldn’t be that good at defending against a North Korean missile attack”.⁸

At the heart of the anti-THAAD movement is the recognition that the South Korean government has handled the THAAD deployment in an illegal and undemocratic way while yielding to US demands rather than protecting the safety of the South Korean people. The agreement to deploy THAAD was reached between the Park Obama administrations in 2016 after years of US pressure on South Korea.⁹ Park’s decision came under fire from South Korean citizen groups in part because the national assembly was not consulted on the matter before the agreement was finalized, and no public documents were released that would provide detailed information about either the decision making process or the terms of the agreement. Lack of transparency around the agreement raises red flags given that Park and some of her closest associates are now serving prison sentences for various corruption-related crimes committed during her time in office. Activists generally believe that the US pressured South Korea to agree to the deployment as part of its broader regional objective, the encirclement of China. They also see the agreement as part of a corrupt weapons deal with Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the THAAD system. It is not an outlandish conspiracy theory given that state prosecutors recently initiated an investigation into the Park administration’s multi-billion dollar 2014 acquisition of Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighters.¹⁰

In July of 2016, the South Korean government announced that Seongju County (which also contains Seongju City as well as the village of Soseongri) would be the THAAD deployment site. Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn traveled to Seongju to persuade residents to accept the decision, but was met with insults and a barrage of raw eggs and plastic water bottles. Standing in front of the county office covered in yolk and egg whites, and shielded by bodyguards who continued to fend off flying objects, his case fell on deaf ears.¹¹

The anti-THAAD movement was at first joined by Kim Hang-kohn, the Seongju County chief who, like Park Geun-hye, was a conservative party member of the now-defunct saenuri dang. He rallied thousands of local citizens to oppose the decision to install THAAD. However, in August 2016 the central government switched the THAAD deployment site from a hill near Seongju City to a new location in Seongju County, the Lotte golf course near Soseongri. Kim then suddenly reversed his stance and took a pro-THAAD position. Kim’s reversal sapped the local movement of much of its popular local appeal. Local activists brand it as a great betrayal of his constituency in the service of party loyalty and personal careerism.¹²

When the anti-THAAD movement began gaining strength in mid-2016, it was in sync with the broader political transition throughout the country and provided momentum to it. A corruption scandal exploded in the autumn of 2016, leading to the popular “candlelight revolution” and the subsequent impeachment and imprisonment of former president Park Geun-hye.¹³ Media investigations revealed that Park’s long time confidant, Choi Soon-shil, used her proximity to the president to extort massive amounts of money from various firms and to wield undue influence in Park’s administration in spite of the fact that she held no official position. By December, Park was impeached, and in 2017 both she and Choi would be convicted of corruption-related crimes and sentenced to years in prison.

After Park’s impeachment, an interim government led by prime minister Hwang Gyo-ahn—the very person who had tried to persuade Seongju residents to accept THAAD and ended up covered with raw eggs—assumed power. Under pressure from the US and worried about the imminent prospect of Moon winning the May election, Hwang approved the rushed partial deployment of THAAD, presenting any new government with a fait accompli. His decision not only reflects US pressure but also the deeply entrenched conservatism and pro-US attitudes of those within the Ministry of National Defense and the South Korean civil service. Under the original agreement between the Park and Obama administrations, the system would not be deployed until the end of 2017. Yet on the morning of April 26, on the watch of the interim government, a US military convoy of 20 vehicles arrived at Soseongri. Stunned villagers, who by all accounts unanimously oppose THAAD, attempted to block the convoy only to be vastly outmatched by police. At the time, Moon, who was leading in the presidential race, criticized the rushed nature of the partial deployment and the lack of transparency surrounding the initial agreement with the US.¹⁴

Since the April deployment, police have maintained a full-time presence in Soseongri. Moreover, right-wing protesters from a reincarnated Northwest Youth League—the paramilitary group that participated in the brutal suppression of the Jeju Uprising in 1948—regularly march through the village, waving American flags, blaring anti-communist rap, and verbally harassing locals through a megaphone.¹⁵ Anti-THAAD activists from around the country, calling themselves “protectors”, take shifts in the village, watching out for the arrival of US military equipment as well as for the Northwest Youth League. Religious groups opposing THAAD deployment have maintained a, twenty-four hour prayer presence in the village. Residents in nearby Seongju City and Gimcheon have held nightly candlelight protests for over a year.

The Northwest Youth League in Soseongri, with anti-communist rap blaring in the background, on July 13, 2017. The group attempted to march through Soseongri, but was stopped by a villager sit-in on the main village road. Mocking an anti-THAAD slogan, the red sign reads, “If THAAD goes then peace will come? A commie lie! The truth??? If THAAD goes then war will come!”

Early in his term Moon ordered a full environmental assessment of the THAAD deployment site, ostensibly barring movement on the issue for a period of a year or more.¹⁶ Meanwhile activists stressed the undemocratic and corrupt government practices that had led to THAAD deployment. Prior to Moon’s reversal on THAAD in late July, activists held to the idea that once the corruption of Park’s government was fully uncovered, the new administration would have no choice but to reverse the THAAD decision.

The situation came to a head on September 6 when the Moon administration sent 8,000 riot police to Soseongri, 200 km south of Seoul, to clear the way for a US military convoy transporting four launchers and other equipment. In a sixteen hour struggle that lasted from late afternoon into the next morning, police encircled the village and eventually broke through a blockade of over 60 parked vehicles and 600 protesters. They ripped through protest tents and leapt on top of cars to break the blockade, forcing protesters to make way for the US convoy.

Ever since farmer Baek Nam-gi sustained fatal injuries during a 2015 protest under the Park government, South Korean police have been under public pressure to refrain from using excessive force against protesters. However, at Soseongri on September 6 and 7, police surged into crowds and nearly trampled fallen protesters. At one point a car almost tipped over on top of a group of people. In total, 38 injuries were reported, including those of six police officers.

Given just a few hours notice of the deployment, anti-THAAD activists from around the country poured into the village throughout the night, traveling on back roads and weaving through rice fields in order to evade the heavy police presence. Some elderly residents watched in tears as the scene unfolded; others hurled melons and sticks, or threw their own bodies into the crowd to push back against the police. By mid-morning, the US convoy transporting the four launchers and other equipment had passed through Soseongri.

Police climb over cars, and protesters attempt to hold them back (left). A Won Buddhist reverend watches police and protesters struggle from inside a modified container hut used by clergy. This photo was taken through the window (right).

Protesters attempt to keep police from ripping through tents that had been permanently set up in order to house activists. Photo by Park Jung-yeop of Newsmin. Used with permission (left). Villagers watch as police break the roadblock and permeate village space (right).

While the anti-THAAD movement is largely driven by residents of Seongju County and the surrounding area, it is supported by networks of activists from all over the country, many affiliated with religious, peace, labor, and social justice organizations that can mobilize their memberships for important events such as the emergency blockade of September 6 and 7.

Particularly influential are the Won Buddhists, whose main pilgrimage site is in Soseongri. For several months, clergy from all over the country have been on continual rotation to Soseongri, maintaining a prayer presence, scuffling with police, and using religious pretexts to set up blockades. Won Buddhist clergy as well as Catholic clergy involved in the struggle have sharply opposed the police and other representatives of the state. Two minor incidents illustrate this. In July, in a reconciliation meeting after a particularly difficult confrontation with Seongju police, a local Won Buddhist reverend told the local police chief that he was acting no differently from police under Japanese colonialism—essentially calling him a colonial collaborator. On September 6 in Soseongri, a local Catholic priest suddenly broke the somber sermon he was delivering from the back of a blockade truck as police gathered alongside the road. Jumping off the bed of the truck and lunging toward the police line, he shouted that they were “sons of bitches” (gaesaekkideul). Fellow protesters had to hold back the priest. Such incidents are regular occurrences in the struggle.

A Won Buddhists reverend approaches the prayer tent on the main road in Soseongri (left). At a July 26, 2017, protest, a Seongju County resident smashes a mock THAAD launcher. In this moment, he is shouting “Korea is not a colony of the US!”. The event was also attended by a US peace delegation that included high-profile activists (right). 

A few activists living in the communities near the deployment site were involved in labor and other progressive movements prior to becoming involved with the anti-THAAD struggle. Many others, however, had never before participated in a political movement, and describe participation in the struggle as a radicalizing experience.

When the THAAD deployment was announced in 2016, locals were initially concerned about health and environmental impacts of the missile defense system, and they were also worried about the locality becoming a target of attack. But this quickly broadened and deepened into a critique of the way in which the US-South Korea relationship subverted South Korean democracy. As evidenced by their discussion of the movement at daily protests, they distrust both the state, which engages in a “one-way conversation” on behalf of the US, and the mainstream media, which “distorts” their cause on the national stage. The political transitions of many are extraordinary given that they are largely first-time activists living in an overwhelmingly conservative part of the country.

On the morning of September 7, in the wake of confrontation between police and protesters, wrecked tents, ripped up mats and banners, and trash were strewn across the main street of Soseongri. Sleep-deprived activists gathered stray watches, single shoes, smashed glasses, and other personal items into a pile in front of the village hall. Several policemen, mostly young conscripts, returned to retrieve lost belongings only to be shooed away by villagers. Villagers on the scene in Soseongri on September 6 and 7 referred to the whole experience as “the second trauma”, the first being April 26.

A reporter sets up for a broadcast in the aftermath of the September 6 -7 struggle. The main street of the village is covered in debris (left). Police file out of Soseongri at noon on September 7, 2017 (right).

Regrouped, but still surrounded by police two hours after the US convoy passed through Soseongri, residents and supporters held a press conference to announce that the anti-THAAD struggle would continue. One Won Buddhist leader stated, “From now on, we can no longer say that the THAAD deployment is simply an evil of the previous government. It is instead a new and illegal action of the Moon Jae-in government.”

Indeed, Soseongri’s “second trauma” did not happen on the watch of a corrupt right-wing government run by the daughter of a dictator, nor by an interim government with zero legitimacy. It happened on the watch of the “candlelight president” himself.

Two days after the THAAD deployment, people who participated in the incident as protesters began to complain that any time they saw a truck, they would become anxious and imagined it was a THAAD launcher. Meanwhile, Moon went on a well-photographed hiking trip with his dog, appearing relaxed. The Blue House reported—perhaps a bit prematurely—that there was no sign of retaliation from the north, and again reiterated its insistence that the THAAD deployment was for the benefit of the people.

Bridget Martin is a PhD candidate in the Department of Geography at UC-Berkeley and researches the relationship between US military installations and local development in South Korea. She spent three weeks living with activists near the deployment site in July, and was present for the duration of the events that unfolded on September 6 and 7 in Soseongri.

Notes

¹ “’Shocked’ S. Korea Leader Moon Orders Probe Into Extra U.S. THAAD Launchers”, Reuters, 30 May, 2017.

² Beal, Tim “A Korean Tragedy”, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, 15.16, 15 August, 2017.

³ Suh, JJ, “Missile Defense and the Security Dilemma: THAAD, Japan’s ‘Proactive Peace,’ and the Arms Race in Northeast Asia”, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, 15.9, 27 April, 2017.

⁴ Yang, Heekyong, and Jin, Hyunjoo, “As Missile Row Drags On, South Korea’s Lotte Still Stymied in China”, Reuters, 16 June, 2017.

⁵ Cho, Kye-wan, “In the First Half of 2017, THAAD Retaliation Caused $4.3 Billion in Losses for S. Korean Companies”, The Hankyoreh, 6 July, 2017.

⁶ Johnson, Jesse, “US Holds Successful THAAD Anti-Missile Test in Bid to Reassure Allies Over Nervous North Korea”, Japan Times, 31 July, 2017.

⁷ Yi, Yong-in, “Interview: Expert Says THAAD Needlessly Raises Tensions, Hurts Security”, The Hankyoreh, 11 July, 2016.

⁸ Quoted in Yi, Yong-in, “Former US Defense Secretary Says THAAD Should be Removed if Moon Doesn’t Want It”, The Hankyoreh, 15 July, 2017.

⁹ Elich, Gregory, “Threat to China: Pressure on South Korea to Join US Anti-ballistic Missile System”, Global Research, 1 July, 2014.

¹⁰ Jun, Ji-hye, “F-35, KF-X Deals Likely to Get Scrutiny”, The Korea Times, 24 July, 2017.

¹¹ Choe, Sang-hun, “South Korean Villagers Pelt Premier With Eggs Over Missile Site”, New York Times, 15 July, 2016.

¹² Park, Jung-yeop, “Gimhanggon Gunsu Jesambuji Suyongttgyeongchal Dongwonhae Seongjugunmin Baesin” [“County Chief Kim Hang-gun’s Acquiescence on the Third Deployment Site: Police Mobilize, Seongju Citizens Betrayed], News Min, 22 August, 2016

¹³ Kim, Nan, “Candlelight and the Yellow Ribbon: Catalyzing Re-Democratization in South Korea” The Asia-Pacific Journal.

¹⁴ “South Korean President Frontrunner Moon Regrets Move to Deploy THAAD: Spokesman”, Reuters, 26 April, 2017.

¹⁵ Ryang, Sonia, “Reading Volcano Island: In the Sixty-fifth Year of the Jeju 4.3 Uprising,” The Asia-Pacific Journal, 

¹⁶ The interim government circumvented a full environmental assessment by dividing up the deployment site into several smaller sections, which would taken separately require only minimal environmental assessment prior to THAAD deployment. See Park, Byong-su, “THAAD Deployment Could Slow Down as Pres. Moon Orders Environmental Assessment”, The Hankyoreh, 6 June, 2017.

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated.

Featured image: Israel Air Force Brig. Gen. Zvika Haimovich(L) with U.S. Army Maj. Gen. John Gronski(R) at the ground-breaking ceremony for the new permanent U.S. Army base in Israel (Source: Israel Defense Forces)

President Donald Trump delivers his first speech to the United Nations today as the 72nd session of its General Assembly convenes in New York City under the shadow of war.

Little more than a week ago, UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres warned that the escalating conflict on the Korean peninsula resembled the events that led to the outbreak of the First World War over a century ago, implicitly raising the prospect of the world sliding into a nuclear third world war.

The American president, who during his “America First” presidential election campaign pointedly denounced the United Nations, appeared briefly at UN headquarters Monday for a forum on “reforming” the international body. He introduced his prepared remarks, which derided the UN for “bureaucracy and mismanagement,” by touting one of his real estate projects, the Trump World Tower, located across the street from the UN, saying that the building’s proximity to the UN had made it more profitable.

By “reform,” Trump means slashing spending. Earlier this year, administration officials suggested reducing the US contribution to the UN by half. The US president complained in his remarks about having to shoulder “a disproportionate share of the burden.” Washington’s annual contribution to the UN is roughly one-tenth of what it spent last year on its 16-year neocolonial war in Afghanistan.

The United Nations was established 72 years ago largely at the initiative of the United States, which emerged from the Second World War as the indisputably dominant imperialist power. At the time, this dominance was based not merely on military might, but above all on American capitalism’s unrivaled industrial strength and Wall Street’s unquestioned dominance over the affairs of world finance capital.

The UN was created as part of a global system designed to further American imperialist hegemony, which included the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and various global and regional alliances and trade organizations.

Written into the UN’s Charter were the so-called Nuremberg principles derived from the post-World War II trials of the surviving leaders of Hitler’s Third Reich, which made “crimes against peace,” i.e., aggressive war, the greatest war crime. The first sentence of the founding document of the UN declares that its purpose is “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”

That principle has been reduced to rhetorical window-dressing by Washington’s uninterrupted wars of aggression carried out over the past quarter-century, as the American ruling class increasingly relied on its military supremacy to offset the erosion of its global economic position.

In the person of Donald Trump, the ugly end product of American capitalism’s protracted decline—the rise of financial parasitism and the criminality of American militarism—is rising to the General Assembly’s podium on Tuesday. Trump will address the body under conditions where US imperialism is literally holding a gun to the head of humanity.

In advance of his appearance at the UN, his top aides issued multiple statements affirming that Washington is prepared to make good on the US president’s threat to unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” against North Korea. The US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, warned in a television interview Sunday that “North Korea will be destroyed” if the US has “to defend itself or defend its allies in any way.”

She affirmed that Washington had “exhausted all the things we could do at the [UN] Security Council,” adding:

“We wanted to be responsible and go through all diplomatic means to get their attention first. If that doesn’t work, General Mattis will take care of it.”

She was referring to the US defense secretary, Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis, who has threatened North Korea with “total annihilation.”

Similarly, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated Sunday that

“If our diplomatic efforts fail… our military option will be the only one left.”

And Trump’s national security advisor, Gen. H.R. McMaster, asked whether the US president “will strike” North Korea if it fails to give up its nuclear weapons, replied, “He’s been very clear about that, that all options are on the table.”

Amid these bellicose threats, American warplanes have carried out their most provocative exercises yet, with B-1B nuclear bombers and F-35 fighter jets flying Monday from Guam and Japan to drop bombs near North Korea’s border.

While placing the threat of a nuclear confrontation on the Korean peninsula on a hair trigger, Washington is also seeking to ratchet up tensions with Iran, with the aim of provoking a military confrontation with a country it sees as the main regional obstacle to its drive for hegemony in the oil-rich Middle East.

Trump and top administration officials have made repeated statements in recent days indicating that the US administration will refuse to certify that Iran is in compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), with the October 15 deadline for it to report to Congress approaching. Such a refusal would open the door to new rounds of unilateral American sanctions against Tehran. Prior to agreeing to the deal, Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama warned that the only alternative to the agreement was war.

While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the other major powers that are signatories to the agreement have all acknowledged that Iran is in full compliance with its restrictions on its nuclear program and the IAEA’s intrusive inspections regime, US officials have asserted that Tehran is violating the “spirit” of the agreement. By this they mean that Iran has failed to submit to the undisputed dominance of US imperialism over the entire Middle East.

Notably absent from the opening of the UN General Assembly are both Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping of China. Whether they chose not to make the trip to New York because they believed there was nothing to be gained in a face-to-face meeting with Trump, or because they feared that it would be dangerous to leave their capitals given the state of global tensions, is not known.

The US confrontation with North Korea is bound up with far broader strategic aims of US imperialism for domination of the Eurasian land mass, in which Washington regards both China and Russia as obstacles.

Even as US warplanes were carrying out their provocative bombing runs near the North Korean border, China and Russia were conducting naval exercises off the Russian far eastern port of Vladivostok, not far from the Russia-North Korea border.

In Eastern Europe, Russia, on the one hand, and NATO and Sweden—acting together with the US, France and other countries—on the other, are staging rival war games in Belarus, Ukraine and the Baltics in preparation for a potential military confrontation between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.

Meanwhile, in Syria, Syrian government forces backed by Russian air power and Iranian-backed militias, and US-backed Kurdish-dominated militias have advanced on the strategic eastern city of Deir Ezzor from opposite sides of the Euphrates River, heightening the threat of a military confrontation that could draw in both Washington and Moscow.

The UN General Assembly proceedings this week will only heighten the danger of one or more of these regional conflicts triggering a global conflagration. There exists no means of ending war outside of the overthrow of the profit system that is its source.

Many people thought that this day would never come, but it’s official – Russian President Putin will sell his Turkish NATO counterpart S-400 missiles, and there’s nothing that the US or NATO can do about it. This is a profound geo-military pivot for Turkey because it solidifies Russia’s role as the country’s high-level strategic partner for decades to come, considering that Russian experts will be relied on to provide maintenance, repairs, spare parts, and upgrades to these anti-aircraft systems. This move didn’t come out of nowhere, however, since it follows a spree of fast-moving steps that President Erdogan has taken ever since the failed pro-American coup against him last summer to diversify his country’s erstwhile Western unipolar dependency with newfound Eastern multipolar partners such as Russia, China, and Iran.

Ankara has since largely aligned its Mideast policies with all of these three Great Powers, particularly as it relates to Syria, and even though Turkey hasn’t officially done away with its failed “Assad must go” slogan, it’s all but certain that President Erdogan tacitly recognizes the reality that President Assad won’t be overthrown by so-called “moderate rebels”. In addition, he appears to be much more concerned about the rising Kurdish threat all along his country’s southern periphery as his former US “ally” moves forward with carving a de-facto “second geopolitical ‘Israel’” of “Kurdistan” out of Syria and Iraq. It’s this development, more so than anything else, which is driving Turkey to cooperate even closer with Russia, and it’s very possible that the expedited pace at which the S-400 sale went through is due to the imminent danger posed by what might soon become an American- and “Israeli”-backed “Kurdish Air Force” operating out of northern Syria and Iraq.

One needs to remember that the US is losing its decades-old position in the Mideast, particularly in parts of the Gulf and especially Turkey, and it therefore needs to accommodate for the new geostrategic situation ever since the commencement of Russia’s anti-terrorist operation in Syria almost exactly two years ago. There’s been talk ever since last year’s failed coup against President Erdogan that the US might pull out of its Incirlik base in southern Turkey, and some of the Syrian PYD-YPG Kurds were more than willing to invite it into so-called “Rojava” instead. Furthermore, a de-facto independent “Kurdistan” in northern Syria and Iraq would naturally encourage PKK separatist violence in the regions of southeastern Turkey abutting this polity, and if the Kurds were given or sold aircraft by the US and “Israel” for purported “anti-terrorist” purposes, then it’s foreseeable that these assets could end up being used against the Turkish military instead.

After all, it’s very unlikely that Turkey would risk its relations with the US to buy Russian anti-aircraft missiles just to guard against non-existent threats from the neighboring states of Georgia, Armenia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Cyprus, Greece, and Bulgaria. It’s more probable, then, that it chose to go ahead with this move because it already accepted that its ties with the US are irreparably ruined ever since last year’s failed pro-American coup attempt and that its former American “ally” is now actively working to erase the country from the map by supporting the region-wide rise of a so-called “Kurdistan”, complete, as it might even be, with its own “air force” in Syria and Iraq to assist with anti-Turkish strikes in support of their compatriots.

The post presented is the partial transcript of the CONTEXT COUNTDOWN radio program on Sputnik News, aired on Friday Sep 15, 2017:

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

Featured image is from the author.

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

On September 14, House members passed the measure one week after its introduction, largely along party lines. Trump expressed support. Senate consideration will follow.

The police state measure defines a criminal gang as a

“group, club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of 1 or more of the following criminal offenses and the members of which engage, or have engaged within the past 5 years, in a continuing series of such offenses, or that has been designated as a criminal gang by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, as meeting these criteria.” 

• felony drug offenses;
• aiding unwanted immigrants;
  violent offenses;
• obstructing justice;
• and other alleged violations of US laws, shifting responsibility to prove innocence on targeted individuals, not authorities as mandated under international and constitutional law.
  

The measure is far more sweeping than targeting alleged “gang members,” endangering refugees and asylum seekers from designated countries, ones Trump and other hardliners in Washington want kept out or targeted for removal – violating their civil and human rights.

Any immigrant suspected or alleged to be a gang member can be deported. US prisons are filled with wrongfully convicted men, women, youths, and children, mostly people of color.

HR 3697 is a vehicle for the manufacture of human and civil rights abuses, disgraceful legislation, its provisions no just society would tolerate.

It creates a sweeping new definition of “gang member,” giving authorities broad latitude to target social and political groups, clubs, even churches or other religious organizations.

It expands the use of mandatory, no-bond arbitrary detentions, a flagrant violation of international law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits arbitrarily detaining anyone.

Refugees and asylum seekers will be deterred from seeking refuge in America.

It’ll subject law-abiding immigrants to flagrant abuses of power, including Fifth Amendment equal protection rights.

It’ll permit sweeping roundups of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers of color, mainly Latinos. Living in the wrong neighborhood would risk deportation.

So could wearing the wrong colored clothing or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sweeping Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) roundups are notoriously indiscriminate, many individuals guilty of nothing abusively detained under deplorable conditions and deported.

HR 3697 authorizes deportations if there’s “reason to believe” so-called gang affiliation or association, no credible proof required.

Expansive language permits sweeping up law-abiding people indiscriminately, children as vulnerable as adults.

DHS can target anyone based on secret evidence, classified evidence, no evidence or any pretext cited – without due process, constitutional protections denied.

Humanitarian relief can be denied individuals fleeing persecution from designated countries.

HR 3697 is deplorable legislation, the latest in a long line of US police state laws – certain to be enacted if Senate passage occurs.

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.

Note: This address was delivered at a Workers World Party Detroit branch public meeting held on Saturday September 16, 2017. The gathering was entitled “Topple White Supremacy Do It Like Durham.” There was a report via Facebook from the Durham WWP Branch where 14 leading comrades and allies in North Carolina are facing felony charges for demolishing a monument to the Confederacy on August 15. Other presentations were given by Comrades Jamie Smedley, Mond Jones and Martha Grevatt of WWP Detroit branch. The meeting was chaired by WWP Comrade Kelly Carmichael of Detroit. Two guest speakers from the Detroit Black Youth Project 100, Lynx and Arthur Bowman III, also spoke at the forum.

***
Congratulations to the Detroit comrades for their mission to Durham last weekend. Our party must be thoroughly committed to the elimination of racism and national oppression in the United States.

Institutionalized racism and national oppression grew out of the rise of global capitalism and world imperialism. Today the U.S. is the leading imperialist state in the world. Consequently, the role we play here in the citadel of hegemony by finance capital will be critical in transforming this country and the entire planet.

In Detroit we have been attempting to keep up with the rapidly developing situation. The attacks by the ruling class are intensifying on a multi-faceted level. We can safely say that all of the gains of the African American and Labor movements of the 20th century have been reversed.

Nonetheless, more people are coming out into the streets ready to struggle against racism, class exploitation and police terror. From Durham and St. Louis to Detroit there is a burning hunger for justice, genuine equality and self-determination.

A representative aspect of this emerging mood is the anger surrounding the expulsion of San Francisco 49ers Quarterback Colin Kaepernick as a free agent in professional football. This young talented athlete sought to express the mass sentiment in response to the systematic killings of African Americans and other oppressed people by the police across the country.

On Sunday September 10, two members of the party and other friends were able to attend one of the demonstrations against the National Football League (NFL) and its racist policies held outside of Ford Field downtown. The Detroit Lions fans were entering the area in the thousands while people wanting to protest gathered at Grand Circus Park.

As we approached the crowd of about 50 people in the Park the private security guards were telling them that they could not gather there because it was private property. Both of us immediately began to refute the guards who were African Americans.

We told them to go call the police because they had no authority to tell us to leave a public park in downtown Detroit. A young police officer later appeared also saying that Grand Circus Park was private property.

By this time most of the crowd had gone to Brush Street, the area leading into the entrance of Ford Field. Several African American police officers approached the person speaking into a bullhorn apparently telling him that the demonstration would have to be moved to another location. Here again the notion of private property in public spaces that are funded by the people continues to arise as an impediment for the expression of the views of the oppressed and working class.

Finally, the demonstration settled at the corner of Madison and Brush in front of 36th District Court. People knelt in solidarity with Kaepernick and the African American people being oppressed today in the U.S.

What was interesting was the response of the ticket holders which largely consisted of white suburbanites sprinkled with a small minority of African Americans, some of whom were local politicians. Most of the fans acted as if they were indifferent to the demonstration. A small number of people expressed solidarity with the protests although they continued to stream into the stadium. Most strikingly there were a number of whites who conveyed open hostility to the anti-racist demonstration.

This hostility is part and parcel of the overall atmosphere existing downtown along Woodward Avenue and in particular the eastern section of the area. We noticed at a bar on East Adams and John R they were playing a record by Lynyrd Skynyrd entitled “Sweet Home Alabama”, saying that the “southern man don’t want you around.” Clearly such attitudes being blasted in Detroit is an affront to the majority African American population and all people of goodwill and conscience.

Later it was revealed that two African Americans attending the Lions game sat during the playing of the national anthem. A photo was taken of them and posted on social media with derogatory racial epithets attached.

We are in full solidarity with those who are calling these demonstrations against the NFL for its institutional racism and exploitation of players. Are African people in the U.S. still slaves? Obviously, this is a rhetorical question that reveals that over 150 years since the conclusion of the Civil War, African people are routinely attacked if they speak out against their own oppression.

We are encouraging sports fans and all anti-racist forces to continue these demonstrations along with a boycott of the NFL and their corporate sponsors. Most of the profits accrued by the team owners come from advertising. Tickets and merchandise sales also make a significant contribution to the firms’ economic viability. We can no longer continue to pay for our own exploitation and degradation. Kaepernick and any other professional athlete should have a guaranteed right to condemn racism in all of its forms.

District Detroit and Corporate Racism

As it relates to the resurgent private property claims by security and law-enforcement agents deployed downtown, we are currently consulting with the Michigan American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyers about the illegal removal of demonstrators from public spaces. These arbitrary decisions three years ago during the bankruptcy prompted legal action by Moratorium NOW! Coalition and other groups which we successfully settled outside of the courts for an undisclosed amount in damages. The City of Detroit even drafted a new ordinance ostensibly clarifying the rights of the people to protest.

These developments are not taking place within a vacuum. With the consolidation of corporate rule over the city these infringements on the civil rights of the majority African American population will become even more pronounced.

All of the existing stadia, arenas and casino hotels are subsidized by taxpayer funds. These prestige projects were sold to the people and local politicians as mechanisms to create employment and tax money for the improvement of the municipality. Nonetheless, all three of the casino hotels have undergone bankruptcy. The much-championed tax revenues from the casinos opened 18 years ago became a source of legal contention during the bankruptcy when it was revealed that taxes from the casino firms were not going directly into the city coffers and instead being captured by a bond insurer in order to pay the usurious interests to the financial institutions.

The conditions of the present configuration of the District Detroit complex are even more enormous. Little Caesar’s arena was not even voted on in a referendum by the people of the city. There was no debate except within the City Council whose majority of members are bought and sold by the capitalist entities that effectively run Detroit. Several court actions attempting to gain a seat at the table for the people were ineffective due to the lack of a mass movement specifically targeting the corporate racism that dominates the city.

According to an article published by the Detroit Free Press:

“The initial estimate was $450 million for the arena. But as the scope of the project increased to accommodate the Pistons’ move back downtown, the cost of the arena swelled to $863 million, including the four-story mixed-used buildings facing Woodward and Cass as well as the Via, or internal concourse, the new Chevrolet Plaza, and parking. Various public financing will pay for $324 million of that, with the Ilitch family responsible for finding the rest of the financing.” (Sept. 4)

The stated aims of the District Detroit project are to link Midtown and Downtown with shops, restaurants, apartments and bars. These construction deals and financing are being carried out absent of any consultation with the communities being impacted. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being earmarked for this development while the neighborhoods, schools, water services, environmental safety of the residents of Detroit are being consistently eradicated.

There were two demonstrations against Kid Rock as the opening act at Little Caesar’s on September 12. The first organized by the Michigan National Action Network (NAN) marched in the street up to the arena and then circling back around to head back to Grand Circus Park where it began.

Another group of activists from the initial demonstration wanted to make a direct challenge to the corporate magnates of Illitch Holdings, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and the politicians whom carry out their biddings. A crowd of 200 youth and community people marched on the sidewalk back up to the arena to set up a picket of the Kid Rock event.

Thousands of right-wing Trump supporters attended the event. A group of 200 bikers drove up the streets on the opposite side during the initial march and set up camp in front of the arena along Woodward Avenue. These bikers were relocated to the rear of the arena after the second march set out from Grand Circus Park to directly confront the corporate racists and their supporters in District Detroit.

Just one day later on September 13, the opening of Crain’s so-called “homecoming” was held at the long-closed Detroit train station on Michigan Avenue. The purpose of the annual event as promoted by the corporate media is to bring back wealthy former residents to assist in the revitalization of the city.

Several organizations including the Moratorium NOW! Coalition and the Charlevoix Village Association announced they would protest this event as well. This “homecoming” for the rich and famous was well publicized by the local business media. Early on that morning, Fox News Detroit gleefully reported on the gathering with the caveat that it is an invitation only affair, as an announcer said:

“if you don’t have an invitation you cannot get in.”

Such an outrageous news report is typical of the role of corporate media in the city. The television and newspaper outlets routinely treat the masses with contempt, promoting the notions that the billionaire ruling class will be the salvation of Detroit.

The demonstrators outside the train station chanted slogans saying:

“Detroit Needs Water, Not Champagne.”

This slogan points to the tens of thousands of water shut-offs in Detroit since the advent of emergency management, municipal bankruptcy, the Duggan administration and the Financial Review Commission oversight board composed of representatives of capital and the comprador political functionaries from City Hall.

Those in attendance at the event could hear the chanting and speeches outside. Many left the party long before it was over. However, others stayed while a few came out in an attempt to talk with the demonstrators.

Issues related to property tax foreclosures, corporate tax captures, police terrorism, the dictatorship of capital and the role of the subservient political operatives were addressed by the speakers. Our position is that there can be no genuine revival of Detroit without addressing the needs of the people for a moratorium on property tax foreclosures, the rebuilding of the public school system, quality housing for African Americans and working people, cleaning up of the environment and effective political empowerment of the masses.

Forward to the World Conference of Mayors

It is imperative that we continue to answer the corporate racists who are spending millions of dollars for public relations consultants every month in an attempt to foster a false perception of the actual conditions in Detroit. We must bring an anti-capitalist position to these debates taking place in the city and its environs.

Our message cannot be muddled like some who are saying that they are not opposed to Dan Gilbert and the Illitch family, only the appearance of Kid Rock. They also eschew posters that portray the people of Detroit, who are 80 plus percent African American, as white. The disempowerment of the Black majority is a precondition for the escalation of the super-exploitative conditions under which we live. The dissolution of bourgeois democratic practice is being enacted in order to maximize profitability for the banks and multi-national corporations such as Bedrock, Quicken Loans and Illitch Holdings.

Therefore, the upcoming World Conference of Mayors scheduled for late October should be viewed as a terrain of ideological and political struggle over the future of the city and its working and poor people. Detroit is by no means a viable model for urban revitalization in the 21st century. The real agenda of the ruling class is the further displacement, disenfranchisement and repression of the African American majority in Detroit.

We need to provide an alternative program which challenges private capital and its control over our lives. We are for self-determination and social justice. Capitalism in its present modern-day form cannot grant these demands. Consequently, our ultimate objective is the realization of a socialist society which is controlled by the working class and the oppressed.

All images in this article are from the author.

As we meet here this evening, a radical overhaul is underway – of our political, economic, financial, social and cultural system. A new Constitution is being discussed, at the same time a plethora of radical reforms are being rushed through. The fact that many of these reforms are being challenged as unconstitutional indicates that the new Constitution is aimed at making what is un-Constitutional today, Constitutional tomorrow, making legal what is illegal by a simple trick of changing the Law!

The issue is not whether a new Constitution is needed or not. It is the fundamental and inalienable right of the people to determine the economic, social, political and cultural system in which they choose to live. But that choice will be their choice only if it is freely made, not with a gun pointed at their heads. Today, Sri Lanka finds itself practically under a form of tutelage to the US, a global power whose strategic objective is to maintain its global hegemony.

It is indeed symbolic that the US Ambassador chose to announce Washington’s decision to “assist” Sri Lanka draft its Constitution and implement the Human Rights Council resolution from the amphibious warship USS New Orleans, which is used to land and support ground forces on enemy territory and patrols provocatively close to China. It is also ironic that it is from Temple Trees that the Acting US Assistant Secretary of State Alice Wells declared, last week, that

“the United States is – and will continue to be – an Indo-Pacific power.”

She was the first to announce America’s “first ever naval exercise” in Sri Lanka in October, in Trincomalee.

You will agree that rewriting the Constitution under such conditions can only advance Washington’s cause, not ours!

There are also other guns pointed at us: the 2015 Human Rights Council resolution and the notorious IMF/World Bank conditionalities, including in particular the political conditionality misleadingly known as ‘Good Governance,” a neoliberal project inimical to the national interest.

Yes, ‘Good Governance” – or “Yahapalana” as we know it here – was not invented by Ranil, Chandrika, Sirisena or Mangala! The IMF, World Bank and the US Treasury coined the term in the late 1980s as a political conditionality for the enslavement of indebted Third World countries such as ours to make us permanently indebted and dependent, facilitating external interference and domination!

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

“Good Governance” takes politics out of government and manages a shift from government to governance. By doing so, it has undermined nation-building wherever it has been implemented, and fuelled identity conflicts especially in multi-ethnic societies. You will find the same buzzwords in the Human Rights Council resolution and in the ‘good governance’ conditionality: “rule of law,” “democracy,” “devolution,” “participation,” etc.  These are the same buzz words parroted by the Yahapalana regime.  In January 2016 last year, the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe told Parliament that the purpose of the new Constitution was, among other things, to establish “a political culture that respects the rule of law and strengthens democracy.”

The aim of ‘Good Governance’ is to convert whatever remains of the State into effective and strong state agencies that guarantee the interests of foreign capital in particular. This not only means that the State will no longer serve the public interest; it will actually be turned into a repressive State against the very people it must serve. Even the World Bank admits that good governance is anti-democratic, that it demands measures directed against the expectations of the majority of the people. In a 2002 report, the World Bank was explicit:

“Good governance requires the power to carry out policies and to develop institutions that may be unpopular among some − or even a majority − of the population.”

Behind both these threats  –  the Human Rights Council resolution and the IMF/World Bank conditionality – is the same face: Washington’s!

Let’s be clear. The demands contained in the Human Rights Council resolution are not Burundi’s or Cuba’s or Russia’s or China’s. They are Washington’s. It was Yahapalana’s abject servility that made it possible for Washington to turn it into a weapon against the Sri Lankan people and their nation. As for the international financial institutions, they are dominated by Washington, which controls nearly 50% of the IMF vote share compared to Sri Lanka’s 0.19%!

The reforms demanded of us are so fundamental that they cannot be implemented without changing the Republican Constitution. A hybrid court is one. Another is the so-called devolution of power, which is a project to dismantle the State. Yet another is the conversion of our armed forces into an auxiliary of the US armed forces against our national sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. That will require wide-ranging security sector reforms; demilitarisation of the North and East (which means two-thirds of our coastline); external control over recruitment and vetting of employees and officials; ending military involvement in civilian activities; etc. etc.

Underpinning the resolution is the demand for accountability, accountability is the pillar on which the so-called “Responsibility to Protect” (or RtoP) stands, and the goal of RtoP is to legitimise US intervention and domination!

In the late 19^th century, the US and Great Britain justified their “savage wars of peace” as the “White Man’s Burden” to bring “civilization and progress” to barbaric non-Western, non-Christian, non-white peoples. Today, the justification is “Responsibility to Protect,” which is claimed by the US and its junior partners in the West as the right to intervene in other countries under the pretext of protecting citizens of those countries. The moral rhetoric is human rights and humanitarianism. The victims are the same – non-Western, non-Christian, non-white.

RtoP is a project of re-colonisation, associated with tutelage. In a report on Responsibility to Protect, the UN Secretary General called for revising the UN Trusteeship System, i.e., the system of tutelage for “non-self-governing” colonial territories (2013). The original proposal came from former US Ambassador Edward Marks who was Deputy Chief of Mission in Sri Lanka, in 1987. Marks talked about an international regime of tutelage for multi-ethnic societies, which he said were “failed States.” His argument is that

“the transition from colonial rule to political and economic independence in the nation-state model is proving to be too much for some very fragile multi-ethnic societies.”

The implications of the resolution are far reaching in terms of the ability of foreign powers to intervene in the sovereign affairs of a country, despite domestic opposition. An OHCHR Report on Rule of law tools for post-conflict States (2006), is unambiguous. According to it, in case of domestic opposition to international involvement, an international mandate “provides international actors with the authority and means to intervene directly in domestic affairs and overrule domestic procedures if necessary.”

US interference in Sri Lanka began long before the resolution was adopted. It was, however, the Yahapalana regime that gave it wings and also international legitimacy.

United Nations Under-Secretary-General Jeffrey Feltman (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The US Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Sri Lanka to fix the road map even before a legitimate Government was in place. The two visits to Sri Lanka of Jeffrey Feltman, the UN Under Secretary-General for Political Affairs, are also significant. On his first visit shortly after the 2015 Presidential elections, Feltman declared he was here “to assist in the process of accountability and reconciliation.” On his second visit last month he revealed that accountability and reconciliation had meant changing the Constitution. He came to monitor progress.

Feltman is a former US Assistant Secretary of State, a neoconservative hawk linked to Robert Kagan – their theoretician, Victoria Nuland and Samantha Power. Feltman has been involved – at the highest level – in regime change, destabilization, the break-up of sovereign States into ethnic enclaves, fomenting violence. I would require more time to give an account of his role in covert operations in the Ukraine, Russia, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Moldova, Georgia, Venezuela, Colombia, El Salvador, etc.

Other significant visits include that of Samantha Power, also known as the “Liberal War Hawk,” and George Soros, US multi-billionaire who believes we don’t have enough “constitutional democracy.”

Once the Council resolution was adopted, things moved into high gear. Three months later, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the Constitutional Assembly, two months later, along with USAID, he said assistance would be obtained from Washington, the European Union, and the UK through the Foreign Office funded Westminister Foundation for Democracy, which was set up in 1992  to organize political parties in Eastern Europe following the collapse of the socialist bloc. In July 2016, the US Assistant Secretary of State Nisha Biswal visited Sri Lanka and admitted there was a direct link between the Council resolution and a new Constitution. She said the Constitution was part of the work “foreshadowed” in the Council resolution and that as ‘co-sponsor,’ the US felt it was “a shared responsibility to help this process through.” That was just before the US Ambassador’s announcement from USS New Orleans that Washington would assist with the drafting.

What began as an agenda to abolish the Executive Presidency was transformed overnight into a full-blown reform of the Constitution.

With the new Constitution, as with the resolution, the Yahapalana regime is trying to convert us Sri Lankans into Washington’s little soldiers who will defend a hegemonic vision based on “invisible threats.” With the arrival of the Yahapalana regime, there has been a strengthening of military ties between the two countries, as confirmed before the US Congress by Acting US Assistant Secretary of State Alice Wells. The recent launch of the US-trained Sri Lanka’s first Navy Marine Force trained for rescue and evacuation of US troops in case of attacks at sea, and the Indian Ocean Conference at Temple Trees, are part of a process that will permanently affect Sri Lanka’s independence and sovereignty.

It is significant that the Minister holding the Foreign Affairs portfolio at the recent Indian Ocean Conference in Temple Trees (August-September) had been involved in drafting a military agreement with high-level US military officials in secret meetings in 2002. He was then Minister of Defence. The Prime Minister on both occasions was the same and was believed to have met with the then US President George Bush in Washington to discuss the Agreement that was to be signed in December.

Coming back to the “invisible threats” to Washington that Sri Lanka will be called upon to fight, what are they? Where is the evidence? These are legitimate questions.

The response to these questions by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shows that Sri Lanka will be dragged into wars and conflicts over which it has no knowledge or control. Rumsfeld was referring to Iraq and so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction, which turned to be a fiction of Washington’s fertile, but sick, imagination, but for which a modern day “savage war for peace” was fought, people massacred and a country destroyed. Here’s what he said:

the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence….There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know. … Each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.”

In this regard, I will leave you with a question for further reflection. It was posed by the famous American writer and filmmaker, Errol Morris:

“Imagine someone tells you that there is an elephant in the room. You search the room, opening drawers, checking closets, looking under the bed. No elephant. Absence of evidence or evidence of absence?”

Friends, fellow Patriots, if the Constitution is to be ours, written by a free people, we must first resist this diabolical project!

Note: This is the text of a speech delivered at the launch of the movement Elya (Light) during a mass and very successful meeting in Colombo on September 6th. 

On 29 August, the Kirkuk Provincial Council voted on a demand from governor Najmaldin Karim, a Kurd and a high-ranking member of the Patriotic Union Of Kurdistan (PUK – the party of former Iraqi president Jalal Talbani), one of the leading Kurdish parties, on whether Kirkuk should take part in the referendum on Kurdish independence scheduled for 25 September.

On Tuesday, the Iraqi parliament has refused to accept the referendum on Kurdish independence, saying that Article 109 of the Iraqi Constitution states that MPs should work to ensure Iraqi unity and sovereignty. Article 50 obligates MPs to work for the unity of Iraq.

The parliamentary resolution asked the Iraqi government to protect the unity of Iraq and to take all necessary measures towards this end, including beginning dialogue with the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in northern Iraq to solve the region’s problems and head off the referendum.

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.

However, at a press conference Karim said that all ethnic groups had been represented.

“The Turkmen and Arabs who boycotted the meeting did not represent their people,” he said.

Majeed Ezzat, a member of the Turkmen bloc, told Al-Ahram Weekly that

“those who boycotted the meeting are the real representatives of our people. The others, whether Turkmen, Arab or Christian, are members of the Kurdish bloc and were on the Kurdish list in the local elections. They have been brought by the Kurds and follow Kurdish policies.”

Aziz Omer, a Turkmen political analyst, told the Weekly that during the former Baath Party regime in Iraq there were Kurdish parties in Baghdad, but the “real Kurdish parties” did not recognise them.

“They used to say that the Kurdish parties in Baghdad were fake and parts of the regime,” he said, adding that “the leading Kurdish parties began doing the same thing after [the fall of the Baath regime in] April 2003, establishing and funding many Turkmen parties in the city of Erbil and so-called disputed areas in a bid to impose Kurdish policies.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi and many leading political blocs in Iraq have rejected the decision of the Kirkuk Council because Kirkuk and the other disputed areas are not part of the KRG, and they have refused to accept the referendum that they say violates the Iraqi Constitution that confirms the unity of Iraqi territory.

Hadi Al-Amiri, head of the Badr Organisation, a political bloc, has asked the Kurds to choose either the referendum or Article 140 of the Constitution regarding the so-called disputed areas.

MP Hassan Turan, a Turkmen representative from Kirkuk and a member of the legal committee of the Iraqi parliament, told the Weekly that

“the Kurds’ pretext is that Article 140 has not been applied. But this article is controversial. The Kurds are demanding that it be applied and the Turkmen have said the article should be modified.”

“But the two parties [Turkmen and Kurds] have not asked the opinion of the Iraqi Higher Federal Court.”

Turan said the Arabs and the majority of the blocs in parliament had the same opinion, agreeing that Article 140 is inapplicable because it generates problems over borders that could lead to the amalgamation of governorates.

In a 2009 report, Staffan de Mistura, UN secretary-general special representative in Iraq from 2007 to 2009, had said that Kirkuk was a “perfect fit” for the province, Turan said. The report had set out a road map for solving the Kirkuk issue on the basis of agreement among all the ethnic components of Kirkuk.

“The Turkmen will boycott and refuse the results of the referendum and will go to the Federal Court,” Turan said, adding that “any problems regarding Kirkuk and the so-called disputed areas cannot be solved without the participation of the Turkmen.”

Torhan Al-Mufti, general-secretary of the Iraqi Higher Commission for Coordination among the provinces, told the Weekly that

“local elections have only been held once in Kirkuk since 2004 because there are doubts about voter-registration records. These should be reviewed according to Article 37 of the elections law.”

“If elections cannot be held, how can a referendum,” he asked.

Al-Mufti said the result could not at present be taken into consideration either in Iraq or elsewhere. When the constitution was written, he said, there was the Taamim governorate and the term Kirkuk in Article 140 did not clarify whether it referred to the city, township or province.

MP Mohamed Tamim, an Arab representative from Kirkuk, told the Weekly that

“the real representatives of the Arabs in Kirkuk are those who were elected by the Arabs in the province, and we refuse the referendum.”

“I have heard that the Kurds are using the referendum to push Baghdad into accepting their conditions, especially on the funding issue, but they should pay Baghdad $28 billion from the proceeds of policing the northern borders and selling the oil of Kirkuk.”

Tamim said that the Arabs in Kirkuk had been asked to boycott the voting, and “we have warned it could generate a new wave of ongoing violence.”

MP Emad Youkhnna, a Christian from Kirkuk, issued a communiqué rejecting the referendum in Kirkuk and denouncing the Christian members of the council who had voted in favour of it.

Mohamed Mahdi Al-Bayati, a Turkmen politician and the commander of the Badr Northern Axis who is from Tuz Khormato 74 km south of Kirkuk, another disputed area with a Turkmen majority and part of the Salahuddin Province, told the Weekly that

“in Tuz Khurmato, the Kurds might put ballot boxes in their party buildings, but they could not put them in the Turkmen neighbourhoods because the political equation is different than it is in Kirkuk. Here the Turkmen have the power.”

 “We will refuse the results of the referendum in Kirkuk and elsewhere,” he said.

The Diyala Provincial Council has rejected the referendum, yet many towns in Diyala will participate in it, among them Kara Tepe, where more than 60 per cent of the population are Turkmen, according to a source from Kara Tepe who spoke to the Weekly on condition of anonymity.

Three members (one Turkmen and two Arabs) from the 15-member town council have refused the referendum, and the Turkmen member has begun receiving threatening messages, he said. In Mandly (60 per cent Arabs and 25 per cent Turkmen) in Diyala Province, 90km northeast of baghdad, the Arabs have organised protests against the referendum.

Masoud Barzani, the president of the Iraq Kurdistan Region who has insisted on holding the referendum on 25 September, has said that an independent Kurdistan “won’t be a Kurdish national country, but will be a country for all ethnicities living in it”.

One Kurdish political analyst who spoke to the Weekly on condition of anonymity said that self-determination was the right of all the nations in Iraq, but that Kurdistan would need to be recognised as a new state by the UN.

When South Sudan became a new state, some 80,000 documents were presented to the UN, for example, he said.

However, Turkey, Iran, the Arab League, the US, the EU and the UN have either rejected the referendum or demanded that it be postponed for the time being.

Iraqis who fear another wave of civil war say that there is still the possibility of negotiations to maintain Iraqi unity before the drums of civil war explode the powder keg.

Featured image is from the author.

The Indian Ocean Conference (IOC) organised by the India Foundation and held at the Sri Lankan Prime Minister’s official residence ‘Temple Trees’ from Aug. 31 to Sept.1, was billed as a gathering of Indian Ocean Region countries and ‘other concerned nations’ with a view to advancing ‘Peace, Progress and Prosperity” in the Indian Ocean. While this is no doubt a laudable goal, the absence of perspectives from regional players like China and Pakistan points to somewhat more partisan objectives than those advertised.

The delegate described as ‘Principal, Ambassadors’ LLC Group, China’ was actually an American citizen, and while there was ambiguity as to the interests she represented it would be safe to surmise that she did not represent the People’s Republic of China. However, the US, also an external power, was represented by its Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Central and South Asia, Alice Wells.

A post on the Conference’s Facebook page points to objectives not revealed elsewhere. It describes the gathering as being “part of India’s efforts to rejuvenate ties with IOR countries and increase its outreach in the region to counter growing Chinese influence in the region.” The IOC’s real purpose is candidly stated:

“The event can be seen as an effort to counter China’s growing influence in the IOR.”

India’s worries over China’s growing maritime footprint are shared by the US, resulting in converging interests in the IOR.

“Given its economic downturn, the US seeks like-minded democracies in the Indo-Pacific region to balance China” says Indian Ocean researcher Lindsay Hughes in an article published by ‘Future Directions International.’ “It has strong relationships with Australia, Japan and South Korea” but “It lacks a similar partner in the eastern Indian Ocean …”

Referring to Washington’s agreement with Delhi to share military facilities and its efforts to sign an intelligence-sharing agreement as well, this analyst says that a close partnership with India “suits Washington’s strategy of passing some of the responsibility for maintaining security in the Indian Ocean Region to regional partners.”

Wells in her Colombo address unequivocally asserted that

“the United States is and would continue to be an Indo-Pacific power.”

It may be noticed that the terms ‘Indo-Pacific’ or ‘Indo-Asia Pacific,’ combining the two oceans as if they are a single entity, is increasingly used now by American officials. The terminology may be intended to make the increasing US assertiveness in the IOR seem ‘normal’ although the US lacks presence in the Indian Ocean comparable to its massive build-up in the Pacific theatre. The US’s deepening ties with the Sri Lanka Navy in recent times are also worth noting in this context. At the conference, Wells announced the first ever US-Sri Lanka naval exercise to be carried out in October. According to reports this exercise will be conducted by the US Seventh Fleet in Trincomalee, a strategically located deep water port on the country’s East coast.

The US has increasingly referred to ‘Freedom of Navigation and Over flight’ in its rhetoric, seeking to enlist the support of partners in its enforcement. While in her speech Wells called on others to “adhere to a common vision that respected international law as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention,” it is ironic that the US itself has not acceded to the LOS Convention. All the same the US has been in the habit of challenging other states when they act in ways that the US believes pose a threat to ‘freedom of navigation,’ by sending its warships into the waters concerned. These ‘Freedom of Navigation (FON) assertions by the US have dangerously racked up tensions with China in the South China Sea. In the latest incident reported last month, the USS John S. McCain sailed within 12 nautical miles (the internationally recognized territorial limit) of Mischief Reef in the Spratly islands, causing Beijing to express displeasure over what it called an act of provocation. The incident took place in disputed waters where China’s claims are contested by neighbours. The volatility of the situation is compounded by the fact that this was a time when China’s help was being sought to defuse tensions with North Korea over its missile tests.

Armitai Etzioni of The George Washington University, Washington DC says the US is acting, as it is often accused, as the world’s policeman.

“ .. as far as FONA (Freedom of Navigation Assertions) is concerned, the United States decides on its own which new restrictions introduced by any nation in the world are ‘‘excessive,” and what it considers the correct interpretation of international law and UNCLOS” he said in a 2015 research paper. “And it unilaterally applies its military force ….. to enforce the rules. In short, in these matters the United States acts as accuser, judge, jury, and executioner.”

Etzioni warns that these types of actions add a security risk “as they can quite readily escalate into dangerous clashes between the forces of the super powers.”

It is in this context of ambiguity as to the motives of various parties, that Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe pledged at the IOC that Sri Lanka would take the lead in initiating a discussion “to deliberate on a stable legal order on freedom of navigation and over flight in the Indian Ocean.” In view of the US’s eagerness to strengthen military ties with Sri Lanka, the question arises as to whether the US agenda of containing China has been taken on as well. The language used by India’s External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, by comparison, was more circumspect, and did not refer to ‘freedom of navigation’ but rather Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision of ‘Security and Growth for All in the Region’ (SAGAR). Given the prevailing tensions in the IOR Sri Lanka will need to beware of being used as the cat’s paw of any big power in its games of brinkmanship – it does not need to become another South China Sea!

Palitha Kohona (Source: Asian Tribune)

Asked to comment, Palitha Kohona, former head of the UN Treaty Section in New York expressed the view that Sri Lanka must again take a high profile position in discussions relating to the oceans and the blue economy. Dr. Kohona was also Chair of the UN Sixth Committee (Legal), Chair of the UN Committee on Biological Diversity Beyond National Jurisdiction and Chair of the Indian Ocean Committee. He made this assertion “given that Sri Lanka, with its 200-mile EEZ and potentially vast continental shelf would increasingly turn to the ocean for its future prosperity (fisheries, petroleum and mineral extraction, environmental protection, including coral reefs, dolphins and whales, migratory fish species, tourism, etc).” On an optimistic note he added that Sri Lanka’s input will be respected “where the Convention on the Law of the Sea needs further elaboration or clarification, including in the formulation of codes.”

“Of course, like many rules of international law, the provisions of the LOSC also tend to be interpreted to suit the convenience of those relying on them. Some major powers are not parties to the LOSC but subscribe to its provisions as reflecting customary international law – the US, Turkey and Venezuela among them” he said.

The United Nations Security Council’s 15-0 vote to impose a new set of sanctions on North Korea somewhat disguises the critical role played by the Russia-China strategic partnership, the “RC” at the core of the BRICS group.

The new sanctions are pretty harsh. They include a 30% reduction on crude and refined oil exports to the DPRK; a ban on exports of natural gas; a ban on all North Korean textile exports (which have brought in US$760 million on average over the past three years); and a worldwide ban on new work permits for DPRK citizens (there are over 90,000 currently working abroad.)

But this is far from what US President Donald Trump’s administration was aiming at, according to the draft Security Council resolution leaked last week. That included an asset freeze and travel ban on Kim Jong-un and other designated DPRK officials, and covered additional “WMD-related items,” Iraqi sanctions-style. It also authorized UN member states to interdict and inspect North Korean vessels in international waters (which amounts to a declaration of war); and, last but not least, a total oil embargo.

“RC” made it clear it would veto the resolution under these terms. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the US’ diminishing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Moscow would only accept language related to “political and diplomatic tools to seek peaceful ways of resolution.” On the oil embargo, President Vladimir Putin said,

“cutting off the oil supply to North Korea may harm people in hospitals or other ordinary citizens.”

“RC” priorities are clear: “stability” in Pyongyang; no regime change; no drastic alteration of the geopolitical chessboard; no massive refugee crisis.

That does not preclude Beijing from applying pressure on Pyongyang. Branch offices of the Bank of China, China Construction Bank and Agricultural Bank of China in the northeastern border city of Yanji have banned DPRK citizens from opening new accounts. Current accounts are not frozen yet, but deposits and remittances have been suspended.

To get to the heart of the matter, though, we need to examine what happened last week at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok – which happens to be only a little over 300 km away from the DPRK’s Punggye-ri missile test site.

It’s all about the Trans-Korean Railway

In sharp contrast to the Trump administration and the Beltway’s bellicose rhetoric, what “RC” proposes are essentially 5+1 talks (North Korea, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea, plus the US) on neutral territory, as confirmed by Russian diplomats. In Vladivostok, Putin went out of his way to defuse military hysteria and warn that stepping beyond sanctions would be an “invitation to the graveyard.” Instead, he proposed business deals.

Largely unreported by Western corporate media, what happened in Vladivostok is really ground-breaking. Moscow and Seoul agreed on a trilateral trade platform, crucially involving Pyongyang, to ultimately invest in connectivity between the whole Korean peninsula and the Russian Far East.

South Korean Prime Minister Moon Jae-in proposed to Moscow to build no less than “nine bridges” of cooperation:

“Nine bridges mean the bridges of gas, railways, the Northern Sea Route, shipbuilding, the creation of working groups, agriculture and other types of cooperation.”

Crucially, Moon added that the trilateral cooperation would aim at joint projects in the Russian Far East. He knows that

“the development of that area will promote the prosperity of our two countries and will also help change North Korea and create the basis for the implementation of the trilateral agreements.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-in visit the Far East Street exhibition at Russky Island in Vladivostok. Photo: Sputnik / Mikhail Klimentyev

Adding to the entente, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono and South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha both stressed “strategic cooperation” with “RC”.

Geo-economics complements geo-politics. Moscow has also approached Tokyo with the idea of building a bridge between the nations. That would physically link Japan to Eurasia – and the vast trade and investment carousel offered by the New Silk Roads, aka, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU). It would also complement the daring plan to link a Trans-Korean Railway to the Trans-Siberian one.

Seoul wants a rail network that will physically connect it with the vast Eurasian land bridge, which makes perfect business sense for the fifth largest export economy in the world. Handicapped by North Korea’s isolation, South Korea is in effect cut off from Eurasia by land. The answer is the Trans-Korean Railway.

Moscow is very much for it, with Putin noting

how “we could deliver Russian pipeline gas to Korea and integrate the power lines and railway systems of Russia, the Republic of Korea and North Korea. The implementation of these initiatives will be not only economically beneficial, but will also help build up trust and stability on the Korean Peninsula.”

Moscow’s strategy, like Beijing’s, is connectivity: the only way to integrate Pyongyang is to keep it involved in economic cooperation via the Trans-Korean-Trans-Siberian connection, pipelines and the development of North Korean ports.

The DPRK’s delegation in Vladivostok seemed to agree. But not yet. According to North Korea’s Minister for External Economic Affairs, Kim Yong Jae:

“We are not opposed to the trilateral cooperation [with Russia and South Korea], but this is not an appropriate situation for this to be implemented.”

That implies that for the DPRK the priority is the 5+1 negotiation table.

Still, the crucial point is that both Seoul and Pyongyang went to Vladivostok, and talked to Moscow. Arguably the key question – the armistice that did not end the Korean War – has to be broached by Putin and the Koreans, without the Americans.

While the sanctions game ebb and flows, the larger strategy of “RC” is clear – a drive aimed at Eurasian connectivity. The question is how to convince the DPRK to play along.

The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria issued a report this September that reinforced the official narrative that the Syrian air force dropped a bomb containing nerve gas sarin on the insurgent-controlled town of Khan Sheikhoun, Syria on April 4. That conclusion comes several weeks after the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) issued a report that supported sarin exposure as the cause of death and injuries.

The reports by the two official international bodies appear to be aimed at closing the book on what happened at Khan Sheikhoun, where at least 83 deaths and 293 injuries occurred. But a months-long investigation by AlterNet into the questions around the attack raise serious questions about whether a sarin bomb was the source of the deaths. Relying on analysis from forensic and weapons experts, as well as a senior intelligence official with decades of experience in assessing bomb damage, the investigation suggests that a conventional weapon dropped by a Syrian plane struck barrels of a pesticide that created deadly phosphine gas that caused symptoms paralleling those of sarin and capable of causing mass casualties.

The evidence gathered in this investigation undercuts the credibility of the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) laboratory test results that showed exposure to sarin, demonstrating how the organization violated its own protocols and opened the door for tampering. Further, the investigation raises questions about whether Russian and Syrian intelligence knew — or should have known — that the conventional strike on the target in Khan Sheikhoun carried a serious risk of mass casualties.

At the center of the U.N. Commission’s case is a crater in the middle of a road in Khan Sheikhoun in which two metal objects were found. The shoddy narrative of a sarin attack carried out by the Syrian government has flowed from this hole in the ground.

The Sarin Bomb Crater That Wasn’t

The UN commission report refers to the crater as a “hole,” commenting that it was “too small to be a crater,” but pronounces it consistent with a chemical weapon. Without any reference to a source of evidence, it refers to the two pieces of metal as “two parts of the bomb.” Although it admits to being “unable to determine the exact type of chemical bomb used,” it declared the two pieces of metal to be “consistent with sarin bomb produced by the former Soviet Union in the 250kg-class of bombs.”

But for longtime analysts of weapons impacts, the scene provoked serious doubts. In interviews, two highly qualified former U.S. government specialists noted that a chemical weapon could not have made a crater as large and deep as the kind that appeared in a raft of reports about the attack on Khan Sheikhoun, especially in asphalt.

“I have never seen a crater like that from a 122 millimeter CW [chemical weapon) warhead,“ said a former senior intelligence official, with decades of experience in analyzing bomb damage, who did not wish to be identified because of his continuing work with U.S. national security officials.

That observation reflects a fundamental difference between chemical and conventional high explosives munitions. Chemical weapons have only very small amounts of explosives in the “burster mechanism”—enough to open up the bomb to disperse the chemical, but not enough to cause a crater in the pavement. If a chemical munition had contained enough high explosives to create a large hole in the pavement, it would have burned up the chemical to be dispensed and could not have caused the mass casualties seen in Khan Sheikhoun.

The former senior intelligence officer declared the metal detritus inside the crater was staged.

“I am certain that it was placed there after the fact,” he said. “The entire set-up looked like a pothole with a pipe over it, not a military explosion or impact.”

Pierre Sprey, an aeronautical engineer who spent many years at the Department of Defense as a weapons analyst, also doubted that the scene at the crater was genuine.

“I have viewed the images of many, many weapons impacts of all kinds, and the photos didn’t look like any impact crater I’ve ever seen,” he said. Sprey said the site “looked more like a pothole than anything else—much more that than a weapons impact.”

Further undermining the credibility of the sarin attack narrative is the absence of any weapon. The main pieces of any chemical weapon should have fallen, still intact, just a few meters away from the crater, according to John Gilbert, senior science fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Proliferation and formerly head of the Onsite Inspection Agency in the Defense Department. Gilbert conducted the inspections of the former Soviet chemical arsenal in conjunction with the U.S.-Soviet 1990 chemical weapons agreement.

Sprey agreed that intact pieces of the weapon should have been found.

“Without a shadow of a doubt you would have found the tail fins and nose cone,” said Sprey.

Not a single recognizable fragment of a weapon that could have delivered sarin gas was ever displayed in videos or photographs taken by the White Helmets or Syrian rebel media activists in Khan Sheikhoun. Ole Solvang, the main author of the Human Rights Watch report on Khan Sheikhoun published May 1, acknowledged in an interview that he had asked all the personnel of the White Helmets civil defense organization and other witnesses interviewed by his organization whether they had seen any other parts of a weapon. All responded in the negative. (The White Helmets is a Western and Gulf-funded arm of the Syrian insurgency that is primarily responsible for influencing foreign news media and opinion on behalf of the Syrian armed opposition).

Chunks of asphalt would also have been strewn around the crater by an airstrike.

“Debris would be blown several meters away from the crater,” Gilbert noted in an interview.

But independent Berlin-based forensic researcher Michael Kobs discovered footage suggesting no debris was on the road near the crater after that morning.

Kobs noticed a brief scene in a video published by Orient News Service on April 4, less than two hours after the alleged explosion at the site, showing (at 1.12) the road near the crater completely clear of pieces of asphalt and other debris. Using standard forensic techniques for estimating the time an image was taken based on the length of a shadow in relation to a fixed object, Kobs calculated that the video was shot between 8:30 and 8:50am, on April 4. The airstrike took place around 6:40-6:45 am, according to most witnesses.

Kobs found another video published April 6 that shows all the chunks of asphalt had been moved by hand to an area roughly five meters wide and two meters deep by the side of the road. The White Helmets or other health authorities authorities had placed the same red sign with skull and crossbones over the asphalt pieces that had been put inside the crater itself.

If a chemical weapon had exploded at that spot, the chunks of asphalt dislodged from the crater would have been covered with sarin liquid, which would have taken far more than a couple of hours to dry in the cool morning air. So any contact or inhalation near them would have been highly lethal.

Furthermore those two hours were the period during which the White Helmets and the Idib Health Directorate were engaged in taking dead and wounded to the White Helmet facility east of the Khan Sheikhoun. Given the extreme dangers associated with the handling of objects contaminated with sarin, the idea that the local government ordered civil defense teams to cart chunks of asphalt drenched in sarin away from the road during that first hour and a half seems absurd.

The video evidence indicates that the road near the crater was already clear before April 4 and the crater was therefore not the result of an air attack that morning. It now appears that the hole was either the remains of a previous military event or simply a pothole that had been filled in with dirt but not repaved. A video shot several hours after the chemical incident shows (at 3:04-3:08) what appears to be two large potholes within a few yards of the crater, both of which had been filled in with dirt but left unpaved.

Further evidence that the toxic gas that killed and injured residents could not have come from that crater can be found in the June 29 report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Though the report concluded that sarin gas was used, and that it “likely” emanated from the crater, Figure 7 of the report contradicts these findings.

Figure 7 (seen above) provides an aerial view of Khan Sheikhoun, with the area where victims were stricken shaded in yellow. The image highlights the crater in red and labels it as “point 1,” and shows that the point lies only a few meters east of a residential neighborhood. Yet no part of that neighborhood is shaded yellow, meaning that no one in the immediate vicinity of the supposed blast site was exposed to a toxic gas. The OPCW did not explain how residents living just meters away from the scene of a chemical attack could have suffered no ill effects.

The U.N. Commission’s claim that the two pieces of metal found in the hole in the road were parts of the bomb dropped on the site relied on a report on Khan Sheikhoun issued by Human Rights Watch. HRW asserted that the large piece of metal and the small cap that had been shown in various positions in the crater could have been parts of a Soviet-era chemical weapon designated as KhAB-250. HRW argued that the KhAB-250 “has two green bands” supposedly used to indicate a chemical weapon, and that the piece of metal found in the crater had what appeared to be a green stripe on it. It also said the filler cap ”appears similar” to the cap covering the filling hole of that bomb.

That HRW claim was in turn apparently based on a tweet that itself relied on a Russian researcher who acknowledged that his assertion was just a hypothesis.

It is now clear that HRW’s theory was completely unfounded. An official historical study of Russian bomber armament up to 1945 published by Russian Federation General Staff in 2001 indicates the KhAB-250 was put into service in 1945. Soviet production of sarin did not even begin until 1958-’59. The Soviets discontinued the KhAB-250 50 years ago, according to Russian Ministry of Defense spokesman Gen. Igor Konashenkov. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the KhAB-250 was ever exported by the Soviet Union to Warsaw bloc allies or Middle Eastern regimes. The only photographs of the KhAB-250 available on the internet are from the military museum in Moscow.

Even if a KhAB-250 had somehow appeared in Syria, the bomb could not have made the crater shown to the world as the site of a sarin attack, according to Gilbert. If it had, Gilbert explained,

“the crater would have been several times larger.”

Independent forensic researcher Kobs has disposed of the idea that the filler cap had anything to do with a KhAB-250 bomb, showing that the side of the cap, or nozzle, HRW suggested was similar to the KhAB nozzle actually goes inside a bomb rather than on its outside surface. After an exhaustive search of images of Russian bombs, Kobs found only one bomb whose filler cap came anywhere close to resembling the side of the cap that would be visible: the OFZAB-500 fragmentation incendiary bomb. The two bolt holes in the OFZAB-500 filler cap are not in the same place as the one photographed at the site. The OFZAB-500 is one of the bombs Syria reproduced with Iranian aid during the present war, so it could have been slightly redesigned. But it is not capable of delivering a chemical weapon.

The evidence now available makes it clear that the scene suggesting a sarin attack at the crater was a crudely staged deception. Al Qaeda and Ahrar al-Sham, the Salafi-jihadi militias that were in firm control of Khan Sheikhoun, had a powerful incentive to present such a scene or pothole to global news media as the attack site. These armed groups would have been deeply unsettled by signs on the eve of the event that the Trump administration was withdrawing support for anti-government forces. But they were also keenly aware that the U.S. news media had long embraced a hard line against the Assad regime, and that Washington was likely to respond strongly if presented with what appeared to be evidence of a mass casualty sarin attack.

It was not the first time that those working under al Qaeda authority had arranged a falsified bomb crater scene to shape international opinion. After an attack on a Syrian Red Crescent aid convoy west of Aleppo last September, the White Helmets photographed the crumpled tailfin of a Russian OFAB-250 bomb in a crater in a warehouse. But a bomb of that weight would have made a much larger and deeper crater. The only plausible explanation was that the OFAB-250 tailfin had been planted there after the fact.

How a Pesticide Caused Mass Casualties in Khan Sheikhoun  

The U.N. Commission report says it investigated claims by Russian and Syrian officials that a Syrian airstrike hit a “weapons depot” and having found them to lack credibility, determined that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that the casualties were the result of a Syrian air force sarin attack. But the evidence now available leaves little doubt that both the initial Russian and Syrian government explanation and the local government-White Helmet explanations have deliberately obscured the real cause of the mass casualties

Eyewitness accounts of the airstrike, the revelations in Seymour Hersh’s article in Die Welt and other information about the building hit by a Syrian bomb, the geographic pattern of the casualties, the known characteristics of aluminum phosphide and the symptoms of the victims all indicate a very different explanation: A Syrian high explosive bomb hit supplies of aluminum phosphide stored in a building in the northeast area of Khan Sheikhoun, releasing a cloud of deadly phosphine gas, which caused the deaths and injuries.

Syrian and Russian government statements about the event have confused the issue by insisting that the Syrian airstrike took place at 11:30am, rather than before 7:00am. Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said the target was “near Khan Sheikhoun” rather than in the city itself. That was an obvious effort to conflate the early morning airstrike with a second airstrike later that morning on a complex run by the White Helmets civil defense organization east of Khan Sheikhoun, that included an underground medical facility as well as offices and storage areas.

Konashenkov described the target of the strike as a “terrorist warehouse” where bombs had been made that “contained toxic substances.” The spokesman said the alleged warehouse had stocked the same chemical weapons that had been used by rebels in Aleppo, and that the symptoms shown by Khan Sheikhoun victims in videos were the same as those exhibited by victims of chemical weapons in Aleppo.

But contrary to the official Syrian and Russian account, the main target of the airstrike was clearly not the complex east of Khan Sheikhoun, but a building in Khan Sheikhoun itself. Accounts from a number of eyewitnesses indicate that an airstrike hit a two-story building about 240 meters southwest of the crater the local authorities and activists claim had been left by the strike, as well as a second building another 100 meters southwest. Photographs in a report by activists belonging to NGOs who support the armed opposition show (pp. 34-35) what had been a two-story cinderblock building that was completely destroyed by the airstrike.

The U.N. Commission does not deny that a strike hit targets other than the crater but simply ignores the evidence that the northernmost of those two buildings was the source of the deaths and injuries. Eyewitness accounts confirmed, however, that the bomb that destroyed the building was also the source of a lethal toxic chemical cloud. A 14-year-old eyewitness told the New York Times she saw a bomb dropped on a building at that time in the morning create what she described as a yellow mushroom cloud that stung her eyes. Another witness said she heard a loud explosion and saw a yellow-orange cloud, and that her daughter inhaled the gas from that cloud and died very soon after from its effects.

It turns out that one of the alleged eyewitness cited by Human Rights Watch as having seen a bomb being dropped at the crater site was actually watching the bomb that destroyed that building. Ahmed al-Helou, a farmer who was on a hill at an unspecified distance east of the city, told Human Rights Watch he saw the bomb fall “in front of” the central bakery—meaning west of the bakery, which faces the main road—and that it created “yellowish smoke.” But as the Google Earth aerial view of the area of Khan Sheikhoun below shows, the central bakery is not east of the now infamous crater; it is about 50 meters south of it. The cinder block building demolished by the bomb, however, is about 200 meters west of the bakery, so the bakery would have been between al-Helou and the demolished building. He saw the same explosion and yellow smoke as the other two eyewitnesses.

Hersh reported that the building hit in the airstrike had been under surveillance by a Russian drone for days, and that intercepted communications had indicated that a meeting involving senior officials of Ahrar al Sham and al Qaeda was supposed to be held there on April 4. Other evidence indicates that the building that was destroyed was indeed the one that had targeted by Syrian intelligence, but that the inhabitants were linked to the opposition government, but not to military or political decisions. The widow of a former detainee told researchers for the NGO report that she had rented one floor of that two-story building to a family from Hama province, and that the father had been killed and seven member of the family had been injured.

The list of victims appended to that NGO report shows (#72-80) that Amer Nayf al Nayef from Hama province and eight members of his family—the only victims on the list not from Khan Sheikhoun itself – had all died that day. Last September Syrian Voice, a news website with contacts in the opposition, identified Amer Nayef as the head of the Hama Province Council’s relief office. An offensive led by al Qaeda and Ahrar al Sham that had begun in Hama province to which the government responded with airstrikes had displaced thousands of rural people. Nayef told Syrian Voice that he was looking for housing for the displaced in other areas. Obviously Nayef moved to Khan Sheikhoun to work on that resettlement.

The Russians at Shayrat airbase who were in touch with U.S. officials at the Al-Udeid airbase in Qatar via the “deconfliction line” said the intelligence had also found evidence of weapons and goods required by the population, including “insecticides to protect crops” being stored in the basement of the building, according to Hersh’s report. What apparently concerned Syrian intelligence the most was information that supplies of aluminum phosphide, commonly used as a fumigant to protect grain from rodents, were stored there. When this chemical is exposed to moisture, however, aluminum phosphide produces deadly phosphine gas, which can in turn be used as a chemical weapon.

The Syrian suspicions about al Qaeda’s forces using a phosphine-based chemical weapon were not completely unfounded. In mid-2015 Islamic State troops in Syria had fired shells at Kurdish forces that were found by a private research organization to have contained phosphine gas. In spring 2016, a terrorism intelligence website had reported that a password-protected pro-Islamic State and pro al-Qaeda internet forum had started a thread on how to produce phosphine gas for improvised explosive devices.

In November 2016, a Syrian airstrike had destroyed part of a warehouse close to Khan Sheikhoun’s grain silos, and after driving rebels troops out of Aleppo, Russian forces had discovered an assortment of what were regarded as potential chemical weapons in a former school, including bags of aluminum phosphide. The Syrians and Russians were on the lookout that any evidence that aluminum phosphide was being stored somewhere in the city.

But the aluminum phosphide stored in the house Nayef’ had rented was very likely part of the resettlement work he was doing in the Khan Sheikhoun area. Although it is possible that the house was also to be used for political meetings, the aluminum phosphide was almost certainly for agricultural use. This background to the strike raises serious questions about Russian and Srian intelligence really knew about the target and whether they were aware that a conventional airstrike on supplies of aluminum phosphide carried the risk of mass casualties from phosphine gas.

Western mainstream media reported that the symptoms experienced by victims of toxic gas exposure were consistent with exposure to sarin, and treated them as clear evidence of a sarin attack. But what those reports failed to mention was that those same symptoms are also consistent with exposure to phosphine gas, and that two reported symptoms of victims could only have resulted from phosphine gas exposure.

The symptoms common to both sarin and phosphine poisoning include chest tightness, difficulty breathing, dizziness, excessive salivation, tearing, lethargy, drowsiness, fatigue, loss of feeling, impaired gait, convulsions, blurred vision, vomiting and diarrhea. Both sarin and phosphine can also cause cyanosis, or bluish discoloration of the skin.

But two more symptoms reported to have been experienced by victims in Khan Sheikhoun are linked to phosphine exposure and could not have been produced by sarin. The nurse who treated victims at al-Rahma hospital that morning recalled that injured patients were vomiting from the nose and mouth, and that their vomit had created dark yellow stains around the mouth that sometimes turned to brown. When phosphine gas burns it forms phosphorus pentoxide, which reacts with moisture in body tissues to create highly corrosive phosphoric acid. This effect is what accounts for vomiting that leaves yellow or even brown stains around the mouth.

Bleeding from the mouth, another unique symptom of phosphine exposure, was described by an eyewitness in an AFP video. A media activist at the same hospital where 18 severe cases were being treated confirmed that symptom, recalling that as they were administered oxygen, the victims bled from the nose and mouth. That symptom, too, is associatedwith exposure to phosphine gas but not with sarin exposure. Examination of autopsy reports from phosphine poisoning deaths has shown that they have frequently found bloody frothing from the nose after the lungs began to fill with blood.

The evidence from eyewitnesses, the data from OPCW itself on the location of the victims, the background of Syrian concern about aluminum phosphide, the nature of the phosphine gas it released and the symptoms displayed by the victims is all at odds with with official narrative of a sarin attack at the site of the crater. That evidence strongly suggests that the al Qaeda authorities in Idlib successfully foisted a tale of a Syrian government sarin attack on mainstream Western media and governments, the OPCW and now the U.N. Commission of Inquiry.

The initial Russian-Syrian account of the event also distracted attention from the real Syrian airstrike in Khan Sheikhoun and the question of what they anticipated would be the consequences of bombing supplies of aluminum phosphide. But any effort to hold them accountable for that actual strike only came when Western governments acknowledge that the alleged sarin attack on Khan Sheikhoun was a fiction.

How the OPCW Produced False Positives for Sarin Exposure

OPCW’s fact-finding mission’s June 29 report was universally regarded as presenting laboratory test results confirming that the deaths and injuries in Khan Sheikhoun were from a sarin attack. The report does indeed show largely positive test results for exposure to “sarin or a sarin-like substance,” as OPCW phrased it.

But the two types of tests OPCW relied on to produce those results can both produce false positives for sarin exposure. As this report reveals, one of the tests carried out by laboratories for the OPCW can be manipulated before biomedical samples are taken to produce the desired test result. As for the second test, its conclusion was fundamentally flawed, as it ignored the fact that exposure to phosphine gas would have brought about precisely same test results that were attributed to “sarin or a sarin-like” chemical weapon.

Neither of the two OPCW laboratory tests can detect directly the toxic gas to which the victims were exposed. The OPCW network laboratories relied on gas or liquid chromatography to look for a specific metabolite or breakdown compound, as they could not have identified sarin itself. Sarin breaks down rapidly in the human body into a metabolite called isopropyl methylphosphonate. IMPA is the first compound for which the laboratories test, and finding it in a blood, urine or tissue specimen has long been considered evidence of exposure to sarin.

But that test can be fooled. As even a cursory internet search will demonstrate, isopropyl methylphosphonate is sold commercially by major chemical companies. And IMPA is not only safe to handle but was found by the EPA to be harmless when consumed orally at doses of 3,000 parts per million. In order to produce positive laboratory test results showing exposure to sarin, this substance could be administered in a hydration drip or glass of water before a biomedical sample is taken from the test subject.

Two scientists with close ties to the OPCW, both intimately familiar with the organization’s testing for exposure to sarin and other nerve gases, acknowledged in e-mails that administering commercially available IMPA to a person before biomedical samples were taken would indeed show up in the OPCW lab test as a positive for IMPA. Both scientists insisted on anonymity in responding to queries.

“If you injected IMPA into people whom you then present as victims, you would indeed find it in the urine,” one scientist who has worked closely with OPCW said in an email.

The other scientist said,

“As far as I am aware the metabolism of IMPA has not been studied, but it is likely that following ingestion or administration some would appear in the urine unchanged.”

Neither of the scientists contested the fact that the test for IMPA in urine samples could have produced false positives.

The laboratory results for biomedical samples taken without OPCW personnel present provide evidence that biomedical samples were taken after administering IMPA to the subjects. According to specialists who had tested biomedical samples for sarin exposure, the metabolite of sarin can rarely be detected after a week.  Yet biomedical samples of alleged attack victims were transmitted to the OPCW team between April 12 and 14—from eight to 10 days after their exposure to chemicals in Khan Sheikhoun. And every one of the seven urine and hair samples submitted by the Idlib Health Directorate—which operates under the control of al-Qaeda and its allies in the province—was positive for IMPA.

Biomedical samples submitted during that same period more than a week after the toxic chemical event by the Syrian American Medical Society—a non-profit, pro-opposition organization that works closely with the al Qaeda controlled health service in Idlib province—provided further evidence of tampering. Three of the seven blood samples tested negative for “sarin or sarin-like substance,” indicating that those three had not been exposed to a nerve agent. Yet two of the three urine samples and all three of the hair samples from those who had clearly not been exposed tested positive for IMPA, the substance that can be administered to produce false positives for the breakdown product of sarin.

The OPCW report itself recognized those results as irregularities but did not acknowledge that they indicated an obvious manipulation of the sample-taking by those institutions.

While acknowledging, in effect, the possibility of a false positive on the test for IMPA as the biomarker for sarin, both scientists asserted that other OPCW tests were used to confirm the positive results of the test for IMPA. The OPCW test to which they were referring is called a “protein adduct” test and is much more elaborate than the test that seeks to identify IMPA. They try to regenerate part of the compound representing the organophosphorus nerve agent that binds to acetylcholinerase (AChE) or butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) enzymes in human cells in order to confirm the nature of the compound to which a victim has been exposed.

But these tests do not identify the specific nerve agent involved. They can only confirm exposure to a type of chemical that can bind with those enzymes and cause them to cease functioning. The OPCW confirmed that fact in a 2014 article on its protein adduct test, explaining that the adduct reproduced by the test may appear identical to the one produced by exposure to sarin, but may actually be the result of exposure to VX nerve gas. That explains why the OPCW adopted the phrase “sarin or a sarin-like substance” in reporting the results of the protein adduct tests on biomedical sample from Khan Sheikhoun.

The OPCW, which is only concerned with chemical weapons, never considered the possibility that the organophosphate toxic agent that was reflected in those tests results was phosphine gas. Experts on phosphine have long known, however, that among other toxic effects on the human body, phosphine gas disrupts the supply of acetylcholinesterase—just as sarin and other officially recognized nerve gases do. William Potter of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Tulsa was the lead author of an early study on the effect of exposure to phosphine gas on acetylcholinesterase levels in agricultultural workers, including those who applied phosphine. Potter told AlterNet that whenever phosphine gas enters the human body, “it forms reactive phosphorus intermediaries that would inhibit acetylcholinerase in a manner very similar to known chemical weapon nerve gases.”

Phosphine’s intermediaries would have such an effect by binding to enzymes that regulate nervous system transmission, Potter said.  And that effect could have been reflected in OPCW laboratory tests of victims of phosphine exposure, according to Potter.

“Laboratory tests on blood samples from someone exposed to phosphine,” he said, “would indicate several different different reactive phosphate derivatives  that inhibit esterase enzymes.”

But Potter added that the laboratory tests probably would not have recognized it as the signature of a phosphine derivative, because they were only expecting to find sarin or another weaponized nerve agent.

How OPCW Violated Its Own Protocols

The OPCW report also presented the results of laboratory tests of the environmental samples in and near the crater that was alleged to have been the site of the Syrian military’s bombing, as well as from a goat and several birds. But the OPCW had no verifiable chain of custody of the samples, meaning that the organization did not see them collected, so al Qaeda-directed personnel could have manipulated the samples either before or after collection. The samples in and around the crater were collected by the “chemical sample unit” of the White Helmets civil defense organization, which was also responsible for media and foreign opinion operations in relation to the toxic exposure event. In Idlib, the White Helmets function entirely under the authority of the province’s al-Qaeda leadership.

Dr. Theodore Postol of MIT, who examined the video of the White Helmets collecting the samples, noted in an interview that the video shows the White Helmets violating the most fundamental rules of sample collection and systematically cross-contaminating the samples. The teams of civilian volunteers used the same tools repeatedly for different samples, put them in plastic bags only loosely tied at the top and then mingled all the samples together in one relatively small box.

The OPCW report cited the fact that the Syrian government had provided a series of environmental samples as evidence, and even suggested that the government did not question the OPCW’s overall conclusions. But the details of that data do not support the latter assertion. Although the samples from soil and metal objects in the crater said to have been taken on the Syrian government’s behalf and tested in its laboratories all registered as positive for sarin, those samples could have easily have been contaminated from the start with a few small vials of sarin. On the other hand, all but one of the 14 soil samples analyzed by the government laboratory outside the crater registered nothing of significance.

In citing the positive test results on environmental samples and reporting on biomedical samples taken by one of the parties in support of its conclusion that sarin had caused the deaths and injuries in Khan Sheikhoun, the OPCW violated one of its most fundamental rules. It is forbidden from using any biomedical or environmental samples as evidence unless they have a verifiable chain of custody, as a spokesman for the organization clarified when allegations of chemical attacks first arose in Syria four years ago.

The OPCW itself took no samples of any kind in Khan Sheikhoun because its fact-finding mission never set foot in the city. Instead, it performed all of its work in Turkey or elsewhere in locations in Syria controlled by al Qaeda or another rebel group. That, too, was an explicit violation of the organization’s own rules. The same OPCW spokesman who insisted that OPCW could only use evidence with a clear chain of custody also told reporters in 2013 that the OPCW was not supposed to rule on whether an attack with banned chemicals had taken place without direct access to the relevant site. At no point did any OPCW inspector come within 100 miles of the alleged attack site in Khan Sheikhoun.

Despite this flagrant breach of its own protocols, the OPCW has faced no real scrutiny from Western mainstream media. The disinterest of the international press corps in raising any questions about the OPCW’s methodology or probing the actual evidence surrounding the event has reinforced the initial story spun out by al Qaeda-tied media activists. The same pattern of passive acceptance of the official narrative is now continuing with the coverage of the U.N. Commission report, which is received as gospel despite its flaws. But as this investigation has demonstrated, the official narrative on Khan Sheikhoun doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specializing in U.S. national security policy. His latest book is Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare (Just World Books, 2014). 

All images in this article are from the author.

He was there with his entourage, a face unmoved bar the occasional muscle flex. “There’s Malcolm Turnbull!” exclaimed drinking companions at the Curtin on Melbourne’s famed Lygon Street, the artery of culinary matters Italian.

It wasn’t: Bill Shorten, the leader of the Australian Labor Party and contender for the Prime Ministership of Australia, was nursing a drink this Friday evening, treating it with the sort of caution one reserves for a lice infested child.

Various appellations and amalgams come to mind: Malcolm Shorten; Bill Malcolm; Malcolm Bill. Leaving aside the statistical dimension of who is the preferred person for prime minister, a poll that Shorten tends to lose, their similarity on much ground is stunning. Bill goes for the poor zinger-heavy speech; Malcolm goes for the fluffy slogan (growth, jobs) and the hunt for the tedious moniker to give his opponents. Substance is only optional.

Who, then, to turn to? Between the union machine hack and the uninspiring sloganeering merchant banker, Australian politics is suffering a death by boredom, the stifling middle belt that resists radical reform. The stage, then, is set for the next spectacular – this, after all, is the age of Donald Trump, where the absurd is scripted as a daily show.

The mad monk comes to mind, so mad he turns Australian politics inside out with an extreme touch, simple yet purely animal. That mad monk, the fab loon, the reactionary: Tony Abbott. There are others, the sort who infuriate, and trick, the spin doctor and the public relations entourage who distort and cloak. Their version of democracy is the controlled press statement, damage control and staged popularity. But former prime minister Abbott was always impossible to muzzle, allergic to modern forms of containment. Before Trump-Bannon, there was Abbott-Credlin.

If Australian forces would have to go it alone in Iraq, even without US air cover, he would say so with flag waving enthusiasm. On November 25, 2015, Abbott put forth the suggestion to staff and planners that 3,500 Australian soldiers could be deployed to deal with the Islamic State.

The Australian, a Murdoch paper usually in favour of drum beating reactionary politics, found this particular idea dazzling for its original stupidity.

“The proposal to invade Iraq raises the issue of Mr Abbott’s judgment – it was made two months before his decision to award a knighthood to Prince Philip.”[1]

Trump would have been impressed with both.

If deploying Australian armed personnel into a Ukrainian war zone to consolidate an air crash site was possible, he would also step up to the mark.  This nugget surfaced in the revelations of former Australian Army officer James Brown, who called this “the clearest case in recent times of a prime minister struggling to grasp the limits of Australian military power”.[2]

Covering him in the news would be like encapsulating a typhoon of verity. However detestable, he remained, and remains, pure to his loathing, dedicated to principle. It is the purity he carries with him to his cozy position at Radio 2GB, where he is feted by the shock jock family.

On the issue of same-sex marriage, he is evidently at home, the revolutionary who prefers to attack, rather than govern.  For those against the measure to change the marriage laws, he is gold dust, giving the impression of tolerance while making sure that his position is left clearly combative.

“Like most,” he explained in the Fairfax Press, “I have tried to be there for friends and family who are gay. They are good people who deserve our love, respect and inclusion but that doesn’t mean that we can’t continue to reserve the term ‘marriage’ for the relationship of one man with one woman, ideally for life and usually dedicated to children.”[3]

Marriage as the sacred, reserved institution, special, biological, and for the heterosexuals to make or break. Besides, claims this authentic article, same-sex couples already have “marriage equality” despite not having it, the existence of something by another name.

A similar genuine article, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, also teeters in mad territory, a fabulous counterweight to Turnbull. Here is a person who will make international waves attacking a Hollywood actor for evading quarantine regulations. He will snipe at environmentalists while defending the use of pilfered water from the Murray Darling system. Joyce has a mouth which will go on vacation when it needs to.

Through Australia’s upper chamber, we also see the colourful expressions of the genuine article. There is Pauline Hanson to shore up a form of extremism that tends to find diluted form in the centre of politics; there are such figures as Derryn Hinch and Jacqui Lambie. (“You have no moral values and to go after the public broadcaster is an absolute disgrace,” she thundered in a late-night Senate speech on the government’s media reforms.)

Such figures rarely attain the top position, being monitoring spoilers, the shock troops of controversy. Abbott was rewarded with the prime ministership, briefly, and was knifed by his own party. Joyce may well find that he is ineligible to sit in Parliament, courtesy of New Zealand citizenship he did not believe he had. But no one would ever confuse them for Bill Malcolm, or Malcolm Shorten.

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

Notes

We the undersigned, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 36 countries, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.

5G leads to massive increase of mandatory exposure to wireless radiation

5G technology is effective only over short distance. It is poorly transmitted through solid material. Many new antennas will be required and full-scale implementation will result in antennas every 10 to 12 houses in urban areas, thus massively increasing mandatory exposure.

With ”the ever more extensive use of wireless technologies,” nobody can avoid to be exposed. Because on top of the increased number of 5G-transmitters (even within housing, shops and in hospitals) according to estimates, ”10 to 20 billion connections” (to refrigerators, washing machines, surveillance cameras, self-driving cars and buses, etc.) will be parts of the Internet of Things. All these together can cause a substantial increase in the total, long term RF-EMF exposure to all EU citizens.

Harmful effects of RF-EMF exposure are already proven

Over 230 scientists from more than 40 countries have expressed their “serious concerns” regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices already before the additional 5G roll-out. They refer to the fact that ”numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines”. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plants and animals.

After the scientists’ appeal was written in 2015 additional research has convincingly confirmed serious health risks from RF-EMF fields from wireless technology. The world’s largest study (25 million US dollar) National Toxicology Program (NTP), shows statistically significant increase in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMF below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines followed by most countries. These results support results in human epidemiological studies on RF radiation and brain tumour risk. A large number of peer-reviewed scientific reports demonstrate harm to human health from EMFs.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2011 concluded that EMFs of frequencies 30 KHz – 300 GHz are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). However, new studies like the NTP study mentioned above and several epidemiological investigations including the latest studies on mobile phone use and brain cancer risks confirm that RF-EMF radiation is carcinogenic to humans.

The EUROPA EM-EMF Guideline 2016 states that ”there is strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, and male infertility…Common EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms.”

An increasing part of the European population is affected by ill health symptoms that have for many years been linked to exposure to EMF and wireless radiation in the scientific literature. The International Scientific Declaration on EHS & multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), Brussels 2015, declares that: “In view of our present scientific knowledge, we thereby stress all national and international bodies and institutions…to recognize EHS and MCS as true medical conditions which acting as sentinel diseases may create a major public health concern in years to come worldwide i.e. in all the countries implementing unrestricted use of electromagnetic field-based wireless technologies and marketed chemical substances… Inaction is a cost to society and is not an option anymore… we unanimously acknowledge this serious hazard to public health…that major primary prevention measures are adopted and prioritized, to face this worldwide pan-epidemic in perspective.”

Precautions

The Precautionary Principle (UNESCO) was adopted by EU 2005: ”When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.”

Resolution 1815 (Council of Europe, 2011): ”Take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours…Assembly strongly recommends that the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle is applied, covering both the so-called thermal effects and the athermic [non-thermal] or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation” and to ”improve risk-assessment standards and quality”.

The Nuremberg code (1949) applies to all experiments on humans, thus including the roll-out of 5G with new, higher RF-EMF exposure. All such experiments: ”should be based on previous knowledge (e.g., an expectation derived from animal experiments) that justifies the experiment. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.” (Nuremberg code pts 3-5). Already published scientific studies show that there is ”a priori reason to believe” in real health hazards.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) is warning for ”Radiation risk from everyday devices” in spite of the radiation being below the WHO/ICNIRP standards. EEA also concludes: ”There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments…harmful exposures can be widespread before there is both ‘convincing’ evidence of harm from long-term exposures, and biological understanding [mechanism] of how that harm is caused.”

“Safety guidelines” protect industry — not health

The current ICNIRP ”safety guidelines” are obsolete. All proofs of harm mentioned above arise although the radiation is below the ICNIRP “safety guidelines”. Therefore new safety standards are necessary. The reason for the misleading guidelines is that “conflict of interest of ICNIRP members due to their relationships with telecommunications or electric companies undermine the impartiality that should govern the regulation of Public Exposure Standards for non-ionizing radiation…To evaluate cancer risks it is necessary to include scientists with competence in medicine, especially oncology.”

The current ICNIRP/WHO guidelines for EMF are based on the obsolete hypothesis that ”The critical effect of RF-EMF exposure relevant to human health and safety is heating of exposed tissue.” However, scientists have proven that many different kinds of illnesses and harms are caused without heating (”nonthermal effect”) at radiation levels well below ICNIRP guidelines.

We urge EU:

1) To take all reasonable measures to halt the 5G RF-EMF expansion until independent scientists can assure that 5G and the total radiation levels caused by RF-EMF (5G together with 2G, 3G, 4G, and WiFi) will not be harmful for EU-citizens, especially infants, children and pregnant women, as well as the environment

2) To recommend that all EU countries, especially their radiation safety agencies, follow Resolution 1815 and inform citizens, including, teachers and physicians, about health risks from RF-EMF radiation, how and why to avoid wireless communication, particularly in/near e.g., daycare centers, schools, homes, workplaces, hospitals and elderly care.

3) To appoint immediately, without industry influence, an EU task force of independent, truly impartial EMF-and-health scientists with no conflicts of interest1 to re-evaluate the health risks and:

a) To decide about new, safe “maximum total exposure standards” for all wireless communication within EU.

b) To study the total and cumulative exposure affecting EU-citizens.

c) To create rules that will be prescribed/enforced within the EU about how to avoid exposure exceeding new EU ”maximum total exposure standards” concerning all kinds of EMFs in order to protect citizens, especially infants, children and pregnant women.

4) To prevent the wireless/telecom industry through its lobbying organizations from persuading EUofficials to make decisions about further propagation of RF radiation including 5G in Europe.

5) To favor and implement wired digital telecommunication instead of wireless.

We expect an answer from you no later than October 31, 2017 to the two first mentioned signatories about what measures you will take to protect the EU-inhabitants against RF-EMF and especially 5G radiation. This appeal and your response will be publicly available.

Respectfully submitted,

Rainer Nyberg, EdD, Professor Emeritus (Åbo Akademi), Vasa, Finland ([email protected])

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Professor (assoc) Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden ([email protected])

Note

1 Avoid similar mistakes as when the Commission (2008/721/EC) appointed industry supportive members for SCENIHR, who submitted to EU a misleading SCENIHR report on health risks, giving telecom industry a clean bill to irradiate EU-citizens. The report is now quoted by radiation safety agencies in EU.

Signatories to Scientists’ 5G Appeal

Note: The endorsements are personal and not necessarily supported by the affiliated universities or organizations. Updated with new Signatories: September 15, 2017

EU and European Nations

AUSTRIA
Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Officer, Salzburg

BELGIUM
Marie-Claire Cammaerts, Dr, retired, Free University of Brussels, Bruxelles André Vander Vorst, Prof. em. Belgium

BULGARIA
Marko Markov, Professor Emeritus, Ph.D. in biophysics, Sofia University, Research international

CYPRUS
Stella Canna Michaelidou, Dr, Chemist Expert on Environment, Health and Food Safety, President of the Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Children’s Health

FINLAND
Marjukka Hagström, LL.M, M.Soc.Sc., Senior researcher, The Finnish Electrosensitivity Foundation, Turku

Osmo Hänninen, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Eastern Finland; Editor-In-Chief, Pathophysiology, Kuopio

Georgiy Ostroumov, PhD (in the field of RF EMF), independent researcher

FRANCE
Marc Arazi, MD, Physician (Whistleblower on Phonegate international scandal), Nogent-sur-Marne

Dominique Belpomme, MD, MSc, Full Professor in Medical Oncology; Director of ECERI, Paris University, Paris & European Cancer and Environment Research Institute, Brussels

Philippe Irigaray, PhD, Scientific Director, Association for Research on Treatment against Cancer (ARTAC), Paris; European Cancer and Environment Research Institute (ECERI), Brussels

Vincent Lauer, Ing. ECP, Independent Researcher, La Chapelle sur Erdre

Annie J Sasco, MD, DrPH, Former Director of Research, French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, Former Chief of Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention at the International Agency for Research on Cancer and Former Acting Chief of Program for Cancer Control, World Health Organization, Bordeaux

GERMANY
Franz Adlkofer, MD, Professor, Pandora-Foundation for Independent Research

Christine Aschermann, MD (retired) member of the Kompetenzinitiative e.V., Leutkirch

Mario Babilon, Dr. rer. nat., Professor, Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University Stuttgart

Wolf Bergmann, Dr. med., Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch, Umwelt und Demokratie e.V., Freiburg

Rainer Frentzel-Beyme, MD, Professor emeritus, University of Bremen.

Helmut Breunig, Diploma degree in forestry, Specialty: Radio frequency injuries on trees around phone masts, Osterode am Harz

Klaus Buchner, Dr. rer. nat., Professor, MEP – Member of the European Parliament, Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch, Umwelt und Demokratie e.V., München

Horst Eger, Dr. med., Ärztlicher Qualitätszirkel ”Elektromagnetische Felder in der Medizin – Diagnostik, Therapie, Umwelt”, Naila

Karl Hecht, Dr, Professor of pathophysiology and neurophysiology (Emeritus of the Medical center Charite), Berlin

Peter Hensinger, MA, diagnose:funk, consumer protection organisation, Stuttgart

Markus Kern, Dr. med., Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch, Umwelt und Demokratie e.V., Kempten

Florian M. König, Dr.Sc. Man. Dir. & Science Header of the Company/Institute “Florian König Enterprises GmbH”

Andrea Leute, Dr. med., Ärzteinitiative Mobilfunk Allgäu-Bodensee-Oberschwaben, Überlingen

Martin Lion, Dr. med., Allgemeinmedizin – Homöopathie, Ulm

Peter Ludwig, Dr. phil., Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch, Umwelt und Demokratie e.V., Saarbrücken

Willi Mast, Dr., Arzt für Allgemeinmedizin und Innere Medizin, Gelsenkirchen

Joachim Mutter, Dr. med., Paracelsus Clinic / Switzerland, Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch, Umwelt und Demokratie e.V., Murg

Gertraud Teuchert-Noodt, Dr., Professorin der Neurobiologie i.R., Universität Bielefeld

Peter Ohnsorge, Dr. med., European Academy for Environmental Medicine

Karl Richter, Dr. phil., Professor, Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch, Umwelt und Demokratie e.V., St. Ingbert

Claus Scheingraber, Dr. med. dent., German Working Group Electro-Biology, Brunnthal,

Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, Dr.med., Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy e.V., Bamberg

Werner Thiede, Dr. theol., Professor, Pfarrer der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Landeskirche in Bayern und Publizist, Neuhausen

Helmut Wagner, Dr. med., Ophthalmologist, Stuttgart

Harald Walach, Professor, PhD in psychology, PhD in theory and history of science, Change Health Science Institute, Berlin; affiliation: Witten-Herdecke University, Poznan Medical University, Poland

Ulrich Warnke, Dr.rer.nat., Academic Superior Council (retired) University of Saarland

Isabel Wilke, Diplom-Biologin, Editor ElektrosmogReport, Kassel/Berlin

Roland Wolff, Dipl.-Phys., Medical Physicist, Bremen

Ortwin Zais, PhD (Dr. med.), European Academy for Environmental Medicine

GREECE
Christos Georgiou, PhD, Member, Scientific Secretariat of ICEMS; Professor of Biochemistry, Biology Department, University of Patras, Patras

Theodore P. Metsis, PhD, Electrical, Mechanical, Environmental Engineer, Consultant, Athens

ITALY
Domenico Agrusta, Medicine and surgery, specialist in dentistry (Odontostomatologia) selfemployed, Member of ISDE, Taranto

Fernanda Amicarelli, Full Professor in Applied Biology, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila

Fiorella Belpoggi, Dr., Director, Research Department, Ramazzini Institute, Bologna

Sergio Bernasconi, Full Professor of Pediatrics, former Director, Pediatric Department, Editor emeritus: Italian Journal of Pediatrics, University of Parma

Dr Franco Berrino, MD, PhD, former Director, Department of Preventive and Predictive Medicine, Istitutonazionale dei Tumori, Milan

Ernesto Burgio, MD, Pediatrician, ECERI – European Cancer and Environment Research Institute (Bruxelles)

Dr Franco Cherubini, Degree in medicine and surgery, Self-employed, Vetralla

Dott. Agostino Di Ciaula, President of Scientific Committee, Italian Society of Doctors for the Environment – ISDE Italy, Arezzo

Dott. Andrea Cormano, MD, Italian Society of Doctors for the Environment – ISDE, Benevento

Ugo Corrieri, Degree in medicine and surgery at Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Teacher at Scuola Romana di Psicoterapia Familiare, President of ISDE-Doctors for the Environment in Grosseto, Coordinator of ISDE-Doctors for the Environment for Central Italy, Grosseto- Rome

Dr Patrizia Difonte, Physician, Surgeon, General practitioner and occupational medicine, Associazione Italiana Elettrosensibili, Lonate Pozzolo (Varese)

Anna Maria Falasconi, Medical Doctor, Primary Care Pediatrician, National Health System, Rome

Dott. Filippo Maria di Fava, Laurea in Medicina e Chirurgia, Libero professionista, Roma

Dr. Mario Frusi, MD, medico, Cuneo

Dr. Stefano Gallozzi, Astrophysician and technologist at the INAF Italian National Astrophysical Institute in the Observatory, President of the Comitato di Tutela e Salvaguardia dell’Ambiente in Monte Porzio Catone (ONLUS association), Rome

Dott. Roberto Gava, Pharmacologist and Toxicologist, ISDE, Padua

Teresa Pia Anna Maria Del Gaudio, Degree in Medicine and Surgery, specialist in pediatrics, Medical Manager, ASL Salerno, Roccagloriosa (SA), Italy

Valerio Gennaro, MD, PhD, Head ,Liguria Mesothelioma Registry (COR Liguria), UO Clinical Epidemiology (IST Nord – CBA); IRCCS Policlinico Ospedale San Martino National Cancer Research Institute (IST), Genoa

Patrizia Gentilini, Degree in Medicine ( specialization in Oncology and Hematology). ISDE (International Society Doctor’s for Environment), FORLI’

Livio Giuliani, PhD, Professor, Università dell’Abruzzo – Corso di Laurea in Fisiatria, Chieti

Angelo Levis, PhD. Professor, Biologist, University of Padua

Roberto Lucchini, MD, Professor of Occupational Medicine, University of Brescia

Salvatore Magazù,PhD, Full Professor of Experimental Physics, Dipartimento di Scienze Matematiche e Informatiche, Scienze Fisiche e Scienze della Terra, Università di Messina

Fiorenzo Marinelli, PhD, Institute of Molecular Genetics (IGM), National Research Council (CNR), Member of the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), Bologna,

Antonio Maria Pasciuto, Degree in Medicine and Surgery, Specialist in Internal Medicine, President of ASSIMAS (Associazione Italiana Medicina Ambiente e Salute), Rome

Dott. Carlo Ratti, MD, Ordine dei Medici della SPEZIA, Genova Ruggero Ridolfi, MD, Oncologist Endocrinologist, ISDE, Forlì-Cesena,

Dr. Med. Sandro Rinaldi, Laurea in medicina e chirurgia; specializzazione in Allergologia; specializzazione in Ematologia. Medico di medicina generale convenzionato con l’Azienda Sanitaria di Bolzano, Terlano (BZ)

Massimo Melelli Roia, MD, Italian Society of Doctors for the Environment – ISDE, Perugia

Dott. Roberto Romizi, President, Italian Society of Doctors for the Environment – ISDE, Arezzo

Dott.ssa Ida Santellocco, MD, Medico chirurgo, Pediatria, medico chirurgo – pediatra, Roma

Massimo Scalia, Coordinator of the Bioelectromagnetism Section of CIRPS (Interuniversity Research Center for Sustainable Development)

Alessandro Solerio, Degree in Medicine and Surgery, Self-employed, homeopath, Sanremo

Franco Verzella, MD, physician, practice dedicated to autistic children, Bologna,

Myriam Zucca, Dr. ssa, Medical Director, Dermatology, Cagliari University Hospital, Sardinia

MALTA
Pierre Mallia, MD PhD CBiol MPhil MA(Law) DipICGP MMCFD MRCP FRCGP, Professor of Family Medicine, Bioethics & Patients’ Rights; Chairperson National Health Ethics Committee, Dept. of Health Coordinator Bioet

NETHERLANDS
Hugo Schooneveld, PhD, Retired Associate professor (Wageningen Agricultural University), Advisor to the Dutch EHS Foundation, former president of ‘Stichting elektrohypersensitivity’, Wageningen

PORTUGAL
Paulo Vale, PhD, Auxiliary Researcher, Sea and Marine Resources Department, The Portuguese Sea and Atmosphere Institute, Lisbon

SLOVAKIA
Igor Belyaev, PhD, Dr.Sc, Associate Professor, Cancer Research Institute, BMC SAS, Bratislava

Jan Jakus, MD, PhD, DSc., Professor, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Martin

Ladislav Janousek, PhD, Professor, Department of Electromagnetic and Biomedical Engineering Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Zilina, Žilina

Michal Teplan, PhD, Institute of Measurement Science, Slovak academy of sciences, Bratislava

SPAIN
Alfonso Balmori, BSc, Master in Environmental Education, Biologist. Junta de Castilla y León, Valladolid

José Luis Bardasano, PhD, Biologist and Physician, Prof. of Medical Bioelectomagnetism, Department of Medicine and Medical Specialties, School of Medicine, University of Alcalá. Alcalá de Henares, Madrid

Pilar Muñoz-Calero, MD, President of the Fundación Alborada, Co-director of the Chair of Pathology and Environment, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM), Madrid

Miguel Lopez-Lazaro, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Seville

María Elena López Martín, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Human Anatomy, School of Medicine, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC)

Enrique A. Navarro, PhD, Professor, University of Valencia, Valencia

Claudio Gómez-Perretta, MD, PhD, Chief of Section, Hospital Universitario La Fe, Valencia Ceferino Maestu Unturbe, Ph.D, Prof., Director of the Bioelectromagnetism Laboratory of the Centre for Biomedical Technology (CTB), Polytechnic University of Madrid (UPM).

SWEDEN
Mikko Ahonen, PhD, researcher, Sundsvall

Michael Carlberg, MSc, Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University Hospital, Örebro

Mikael Eriksson, MD, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Oncology, Skane University, Hospital, Lund

Lena Hedendahl, MD, Independent Environment and Health Research, Luleå

Olle Johansson, Associate Professor, Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm

Gunilla Ladberg, PhD, Member of the Board of the Swedish association Vågbrytaren, Lidingö

Leif G. Salford, MD, PhD, Senior Professor of Neurosurgery, Director of the Rausing Laboratory for Translational NeuroOncology, Lund University, Lund

Elsy-Britt Schildt, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Department of Oncology and Radiation, County Hospital, Kalmar

Fredrik Söderqvist, PhD, Epidemiologist, Centre for Clinical Research, Uppsala University, Västerås

SWITZERLAND
Daniel Favre, Dr. phil., Biologist, Independent Researcher, Brent

Peter Meier, MD, Facharzt für Innere Medizin FMH, M.Sc. Präventivmedizin, Mitglied der European Academy for Environmental Medicine, Sissach

Michaela Glöckler, MD., Dr. h.c., Pediatrician, Head of the Medical Section of the Goetheanum/Dornach

UK
Erica Mallery-Blythe, MD, BMBS, Founder of PHIRE (Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment) Trustee Radiation Research Trust, Medical Advisor ORSAA (Oceana Radiofrequency Advisory Association), Medical Advisor ES-UK, Soton

David Gee, Visiting Fellow, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University, London

Andrew Goldsworthy, BSc, PhD, Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College London, Monmouth

Isaac Jamieson, PhD, DIC, RIBA, Dip AAS, BSc(Hons) Arch., Biosustainable Design, Aberdeen, UK. International Expert, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand.

Alasdair Philips, BSc, DAgE, Professional engineer, Powerwatch

Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, MBBS, MA, MSc, PhD , Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Department of Occupational Health, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust; Honorary Research Fellow, Department of Clinical Sciences, Brunel University, London

Sarah Starkey, PhD, Independent Neuroscience and Environmental Health Research

Andrew Tresidder, MD, MBBS, MRCGP, Somerset GP

Other Nations

ARMENIA
Sinerik Ayrapetyan, PhD, Professor, Life Sciences International Postgraduate Educational Center, UNESCO Chair in Life Sciences, Yerevan, Head of Research Council and Chairholder of UNESCO Chair AUSTRALIA

Priyanka Bandara, PhD, Environmental Health Consultant, Castle Hill/Sydney, NSW

Katherine Georgouras, OAM, DDM, FACD, Professor of Dermatology, (semiretired) ,Kenthurst NSW

Ray Kearney OAM, PhD, Honorary Assoc. Professor (retired), Department of Medicine, University of Sydney

Don Maisch, PhD, Independent researcher, author of ”The Procrustean Approach”, Lindisfarne, Tasmania

May Murray, PhD, Independent Environmental Health researcher, Canberra

Elena Pirogova, PhD, Associate Professor, Biomed Eng, BEng (Hons) Chem En, Discipline of Electrical and Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineering, RMIT University

Charles Teo, AM, MBBS, Professor, Neurosurgeon, Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Randwick, NSW, Sydney

Steve Weller, BSc, Founding member of ORSSA, Brisbane

BRAZIL
Orlando Furtado Vieira Filho, PhD, Professor, Cellular & Molecular Biology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul

Claudio Enrique Fernández-Rodríguez, PhD, MSEE, Professor, Federal Institute of Rio Grande do Sul, IFRS, Canoas

Alvaro Augusto A. de Salles, PhD, Full Professor, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, UFRGS, Porto Alegre

Francisco de Assis Ferreira Tejo (retired) D.Sc., Professor, Grupo de Eletromagnetismo Computacional e Bioeletromagnetismo, Electrical Engineering Dept, Universidade Federal de Campina Grande

CANADA
Frank Clegg, CEO, Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST); Former President of Microsoft Canada

Paul Héroux, PhD, Occupational Health Program Director, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University Medicine, Montreal, PQ

Anthony B. Miller, MD, FRCP, Professor Emeritus, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto,

Malcolm Paterson, PhD, Director, Research Initiatives, BC Cancer Agency Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre for the Southern Interior, Kelowna, BC

Michael A. Persinger, PhD, Professor, Biomolecular Sciences, Behavioural Neuroscience and Human Studies, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario

Magda Havas, Associate Professor, Trent University, Canada

CHINA
Wenjun Sun, PhD, Professor, Bioelectromagnetics Key Laboratory, Zhejiang University, School of Medicine, Hangzhou

Minglian Wang, M.M. , PhD, Associate Professor, College of Life Science & Bioengineering, Beijing University of Technology (BJUT), Beijing

COLOMBIA
Carlos Sosa, MD, University of Antioquia, Medellín

EGYPT
Nasr Radwan, Prof. Dr., Cairo University, Faculty of Science, Cairo

INDIA
Ganesh Chandra Jagetia, Professor, Just retired from Department of Zoology, Mizoram University, Aizawl, Udaipur

Sareesh Naduvil Narayanan, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Physiology, RAK College of Medical Sciences, RAK Medical & Health Sciences University, Ras Al Khaimah, UAE

R. S. Sharma, PhD, Head, Scientist – G & Sr. DDG, Div. of Reproductive Biology, Maternal & Child Health and Chief Project Coordinator – EMF Health Project India, Indian Council of Medical Research, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi

IRAN
Amirnader Emami Razavi, PhD, Executive Manager and Principal Investigator of Iran, National Tumor Bank, Cancer Institute of Iran, Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Dr. Masood Sepehrimanesh, PhD, Assistant Professor, Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease Research Center, Guilan Universtiy of Medical Sciences, Rasht

ISRAEL
Iris Atzmon, MPH, Epidemiology, University of Haifa, Author of ”The Cellular, not what you thought!”, Haifa

Michael Peleg, M.Sc., Radio Communications Engineer and Researcher, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa

Elihu D Richter, MD MPH, Professor, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Jerusalem

Yael Stein, MD, Hebrew University – Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem

Danny Wolf, MD, Pediatrician, Clialit Health Services Raziel, Netanya Herzelia

JAPAN
Hidetake Miyata, PhD, Associate professor, Department of Physics. Tohoku University

JORDAN
Mohammed Saleh Al Salameh, PhD, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Science & Technology, Irbid

KOREA (South)
Kiwon Song, PhD, Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Yonsei University, Seoul Young Hwan Ahn, MD PhD, Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Ajou Univeristy School of Medicine, Suwon

NEW ZEALAND
Damian Wojcik, MD, MBChB, Medical director/ Northland Environmental health Clinic, Whangare, Northland

NIGERIA
Aneyo Idowu Ayisat, M.Sc., Lecturer, Environmental Biology Unit, Biological Science Department, Yaba College of Technology, Yaba, Lagos

OMAN
Dr Najam Siddiqi, MBBS, PhD, Associate Professor of Anatomy, Oman Medical College, Sohar

RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Yury Grigoriev, Professor, M. Dr Sci., Federal. Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow Maxim V. Trushin, PhD, Associate Professor, Kazan Federal University, Kazan

TURKEY
Osman Cerezci, Professor Dr., Dept. Electrical-Electronics Engineering, Sakarya University, Adapazarı

Suleyman Dasdag, PhD, Prof. Dr., Biophysics Department, Medical School, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Uskudar, Istanbul

Onur Elmas, MD, PhD, Faculty of Medicine, Dept. Of Physiology, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla

Ayse Inhan Garip, Assoc. Prof., School of Medicine, Biophysics Dept., Marmara Univ., Istanbul

Suleyman Kaplan, PhD, Professor, President of Turkish Society for Stereology, Board member of Journal Chemical Neuroanatomy (Elsevier), Board member of Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure (Elsevier), Department of Histology and Embryology, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun

Fulya Kunter, Assistant Professor Dr., Dept. Electrical-Electronics Engineering, Marmara University, Istanbul

Selim Şeker, Professor Dr., Department of Electrical-Electronics Engineering, Bogazici University

Nesrin Seyhan, Prof. Dr., Gazi University Medical Faculty, Founder Head, Biophysics Department; Founding Director, Gazi Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Centre (GNRK), Ankara

UKRAINE
Olexandr Tsybulin, PhD, Department of Biophysics, Bila Tserkva National Agrarian University

Igor Yakymenko, Prof. Dr, Department of Biochemistry and Environmental Control National University of Food Technologies, Kyiv

USA
David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, A Collaborating Centre of the World Health Organization, University at Albany, Rensselaer, NY

Barry Castleman, ScD, Environmental Consultant, Garrett Park, MD

Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, Visiting Prof. Medicine, Hebrew University, Hadassah Medical Center & Ondokuz Mayis University, Medical School (Turkey); Pres., Environmental Health Trust, Teton Village, WY

Paul Doyon, MA, MAT, EMRS, Independent Researcher, Doyon Independent Research, CA

Arthur Firstenberg, B.A., EMF researcher and author, president Cellular Phone Task Force, New York

Beatrice A. Golomb, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, CA

Peter F. Infante, DrPH, Managing Member, Peter F. Infante Consulting, LLC, VA

Toril H. Jelter, MD, MDI Wellness Center, CA

Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, Tucson, AZ

Henry Lai, PhD, Professor Emeritus, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

B. Blake Levitt, medical/science journalist, former New York Times contributor, EMF researcher and author

Trevor G Marshall, ME, PhD, Director, Autoimmunity Research Foundation, CA

Ronald Melnick, PhD, Senior Toxicologist, (Retired RF-section leader) US National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust, Board Member, International EMF Alliance (IEMFA), CA

S. M. J. Mortazavi, PhD, Professor of Medical Physics, Visiting Scientist, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA

Martin Pall, BA, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Biochemistry and basic medicine), Pullman, WA

Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Exec. Director, Excel Centers, Professor Attendant, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO

Camilla R. G. Rees, MBA, Health Researcher, Author ,”The Wireless Elephant in the Room”’ CEO, Wide Angle Health, Sr. Policy Advisor, National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy, NY

Cindy Sage, MA, Sage Associates, Co-Editor, BioInitiative Reports, Santa Barbara, CA

Eugene Sobel, PhD, Professor (Retired), University of Southern California School of Medicine, CA

John G. West, MD, Director of Surgery, Breastlink, CA

Cindy Russell, MD, Founding Member, Physicians for Safe Technology, CA.

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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)

*     *     *

Trump Threatens North Korea with “Effective and Overwhelming” Military Force

By Peter Symonds, September 17, 2017

In response to the latest North Korean missile test, the South Korean military fired a short-range ballistic missile into waters 250 kilometres off its east coast. The South Korean President Moon Jae-inbluntly warned North Korea that “we have the power to destroy North Korea and make it unable to recover.”

Double Standards? Europe’s Five “Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States”. Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Turkey

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 17, 2017

Amply documented, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey are in possession of nuclear weapons which are deployed under national command against Russia, Iran and the Middle East.

Harvard Disgracefully Rescinds Fellowship Offered Chelsea Manning

By Stephen Lendman, September 16, 2017

In response to director Mike Pompeo’s heavy-handed pressure, canceling his scheduled address at Harvard’s Kennedy School, calling Manning’s offer speak on campus as a visiting fellow a “shameful stamp of approval,” unfair Harvard rescinded her title, cancelling her appearance, Dean Douglas Elmendorf disgracefully saying…

Julian Assange Offers U.S. Government Proof Russia Wasn’t Source of Democratic Party Leaks, Says WSJ

By Eric Zuesse, September 16, 2017

According to the Wall Street Journal, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California spoke by phone on September 13th with U.S. President Donald Trump’s Chief of Staff, General John Kelly, aiming to transmit to President Trump, from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, a trade of ‘proof’ of Russian non-involvement in the transmission to the public of internal Democratic Party information during the 2016 Presidential contest with Hillary Clinton, in return for the U.S. Government’s stopping its efforts to prosecute Mr. Assange.

Syria’s Victory in Deir Ezzor

By Hugo Turner, September 16, 2017

The Syrian Arab Army have achieved yet another dramatic victory this time lifting the ISIS siege of the heroic city of Deir Ezzor. For years Deir Ezzor has been surrounded by enemies and under siege first by the FSA and Al Nusra and then by ISIS.

The Politics of Military Ascendancy

By Prof. James Petras, September 16, 2017

Clearly the US has escalated the pivotal role of the military in the making of foreign and, by extension, domestic policy. The rise of ‘the Generals’ to strategic positions in the Trump regime is evident, deepening its role as a highly autonomous force determining US strategic policy agendas.

Featured image is from CSMonitor.com.

When it comes to nuclear weapons upon the international stage, the general consensus is certainly not “the more the merrier.” Attempts to limit the number and variety of nuclear weapons and to take measures to avoid the use of those that do exist have been ongoing since the first nuclear weapons were developed at the end of World War 2.

Today, however, one of the several nuclear-armed nations of the world and its behavior has jeopardized the hard-fought progress made toward this goal.

America Reneged After the Cold War 

One of several treaties singed during the later stages of the Cold War included the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT). It limited anti-ballistic missile systems to two per country. The reasoning was to hinder anti-missile technology development and leave nuclear-armed nations open to retaliatory attacks should they initiate a nuclear first strike.

The treaty helped further enhance the concept of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD).  After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, member states upheld the treaty with the United States until 2001 when the United States unilaterally withdrew from it.

The White House in an official statement regarding America’s withdrawal from the treaty, would state:

…the United States and Russia face new threats to their security. Principal among these threats are weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means wielded by terrorists and rogue states. A number of such states are acquiring increasingly longer-range ballistic missiles as instruments of blackmail and coercion against the United States and its friends and allies. The United States must defend its homeland, its forces and its friends and allies against these threats. We must develop and deploy the means to deter and protect against them, including through limited missile defense of our territory.

However, the United States would spend the next decade and a half, not developing anti-missile systems aimed at stopping non-existent weapons of mass destruction launched from “rogue states,” it instead spent that time encircling Russia with anti-missile systems, including those placed in Eastern Europe.

In essence, the United States has begun to fulfill the sum of all fears during the Cold War, that a nuclear armed nation would attempt to monopolize missile defense technology and use it as a means to develop a nuclear first strike capability without fear of retaliation.

Opponents of America’s decision to withdraw from the ABMT noted that the move also undermined Washington’s own alleged nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

Russia Reacts 

Articles like February 2017 New York Times piece titled, “Russia Deploys Missile, Violating Treaty and Challenging Trump,” attempt to portray Russia as menacing the US and its Western European allies with new and potentially “illegal” nuclear weapons.

The New York Times reports:

The ground-launched cruise missile at the center of American concerns is one that the Obama administration said in 2014 had been tested in violation of a 1987 treaty that bans American and Russian intermediate-range missiles based on land. 

The Obama administration had sought to persuade the Russians to correct the violation while the missile was still in the test phase. Instead, the Russians have moved ahead with the system, deploying a fully operational unit.

The article refers to another landmark effort made during the Cold War to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed in 1987 by the United States and the Soviet Union.

Yet despite this narrative, the New York Times itself gives away what provoked Russia’s recent deployment of the missile system in the first place, stating (emphasis added):

The missile program has been a major concern for the Pentagon, which has developed options for how to respond, including deploying additional missile defenses in Europe or developing air-based or sea-based cruise missiles.

Clearly, Russia is responding to existing missile defenses the US has placed across Europe, or plans on placing across Europe in the near future.

As predicted by opponents of America’s 2001 decision to withdraw from the Cold War ABMT, America has undermined non-proliferation efforts, not only inviting other nations to discard efforts to rein in nuclear proliferation and the number and variety of nuclear weapons deployed by a nation, but in fact leaving nations with no other choice in the face of America’s own attempts to obtain a nuclear first strike capability.

NATO’s Expansion is a Lit Fuse 

As NATO expands and as the United States digs in along Russia’s borders, a proverbial fuse lit by America’s withdrawal from the ABMT and its belligerence toward Russia ever since becomes shorter and shorter.

By provoking Russia into developing and deploying nuclear-capable intermediate-range missiles able to negate the possibility of a US nuclear first strike, the amount of time between launch and all out nuclear war has been significantly shortened.

Despite the US provoking this chain of events, instead of taking stock and retreating to a more sensible position, it is using Russia’s predictable reaction to rush even further forward. By posing a greater nuclear threat to Russia, the United States through its own irresponsible behavior upon the world stage encourages many other nations to pursue, develop and deploy nuclear armaments as a means of defense and deterrence.

While the United States poses as international arbiter of nuclear non-proliferation, it appears instead to serve as the premier provocateur of new nuclear weapons gold rush.

Ulson Gunnar is a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

All images in this article are from the author.

As the late media activist Danny Schechter wrote, when it comes to the corporate broadcast media: ‘The more you watch, the less you know.’

Schechter’s observation only fails in one key respect: ‘mainstream’ output does tell us a lot about which foreign governments are being lined up for regime change.

In 2013, it was remarkable to see the BBC reporting claims from Syria on a daily basis in a way that almost always blamed the Syrian government, and President Assad personally, for horrendous war crimes. But as the New York Times reported last month, the picture was rather less black and white. The US was embroiled in a dirty war that was ‘one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the C.I.A’, running to ‘more than $1 billion over the life of the program’. Its aim was to support a vast ‘rebel’ army created and armed by the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to overthrow the Syrian government.

The BBC’s relentless headline stories were mostly supplied by ‘activists’ and ‘rebels’ who, in fact, were militants attempting to overthrow Assad, and whose claims could not be verified. Veteran Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn described the problem afflicting virtually all ‘mainstream’ reporting on Syria:

‘All wars always produce phony atrocity stories – along with real atrocities. But in the Syrian case fabricated news and one-sided reporting have taken over the news agenda to a degree probably not seen since the First World War… The real reason that reporting of the Syrian conflict has been so inadequate is that Western news organisations have almost entirely outsourced their coverage to the rebel side.’

There was a simple reason why ‘rebel’ claims were uncontested: they originated from ‘areas controlled by people so dangerous no foreign journalist dare set foot among them’. The additional point being that ‘it has never been plausible that unaffiliated local citizens would be allowed to report freely’.

This was obvious to everyone, doubtless including the BBC, which nevertheless produced a tsunami of ‘rebel’-sourced propaganda. Crucially, these stories were not balanced attempts to explore the various claims; they sought to establish a version of events justifying regime change: ‘rebels’ and ‘activists’ were ‘good’, Assad was ‘bad’ and had to go. Journalist Robert Parry explains:

‘The job of the media is not to provide as much meaningful information as possible to the people so they can exercise their free judgment; it is to package certain information in a way to guide the people to a preferred conclusion.’

The BBC campaign was clearly inspired – whether consciously or otherwise – by a high-level decision to engineer regime change in Syria.

The key moment arrived in August 2013 when the US came very close to launching a major attack against Syrian government forces, supposedly in response to Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons in Ghouta, Damascus. Only the UK parliament’s rejection of the case for war and warnings from US generals on doubts about the claims, and likely fallout from regime change, prevented Obama from attacking.

Source: New Eastern Outlook

Particularly disturbing was the fact that, as the possibility of a direct US regime change effort faded, so too did the steady flow of BBC atrocity claims. It was as if, with the goal temporarily unattainable, the propaganda tap was simply closed. It was later re-opened ahead of an anticipated, pro-war Clinton presidency, and then as part of an attempt to push president-elect Trump to intensify the Syrian war.

‘Well, Shock, Shock, It’s The Oil!’

This year, we have witnessed a comparable BBC propaganda blitz on Venezuela centred around opposition claims that President Maduro has ‘eroded Venezuela’s democratic institutions and mismanaged its economy’.

The BBC campaign has again been characterised by daily reports from Venezuela presenting a black and white picture of the crisis: Maduro ‘bad’, opposition ‘good’. The BBC has again promoted the sense of an escalating crisis that will inevitably and justifiably result in regime change. It is no surprise, then, to learn from the Independent:

‘The head of the CIA has suggested the agency is working to change the elected government of Venezuela and is collaborating with two countries in the region to do so.’

CIA director Mike Pompeo said he was ‘hopeful that there can be a transition in Venezuela and we the CIA is doing its best to understand the dynamic there’.

No eyebrows were raised in a US political culture obsessed with unproven claims of Russian interference in last year’s US presidential elections. Last month, Pompeo’s boss, President Trump, commented on Venezuela:

‘We don’t talk about it but a military option, a military option is certainly something that we could pursue.’

Pompeo’s and Trump’s statements indicate a continuation of US policy that supported a 2002 coup that temporarily overthrew (then) President Chavez and which ‘was closely tied to senior officials in the US government’.

Political analyst Ricardo Vaz notes the ironic fact that ‘many of the opposition leaders’ denouncing Maduro’s alleged attacks on democracy, including Henrique Capriles, Julio Borges, Leopoldo López and Maria Corina Machado, ‘were directly involved in the 2002 coup attempt’.

US interest in Venezuela was explained with admirable candour in a classified US government document from December 12, 1978:

‘OUR FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS IN VENEZUELA ARE:1. THAT VENEZUELA CONTINUE TO SUPPLY A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF OUR PETROLEUM IMPORTS AND CONTINUE TO FOLLOW A MODERATE AND RESPONSIBLE OIL PRICE POSITION IN OPEC…’

According to the respected BP ‘Statistical review of world energy’ (June 28, 2015), proven oil reserves in Venezuela are the largest in the world, totalling 297 billion barrels.

The US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, naturally shares Trump’s and Pompeo’s view of the country, commenting:

‘We are evaluating all of our policy options as to what can we do to create a change of conditions where either Maduro decides he doesn’t have a future and wants to leave of his own accord or we can return the government processes back to their constitution.’ (Our emphasis)

The fact that Tillerson was chairman and chief executive officer of the world’s largest oil company, ExxonMobil, from 2006-2016, having joined the company in 1975, might give cause for pause in considering the ‘change of conditions’ he has in mind. In 2007, the Evening Standard reported:

‘BP and the other majors are taking a hard line with Chavez, demanding conditions and compensation for [Venezuelan policy changes]… Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson said that unless the negotiations produce a profitable proposal, “we won’t be staying”.’ (‘Oil giants face reserves blow in Venezuela grab,’ Evening Standard, April 30, 2007)

And of course Trump has left us in no doubt about who is the rightful owner of the world’s oil:

‘I wasn’t a fan of Iraq, I didn’t want to go into Iraq. But I will tell you – when we were in, we got out wrong. And I always said, in addition to that: “Keep the oil!”… So we shoulda kept the oil. But okay, maybe we’ll have another chance… But the fact is: we shoulda kept the oil.’

Our search of the Lexis database (August 30, 2017) for UK national press articles mentioning ‘Tillerson’, ‘Exxon’ and ‘Venezuela’ over the seven months since Tillerson was made Secretary of State generated precisely three hits. None of these discussed oil as a possible motive driving US policy – a taboo subject.

Investigative journalist Greg Palast describes why and when Venezuela became an Official Enemy of the West:

‘Well, shock, shock, it’s the oil! Chavez, back in 2000, 2001, decided that he wasn’t going to give it away anymore… Big US oil companies were paying a royalty for Venezuela’s super-heavy oil of about 1 per cent – 1 per cent! – okay. And for the regular oil, the heavy oil, it was 16 per cent. So the oil companies were keeping 84 per cent, and Chavez said: “You’re going to have to pay 30 per cent, you can only keep 70 per cent of our oil… You gotta split off a bit for the people of Venezuela.” And, of course, that made him enemy number one – not to Americans, but to America’s landlords, the oil companies.’

Regional specialist Mark Weisbrot commented recently on the Venezuelan opposition’s US allies:

‘These right-wing U.S. politicians – with much cooperation from all of the U.S. administrations of the past 15 years – have consistently fought to overthrow the Venezuelan government. This is all they can think about, regardless of the consequences of escalating violence, increased suffering, or even civil war.’

Weisbrot’s overly-optimistic conclusion:

‘The U.S. strategy of “regime change” has contributed to the death of hundreds of thousands of people — mostly civilians — in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. It has also had a hideous history in the Americas. Hopefully something has been learned from these crimes and tragedies.’

The BBC’s Propaganda Blitz

In numerous ‘reports’, the BBC has presented damning criticism of the Venezuelan government, often with no or nominal balance. We will sample below from a large number of similar offerings with a few related examples from other corporate media.

On May 6, the BBC published a piece titled: ‘Venezuela protests: Women march against Maduro’. The article reported:

‘The US has also expressed concern about what UN ambassador Nikki Haley called a “violent crackdown”.’At least 36 people have died and hundreds have been injured in weeks of protests.’

This gave the impression that a government ‘crackdown’ was responsible for the deaths. But the truth was more mixed. In July, Venezuela Analysis reported that since violent anti-government protests began on April 4, there had been 14 deaths caused by the authorities and 23 direct victims of opposition political violence, with 61 deaths disputed or unaccounted for.

Like so many BBC articles, this one focused on claims that Venezuela is a ‘dictatorship’:

‘”The dictatorship is living its last days and Maduro knows it,” former MP Maria Corina Machado told AFP news agency at the women’s march.’

The BBC even included a comment presumably intended to remind readers of the infamous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad (in fact orchestrated by US forces):

‘Meanwhile video posted on social media purportedly showed the pulling down of a small statue of Hugo Chavez in the western town of Rosario de Perija.’

In similar vein, a May 9 BBC piece included the comment:

‘The secretary general of the Organisation of American States (OAS) likened the country to a dictatorship.’

While recognising that the Maduro government certainly merits criticism for mishandling the current situation, ‘both economically and politically’, political analyst Greg Wilpert noted that

‘none of the arguments against the democratic legitimacy of the Maduro government hold much water’. Moreover, ‘polls repeatedly indicate that even though Maduro is fairly unpopular, a majority of Venezuelans want him to finish his term in office, which expires in January 2019’.

Western media devoted intense coverage to Maduro’s decision to hold elections for a Constituent Assembly in July. In response, the Trump administration extended sanctions. Mark Weisbrot commented:

‘The pretext for the sanctions is that the new Constitutional Assembly will essentially carry out a coup d’etat, abolishing the National Assembly – which the opposition won by a wide margin in December 2015 – and allowing President Nicolas Maduro to cancel presidential elections, which are due next year.’

But as Weisbrot noted, such a cancellation ‘will not happen automatically’ as a result of the Constituent Assembly election, and so ‘it does not make sense that the sanctions should be triggered by the election itself’.

On May 11, the BBC published ‘Inside Venezuela’s anti-government protests’. The first comment relayed by the BBC:

‘There’s no freedom of expression here in Venezuela. There’s no freedom of any kind.’

Media analyst Joe Emersberger describes the reality:

‘The biggest lie told over the past fifteen years about Venezuela is that its media is cowed by the government and that it has rendered the opposition voiceless.’

He adds:

‘In fact the protests and the leading opposition leaders’ take on the protests are being extensively covered on the largest private networks: Venevision, Televen, Globovision. If people abroad sampled Venezuela’s TV media directly, as opposed to judging it by what is said about it by the international media and some big NGOs, they’d be shocked to find the opposition constantly denouncing the government and even making very thinly veiled appeals to the military to oust Maduro.’

The BBC’s second quoted opinion:

‘We’re here to put an end to the dictatorship in Venezuela, so that our children can grow up in a free Venezuela.’

There was no balance and there have been no similar compilations looking ‘inside’ Venezuela’s pro-government protests. One would hardly guess that Maduro was elected president on April 14, 2013 in a democratic election.

In a May 12 report, ‘Venezuela protests: a week in pictures’, the BBC included two successive photo captions, which read:

‘People angry with the government of President Nicolas Maduro have been taking to the streets almost daily since the beginning of April.’

And:

‘Many have been injured, and there have been close to 40 protest-related deaths.’

This again suggested that people ‘angry with the government’ had been killed. Opposition violence has included bomb attacks on police, grenades thrown at the supreme court building from a helicopter, a government supporter burned alive, shootings, attempted lynchings, and so on. This violence was not mentioned by Paul Mason when he condemned ‘Maduro’s crackdown’ in the Guardian. A New York Times op-ed under the title, ‘Venezuela Needs International Intervention. Now.,’ commented in similar vein:

‘President Nicolás Maduro has responded with an iron fist. More than 50 people have been killed, 1,000 injured, and 2,700 arrested…’

The bomb attack on Venezuelan National Guard soldiers shown in this video, severely injuring several of the soldiers and cheered by people watching, would of course have been described by all US-UK media as a ‘terror attack’, if it had happened in the West.

The Guardian published a similar photo gallery of anti-government protestors, but not of pro-government protestors. The compilation came with remarkable captions of this kind:

‘Drawing inspiration from Ukraine’s 2013-14 revolt, young protesters in Venezuela carry Viking-like shields as they battle government security forces during protests against President Nicolás Maduro’

One photo caption read:

‘”Miraflores on fire” is written on the front of this shield. Miraflores Palace is the president’s official workplace’

Another:

‘The opposition says President Maduro has created a dictatorship. The last parliamentary vote held in 2015 gave the opposition a majority but the government has repeatedly blocked any attempts to oust Maduro’

The BBC’s May 16 piece was titled, ‘Venezuela: Teenager killed as mass protests rage’. A May 18 BBC piece maintained the sense of developing crisis: ‘Venezuela: Soldiers sent to quell looting amid protests’. On May 22, a BBC report opened with these words:

‘”Venezuela is now a dictatorship,” says Luis Ugalde, a Spanish-born Jesuit priest who during his 60 years living in Venezuela has become one of the South American nation’s most well-known political scientists.’

The BBC later offered another ‘inside’ look at anti-government protestors: ‘Apathy to activism: Venezuelan students on why they protest.’ Mario Bonucci, rector of the University of the Andes, was quoted:

‘This is an institution where you can speak your mind freely without fear of repercussion and that’s uncomfortable for this government.’

A remark that again ignored the fact that widespread criticism of Maduro’s government is published and broadcast by many Venezuelan media. The BBC offered no balancing comment.

The 2002 Coup – Telling Omissions

On July 9, the BBC wrote of opposition leader Leopoldo López:

‘Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has praised the decision to release from prison one of the country’s main opposition leaders, Leopoldo López…’Mr López was serving a 14-year sentence for inciting violence during anti-government protests in 2014, a charge he has always denied. The Supreme Court said he was released on health grounds.’

Leopoldo López

There is rather more to be said about Lopez. Venezuela Analysis commented:

‘Lopez is also well known in Venezuela for his active participation in the April 2002 coup against the democratically elected president Hugo Chávez. During the coup, using his authority as Mayor of Chacao, he led the illegal arrest of Minister of Justice Ramón Rodríguez Chacín.’

The report continued:

‘In a joint appeal with Maria Corina Machado, López called on citizens to join his “La Salida” campaign (“The Way Out”), described the government as a “dictatorship” and called on Venezuelans to “rise up” emulating the example of January 23, 1958 (when a popular uprising overthrew the Perez Jimenez dictatorship). The message was clear: Venezuela was a dictatorship, the government had to be overthrown by force.’

The Guardian also reported on Lopez:

‘Security agents have since seized two opposition leaders from their homes after they called for protests against the vote.’

Joe Emersberger pointed out some telling omissions:

‘Umm no. Leopoldo Lopez – while already under house arrest – made a video in which he called for a military coup. Don’t try this while under house arrest in the UK, where you can get put away for Facebook posts advocating a riot (even if you are not under house arrest at the time).’

Writing for OffGuardian, Ricardo Vaz asked of corporate media performance:

‘Why is there never a mention that the opposition leadership is full of protagonists from that US-backed military coup that ultimately failed? Quite simply because it would undermine the entire “democracy vs. dictatorship” propaganda narrative.’

Numerous journalists have attempted to use the Venezuelan crisis to also attack Jeremy Corbyn as part of the relentless smear campaign against him. In The Times, David Aaronovitch wrote of the Venezuelan revolution:

‘I believe we need to know why you [Jeremy Corbyn] think it’s failed.’

This from the columnist who has tirelessly backed wars of ‘liberation’ generating mass death and utter disaster in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Conclusion – Enforcing ‘The Truth’

The goal of a mass media propaganda campaign is to create the impression that ‘everybody knows’ that Saddam is a ‘threat’, Gaddafi is ‘about to commit mass murder’, Assad ‘has to go’, Corbyn is ‘destroying the Labour party’, and so on. The picture of the world presented must be clear-cut. The public must be made to feel certain that the ‘good guys’ are basically benevolent, and the ‘bad guys’ are absolutely appalling and must be removed.

This is achieved by relentless repetition of the theme over days, weeks, months and even years. Numerous individuals and organisations are used to give the impression of an informed consensus – there is no doubt! Once this ‘truth’ has been established, anyone contradicting or even questioning it is typically portrayed as a shameful ‘apologist’ in order to deter further dissent and enforce conformity.

A key to countering this propaganda is to ask some simple questions: Why are US-UK governments and corporate media much more concerned about suffering in Venezuela than the far worse horrors afflicting war-torn, famine-stricken Yemen? Why do UK MPs rail against Maduro while rejecting a parliamentary motion to suspend UK arms supplies to their Saudi Arabian allies attacking Yemen? Why is the imperfect state of democracy in Venezuela a source of far greater outrage than outright tyranny in Saudi Arabia? The answers could hardly be more obvious.

Featured image is from Media Lens.

Almost five thousand people have emailed IPSO, the press regulator calling for an inquiry into racism in the UK media, in the wake of a column in the Sun which referred to ‘The Muslim Problem.’

The demand for an inquiry was originally made by the National Union of Journalists with Chris Frost, the NUJ ethics council chair saying that,

“IPSO should launch an immediate investigation into the prevalence of Islamophobia, racism and hatred espoused in the press. IPSO claim to be set apart from their predecessor, the Press Complaints Commission, because they can run investigations and do monitoring – now is the time to prove it.”

Campaign group Global Justice Now has encouraged people to email IPSO , saying that

“We support the National Union of Journalists in their call for Ipso to launch an immediate investigation into the prevalence of Islamophobia, racism and hatred espoused in the press.”

The email also calls for the Sun journalist Trevor Kavanagh who wrote the controversial column to stand down from the board of the press regulator, as it seems inappropriate that the subject of so many complaints should play an integral role in the regulatory body.

Kahra Wayland-Larty, a campaigner at Global Justice Now said:

“There seems to be a real sense of impunity in certain sections of the UK press, that they can print the most horrendous slurs and dehumanising stories about Muslims, migrants and refugees and get away with it. This serves to normalise racism, and put hate-filled content right into the mainstream, which is fuelling the hostile environment on the streets of the UK and subsequently resulting in the spike of often violent hate crimes we’re seeing against these communities. The press regulator can’t just sit idly by while much of the media descends into a frenzy of racist and Islamophobic  hatemongering against whole sections of UK society.”

Jewish and Muslim groups in the UK also came together to issue a formal complaint to IPSO about the Sun column, which they likened to Nazi Propaganda.

Featured image is from TruePublica.

On Friday, a Taliban suicide bomber driving a car bomb slammed into a convoy of NATO forces near Kandahar Airbase in Trank Pul area of Kandahar province.

Kandahar provincial governor spokesperson, Fazal Bari Baryalai, said the attack “totally destroyed” one of the vehicles carrying Romanian soldiers.

NATO’s spokesperson confirmed a “small number” of soldiers were wounded. However, the Taliban news agency Voice of Jihad claimed that at least seven NATO soldiers were killed in the attack.

According to Afghan sources, Afghan Army bases in Abgarmak and Chinaee areas in Ghormach district of Faryab province in northern Afghanistan are under the Taliban siege for two months now.

Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Dawlat Waziri said that the Afghan army is now working to reopen the way to the bases. Meanwhile, the Afghan military airdrops supplies to the besieged soldiers.

The Taliban is expanding rapidly in northern Afghanistan, especially in Faryab province. On Thursday, Voice of Jihad announced that the Taliban captured 5 villages – Qarai, Chakna, Balai Bam and Jawdana – in the province.

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

On Friday, a Taliban suicide bomber driving a car bomb slammed into a convoy of NATO forces near Kandahar Airbase in Trank Pul area of Kandahar province.

Kandahar provincial governor spokesperson, Fazal Bari Baryalai, said the attack “totally destroyed” one of the vehicles carrying Romanian soldiers.

NATO’s spokesperson confirmed a “small number” of soldiers were wounded. However, the Taliban news agency Voice of Jihad claimed that at least seven NATO soldiers were killed in the attack.

According to Afghan sources, Afghan Army bases in Abgarmak and Chinaee areas in Ghormach district of Faryab province in northern Afghanistan are under the Taliban siege for two months now.

Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Dawlat Waziri said that the Afghan army is now working to reopen the way to the bases. Meanwhile, the Afghan military airdrops supplies to the besieged soldiers.

The Taliban is expanding rapidly in northern Afghanistan, especially in Faryab province. On Thursday, Voice of Jihad announced that the Taliban captured 5 villages – Qarai, Chakna, Balai Bam and Jawdana – in the province.

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

The use of information to enhance martial power goes back to the beginning of human civilization itself, where propaganda and psychological warfare went hand-in-hand with slings, arrows, swords and shields.

The most recent iteration of this takes the form of social media and cyberwarfare where tools are being developed and deployed to influence populations at home and abroad, to manipulate political processes of foreign states and even tap into and exploit global economic forces.

In the beginning of the 21st century, the United States held an uncontested monopoly over the tools of cyberwarfare. Today, this is changing quickly, presenting an increasingly balanced cyberscape where nations are able to defend themselves on near parity with America’s ability to attack them.

To reassert America’s control over information and the technology used to broker it, Jared Cohen, current Google employee and former US State Department staff, has proposed a US-created and dominated “international” framework regarding cyberconflict.

His op-ed in the New York Times titled, “How to Prevent a Cyberwar,” begins by admitting the very pretext the US is using to expand its control over cyberwarfare is baseless, noting that “specifics of Russia’s interference in the 2016 America election remain unclear.” 

Regardless, Cohen continues by laying out a plan for reasserting American control over cyberwarfare anyway, by claiming:

Cyberweapons won’t go away and their spread can’t be controlled. Instead, as we’ve done for other destructive technologies, the world needs to establish a set of principles to determine the proper conduct of governments regarding cyberconflict. They would dictate how to properly attribute cyberattacks, so that we know with confidence who is responsible, and they would guide how countries should respond.

Cohen, unsurprisingly, nominates the US to lead and direct these efforts:

The United States is uniquely positioned to lead this effort and point the world toward a goal of an enforceable cyberwarfare treaty. Many of the institutions that would be instrumental in informing these principles are based in the United States, including research universities and the technology industry. Part of this effort would involve leading by example, and the United States can and should establish itself as a defender of a free and open internet everywhere.

Cohen never explains how this US-dominated framework will differ from existing “international” frameworks regarding conventional warfare the US regularly abuses to justify a growing collection of devastating conflicts it is waging worldwide.

And as has been repeatedly documented, the United States’ definition of a “free and open internet everywhere” is an Internet dominated by US tech companies seeking to enhance and expand US interests globally.

Cohen ironically notes that:

Cyberweapons have already been used by governments to interfere with elections, steal billions of dollars, harm critical infrastructure, censor the press, manipulate public conversations about crucial issues and harass dissidents and journalists. The intensity of cyberconflict around the world is increasing, and the tools are becoming cheaper and more readily available.

Indeed, cyberweapons have already been used, primarily by the United States.

Jared Cohen himself was directly involved in joint operations between Google, Facebook, the US State Department and a number of other US tech and media enterprises which before and during 2011 set the stage for the so-called “Arab Spring.”

It included the training, funding and equipping of activists years ahead of the the uprisings as well as active participation in the uprisings themselves, including providing assistance to both protesters and militants everywhere from Libya to Syria in overthrowing governments targeted by Washington for regime change.

One such tool used in these efforts was described in a UK Independent article titled, “Google planned to help Syrian rebels bring down Assad regime, leaked Hillary Clinton emails claim,” which would report that:

An interactive tool created by Google was designed to encourage Syrian rebels and help bring down the Assad regime, Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails have reportedly revealed.

By tracking and mapping defections within the Syrian leadership, it was reportedly designed to encourage more people to defect and ‘give confidence’ to the rebel opposition.

The article would continue, mentioning Jared Cohen by name:

The email detailing Google’s defection tracker purportedly came from Jared Cohen, a Clinton advisor until 2010 and now-President of Jigsaw, formerly known as Google Ideas, the company’s New York-based policy think tank.

In a July 2012 email to members of Clinton’s team, which the WikiLeaks release alleges was later forwarded to the Secretary of State herself, Cohen reportedly said: “My team is planning to launch a tool on Sunday that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from.”

Would Cohen’s more recently proposed “framework” have prevented the United States’ use of these cyberweapons against sovereign states to undermine sociopolitical stability, overturn entire governments and plunge them into enduring chaos many still remain in 6 years later? Most likely not.

What Cohen and the interests he represents are truly concerned with is that nations are now not only able to recognize, prepare for and defend against US cyberwarfare, they may be capable of retaliating against the US.

Cohen’s proposal for an international framework to govern cyberwarfare simply seeks to define it in terms that leaves the US with both an uncontested monopoly over cyberwarfare as well as the means to wield it globally with absolute impunity.

It would be not unlike current “international” frameworks used to govern conflicts between nations which the US has used to justify an expansive, global campaign of extraterritorial war stretching from North Africa to Central Asia and beyond.

Such frameworks have become enablers of injustice, not a deterrence to it.

As nations from Iran to North Korea are discovering, the only true means of defending oneself from foreign military aggression is creating a plausible deterrence to dissuade foreign nations from attacking. This is done by creating a price for attacking and invading that is higher than the perceived benefits of doing so.

Nations like Russia and China have already achieved this balance with the United States in terms of conventional and nuclear warfare, and have now nearly established a similar deterrence in terms of cyber and information warfare. For the rest of the world, developing cyberdefense is not as costly as conventional military or nuclear arsenals, making cyberwarfare a corner of the battlefield unlikely to be monopolized by the US as it had done at the turn of the century.

Ensuring that no single nation ever has the opportunity to abuse such a monopoly again means exposing and confronting efforts by those like Google’s Jared Cohen and his proposal for an “international framework” for cyberwarfare that resembles the same sort of enabling the United Nations provides the US in terms of proliferating conventional conflicts across the globe.

Ulson Gunnar is a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

All images in this article are from New Eastern Outlook.

Amid international calls for an independent inquiry into Saudi war crimes in Yemen, the Kingdom has investigated itself and found it has done nothing wrong.

Countries including China, the Netherlands, and Canada have pushed forward with a U.N. Human Rights Council draft resolution to establish an independent investigation into Saudi war crimes against civilians in the small war-torn nation of Yemen.

This week, Human Rights Watch also accused the coalition of committing war crimes.

Though these allegations have been circulating and documented for years, little has been done to stop the Saudi attacks, and the Saudis and their U.S. and Arab allies have worked to undermine efforts to uncover wrongdoing.

“The minimal efforts made towards accountability over the past year are insufficient to respond to the gravity of the continuing and daily violations involved in this conflict,” U.N. human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein said in Geneva this week.

The U.N. has documented 5,144 civilian deaths, mainly from the Saudi-led coalition.

The Saudis said they did not object to the current push for an inquiry but claimed it was bad timing. According to Abdulaziz al-Wasil, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Geneva:

“We have no objection (to) the inquiry itself, we just have a discussion about the timing.Whether this is the right time to establish an international commission with the difficulties on the ground, and we knew in advance that they will face tremendous obstacles in terms of access.”

In the meantime, the Saudi government has set up its own panel to investigate potential war crimes and misconduct. Reuters reported on the Saudi panel’s findings, noting it concluded that “a series of deadly air strikes largely [was] justified, citing the presence of armed militiamen at the homes, schools and clinics that were targeted.”

Reuters continued:

“The Joint Incidents Assessment Team said on Tuesday it had discovered mistakes in only three of 15 incidents it reviewed, and maintained the coalition had acted in accordance with international humanitarian law. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has long been running the coalition fighting in Yemen as the country’s defense minister, a title he still retains.”

The panel’s legal advisor, Mansour Ahmed al-Mansour, told journalists this week that, in one example, the Saudi coalition struck a water welling drill after mistaking it for a ballistic missile launcher.

However, the Saudis have been criticized for their longstanding pattern of targeting critical infrastructures such as agriculture, warehouses, and hospitals – in far more than just fifteen incidents. Doctors Without Borders (MSF) claimed in early 2016 that the Saudis had attacked hospitals in more than 100 incidents, ultimately scaring Yemenis away from seeking medical help. The coalition has also been implicated in the cholera epidemic that has infected over half a million people since April.

The United States and the United Kingdom are complicit in this targeting of Yemen, which the Saudis view as a proxy war against Iran as they attempt to reinstate a former ruler who was ousted by Houthi rebels, a group they are now fighting. There is minimal evidence that Iran is backing the Houthis.

In addition to arming the Saudis with billions of dollars worth of weapons, which are being used to commit the alleged war crimes in Yemen, the western nations have military officials in the Saudi command room in control of air strikes.

British officials even schemed with the Saudis to paradoxically secure the repressive regime a spot on the U.N.’s human rights council. The U.S. remains a staunch Saudi backer at the U.N., as well, expressing opposition to the independent inquiry introduced this week.

Like the Saudis, the U.S. has brushed off civilian casualties at the hands of their military. In accusing the Saudis of war crimes this week, Human Rights Watch also called on U.S. lawmakers to curb the killing. They wrote:

“So far, the US government has been content to keep the weapons to Riyadh flowing so long as Saudi Arabia pretends it’s been fighting a clean war. But its empty promises have proved devastating – and deadly – for Yemeni civilians.

In the wake of North Korea’s missile launch, US President Trump and his top officials have once again threatened to use military force to end the supposed threat posed by the small, economically backward country and its limited nuclear arsenal.

Speaking at an Air Force installation outside Washington, Trump condemned North Korea and declared that the US would “defend our people, our nations, and our civilization, from all who dare to threaten our way of life.”

Against the backdrop of a nuclear-capable B-2 stealth bomber, Trump told the assembled Air Force personnel:

“After seeing your capabilities and commitment here today, I am more confident than ever that our options in addressing this threat are both effective and overwhelming.”

Trump and his top officials have repeatedly stressed that “all options are on the table” and hinted the US would use its vast nuclear capability against North Korea.

The UN Security Council has issued a statement after its emergency session on Friday condemning North Korea’s latest test of an intermediate range missile that flew over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean as “highly provocative.”

Under pressure from Washington, the UN Security Council on Monday imposed its harshest sanctions yet on North Korea over its sixth nuclear test on September 3. The latest resolution banned the purchase of North Korean textile exports, restricted the hire of its guest workers and capped its oil imports.

Yesterday’s statement called on all UN member states to “fully, comprehensively and immediately” implement all the sanctions. At the same time, it stressed the need to “reduce tension in the Korean Peninsula” and to promote “a peaceful and comprehensive solution.”

Trump, however, has already dismissed the latest UN sanctions. Speaking on Tuesday, he declared that the UN vote was “just another very small step, not a big deal,” adding that he did not know “if it has any impact.” He said that the sanctions would pale in comparison to “what ultimately will have to happen” to North Korea.

Yesterday, senior Trump officials warned that time was running out for any diplomatic solution.

At a White House briefing yesterday, national security adviser H.R. McMaster underscored the willingness of the US to use military force.

“For those who have said, and been commenting about a lack of a military option, there is a military option.”

While saying that “now it [military force] is not what we would prefer to do,” McMaster warned that time was short.

“We’ve been kicking the can down the road, and we’re out of road,” he said.

Speaking at the same briefing, US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley suggested that the UN had run out of options and she would support the use of the military against North Korea.

“There is not a whole lot the Security Council is going to be able to do from here when you have cut 90 percent of the trade and 30 percent of the oil to [North Korea],” Haley said. “So, having said that, I have no problem with kicking it to [US Defense Secretary James] Mattis because I think he has plenty of options.”

The provocative US threats of war are also directed at putting even more pressure on China and also Russia to strong-arm the Pyongyang regime into capitulating to US demands to abandon its nuclear and missile programs.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called on Beijing and Moscow to take “direct actions of their own.” He called on all countries to implement UN sanctions but singled out China saying that it supplied North Korea with “most of its oil” and Russia as the “largest employer of North Korean forced labour.”

“China and Russia must indicate their intolerance for these reckless missile launches by taking direct actions of their own,” Tillerson declared.

Earlier this week, US Assistant Treasury Secretary Marshall Billingslea accused China of circumventing UN sanctions and assisting in the trade of banned goods with North Korea. He claimed to have evidence of Chinese and Russian collusion in the smuggling of coal out of North Korea.

Billingslea said that the Trump administration had told China that if it wished to avoid further sanctions, the United States needs to “urgently” see action. The US has already imposed bans on a number of Chinese individuals and entities, including the Bank of Dandong, over their alleged business dealings with North Korea.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC on that the US has “sent a message that anybody that wanted to trade with North Korea, we consider them not trading with us. We can put economic sanctions to stop people trading.”

Mnuchin’s comments echo those of Trump who threatened to cut off trade with China if it did not end all business dealings with North Korea. The threats make clear that the Trump administration’s reckless escalation of the confrontation with North Korea is part of a broader strategy aimed at undermining China, which is regarded by the US as the main obstacle to its regional and global hegemony.

China and Russia are caught in a bind. Both countries have opposed North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs because the US has exploited them to justify its military build-up throughout Asia.

Beijing is also concerned that South Korea and Japan will use North Korea as a pretext to develop their own nuclear arsenal. South Korea’s defence minister has already suggested that the US return tactical nuclear weapons to his country.

At the same time, China and Russia do not want to see either a war in their backyard on the Korean Peninsula or a political crisis in Pyongyang that could be exploited by Washington to install a pro-US regime.

The Russian foreign ministry yesterday joined with China in condemning North Korea’s latest missile test over mainland Japan, but at the same time criticised the US for its “aggressive” role in the crisis.

“Regrettably, aggressive rhetoric is the only thing coming from Washington,” a spokesman said.

China and Russia are continuing to push for a resumption of negotiations based on a halt by the US and South Korea on large joint military exercises, in return for North Korea suspending further nuclear and missile tests. The US has repeatedly dismissed any pause in its war games with South Korea.

In response to the latest North Korean missile test, the South Korean military fired a short-range ballistic missile into waters 250 kilometres off its east coast. The South Korean President Moon Jae-in bluntly warned North Korea that “we have the power to destroy North Korea and make it unable to recover.”

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

The Syrian peace process could be a model for Russia and China to pursue in trying to defuse crisis on the Korean peninsula – Washington not involved except as an observer.

Important progress has been made despite no decisive breakthroughs – Russia leading the effort, largely circumventing Washington, Iran and Turkey the other key players, agreement on multiple de-escalation zones important steps toward hoped for conflict resolution one day.

Years of failed efforts led to where things stand now, the process greatly aided by Syrian and allied military successes on the ground, greatly aided by Russian airpower.

Syria is a US-instigated war zone. The objective on the Korean peninsula is preventing preventing its outbreak, risking a potentially catastrophic nuclear confrontation – what China and Russia most of all want avoided.

They want diplomatic engagement with North Korea. Washington rejects the idea, wanting longstanding hostility toward the DPRK maintained – little likelihood of getting Trump administration hawks to change their position.

The only near-term option is proceeding without Washington’s involvement, Russia and China spearheading the diplomatic effort, getting the UN involved, aiming to persuade South Korea and Japan to join their initiative.

The objective is peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. If the Astana/Geneva process was able to achieve incremental progress over many months on Syria, why can’t something similar work in northeast Asia.

Admittedly it’s a gamble without US involvement. If the UN, South Korea and Japan ally with Russia and China to avoid war on the Korean peninsula, something they all want, maybe progress can be made toward defusing crisis conditions.

If America is left out initially, maybe it’ll decide to get involved later on, especially if a more willing administration succeeds Trump. Here’s where things stand now.

Sanctions, saber rattling and threats are counterproductive, encouraging Pyongyang to go all-out to develop its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities.

The Trump administration wants regional tensions stoked, not defused, a pretext for its provocative regional military presence – manufacturing a nonexistent North Korean threat.

The DPRK wants peace, not war. So do Russia, China, South Korea, Japan and the rest of the world community except America and perhaps a few of its rogue allies.

At this stage, it’s pointless to pressure the Trump administration to engage with North Korea diplomatically.

A Sino/Russian peace initiative appears the only option worth pursuing, its success dependent on getting UN, South Korean and Japanese involvement, no easy objective to achieve – given Washington’s control over these countries and the world body.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Everything tried so far failed. Russia’s UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya said a new approach is needed.

Russian upper house Federation Council First Deputy Chairman Frants Klintsevich said

“I don’t think that Trump is capable of getting over himself even to achieve the most important task, which is to ensure global security. Besides, such step could be viewed as a weakness in the US.”

Though America is too important to ignore, circumventing it diplomatically to avoid war on the Korean peninsula is worth trying.

Washington justifies its unjustifiable belligerence by cobbling together so-called coalition partners.

South Korea and Japan are in harm’s way if war erupts on the Korean peninsula. Sergey Lavrov and his team are highly skilled diplomats.

Russia and China are dedicated to regional peace. So is Pyongyang. South Korea and Japan want war avoided.

Establishing a regional conflict resolution coalition may be the only way to try preventing unthinkable war on the Korean peninsula.

Involvement of the relevant regional countries along with the UN would give US hawks pause about initiating war – even while Pyongyang continues developing its nuclear and ballistic capabilities as deterrents against feared US aggression.

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 Socialist Project.

Featured image: Beate Zschäpe (Source: Tagesspiegel)

After more than four years of proceedings, the German federal prosecutor’s office ended its summation on Tuesday and demanded a lifelong sentence and subsequent preventive detention for Beate Zschäpe. Zschäpe is the surviving member of the trio of neo-Nazi terrorists known as the National Socialist Underground (NSU). The federal prosecutor, Herbert Diemer, also called for long prison sentences for other defendants on trial in Munich.

Over the course of seven days, the prosecution laid out in detail the case against the accused. Excluded from the trial and from prosecution from the very beginning were state agencies, in particular the German domestic intelligence agency, the Office for Constitutional Protection, which is heavily implicated in the crimes of the NSU.

As a member of the NSU, Zschäpe was involved in 10 murders and over 30 attempted murders, three bomb attacks, and 15 robberies. The state prosecutor claimed she bore especial guilt, even though she may never have shot any of the victims herself. If the court follows the recommendation of the prosecution, Zschäpe will spend the rest of her life in prison.

Diemer also demanded long prison sentences for four other defendants. He requested 12 years’ imprisonment for the former neo-fascist NPD (German National Democratic Party) functionary Ralf Wohlleben, as an accessory to murder in nine cases. Wohlleben had, amongst other services to the NSU, supplied the “Ceska” pistol used by the group to murder nine immigrants.

André Eminger is to be sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment. He was found guilty of being an accessory to attempted murder. Eminger rented the camper used by NSU members Uwe Böhnhardt and Uwe Mundlos in June 2004 to drive to Cologne, where they planted a bomb in the city’s Keupstraße. The court followed the request of the federal prosecutor to detain Eminger in court. Until now he had remained free.

Holger Gerlach helped Zschäpe and her companions, Mundlos and Böhnhardt, to live undetected by providing them with identity papers. Gerlach has been charged with supporting a terrorist organization and the prosecutor has demanded he serve a five-year prison sentence.

The prosecutor also requested a youth penalty of three years for Carsten S., who procured the weapon on behalf of Wohlleben. The prosecutor adjudged that S. deserved a mitigated sentence after making a full confession.

The role of the domestic intelligence agency was never considered by the court. Diemer had already given the intelligence services a clean bill of health at the start of the trial. Its agents had made a decisive contribution to the investigation, Diemer claimed. There were no persons pulling the strings to be uncovered. Any other interpretations were “senseless rumours” and a “will-o’-the-wisp.”

As the WSWS wrote at the start of the trial, the entire NSU proceedings were structured to cover up the involvement of the state in the crimes of the NSU. At an early stage the prosecutor’s office concluded that the NSU consisted of just three people, Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt, who died under mysterious circumstances before their arrest, and Beate Zschäpe. Any investigation into other NSU members was thereby excluded from the start.

Several parliamentary investigation committees have concluded that the NSU must have consisted of more than three members. Members of the neo-Nazi organization “Blood and Honour,” which has since been banned, supported the trio when they went underground. They collected money for the gang at neo-Nazi concerts and applauded their crimes in their publications.

Lawyers, who represent the relatives of victims in the case, have repeatedly maintained that the NSU must have consisted of a larger group of neo-Nazis.

Lawyer Stephan Kuhn, who represents a victim of the bomb attack in the Cologne Keupstraße, told Spiegel Online earlier this week that explosives and 20 various firearms had been found in the last apartment to be occupied by Mundlos, Böhnhardt and Zschäpe. The origins of 17 of these weapons had not been ascertained. “This is a clear indicator of other supporters that the prosecutor has not investigated.” There are also further indications that others around the NSU had not been identified.

Lawyers for the victims have repeatedly raised these claims in court together with evidence pointing to the involvement of state agencies. For their part, intelligence officers and their undercover agents who were summoned as witnesses refused to provide statements, declared they could not remember, or simply lied.

It is now known that about 40 undercover agents and informers were in contact with the three NSU terrorists. The neo-Nazi group Thuringian Homeland Security, in which the trio initially became radicalised, was the creation of undercover agent Tino Brandt, who built up the organisation with money provided by the secret service. After the trio went “underground” in 1998, they were covered up by the secret services for the following 13 years.

The exact extent of the collaboration between the secret services and NSU remains unclear. It is documented that the Hessian secret service agent Andreas Temme was actually at the scene of the murder of one of the victims, Halit Yozgat, in Kassel in 2006. Temme has alleged absurdly he knew nothing of the murder and has been backed by his superior officers. Other agents have received similar cover from higher-ups.

The Thuringian investigative committee notes in its final report that the search for the NSU terrorists was so amateurish as to lead to the “suspicion of deliberate sabotage.”

In his interview with Spiegel Online, Kuhn also reported that the prosecutor’s office had suppressed evidence that could have demonstrated collusion between the intelligence agencies and the NSU. According to Kuhn, the prosecutor’s office “structured the investigations in such a way that it could decide which results of the investigation should be submitted to the court and which should not.”

There were a total of nine other investigations against potential supporters, which were to be pursued separately, plus a broader investigation (structural procedure) of unknown supporters, in particular suppliers of weapons. In these proceedings, the lawyers of the sub-defendants would not have the right to inspect files.

“If the prosecutor’s office did not wish the parties to the proceedings to be aware of an interrogation, he ensured that the interrogation of the witness took place in the structural procedure. This provided the legal leeway to prevent the presentation of an interrogation in court,” Kuhn said.

The prosecutor also requested on a number of occasions that the court reject applications by the lawyers of the civil case claimants for the interrogation of witnesses. Kuhn said,

“The federal prosecutor’s office thus used its position in a manner that indicated it feared certain investigations could reach the public domain.”

As one example, he cited the application by a subsidiary lawyer to invite to the stand a former official of the secret service, with the cover name Lothar Lingen. Lingen had admitted to the federal prosecutor’s office he had intentionally destroyed files related to the NSU to prevent their content being revealed.

“He said that based on the number of undercover agents in Thuringia nobody would have believed that the federal constitutional protection did not know about the NSU.”

The prosecutor’s office claimed in the trial, against its better knowledge, that this was speculation and that Lingen would not be recalled as a witness.

It is evident that, despite the attention to detail in the case of the five accused, the aim of the NSU trial was to conceal the role played by secret services. This has taken place as more information emerges about the activities of the far-right in the security agencies and German army (Bundeswehr).

The German army officer Franco A., who had registered as a Syrian refugee and planned the assassination of politicians, received cover from superiors and was part of a larger network involving the far-right Identity movement. A. also had connections to a terror cell in Rostock, which planned political assassinations. The cell included a policeman and a lawyer.

Last week, the federal administrative court in Leipzig ended its long-standing trial of Joachim Freiherr von Sinner, the former head of the foreign secret service BND in the city of Mainz. Von Sinner had taken down two photographs of Christian Wulff, then the German president, because he opposed Wulff’s statement that Islam belonged to Germany. The court decided against any punishment for von Sinner based on his right-wing extremist views on politicians and Islamism.

“Here the threshold for punishment has not yet been exceeded,” declared judge Ulf Domgörgen.

According to the weekly newspaper Die Zeit, von Sinner had planned “exercises of a paramilitary nature” with fellow thinkers from the police, the Bundeswehr and the BND. The aim of such exercises was to make the “resistance” against Muslims as effective as possible. All proceedings against von Sinner have been terminated.

The explosion of a suspected homemade bomb on a packed Underground commuter train in southwest London Friday morning has become the occasion for a massive police and intelligence operation.

Before anything about the origins of the attack aboard a train at Parsons Green station had officially been made public, the government called a meeting of its COBRA emergency committee. The meeting was convened in the afternoon amid speculation that the UK’s terrorism threat level could be raised from “severe” to “critical”—the highest level. Late Friday evening, Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May announced in a televised statement that the threat level was being raised to critical for an undefined period.

She stated,

“For this period, military personnel will replace police officers on guard duties at certain protected sites that are not accessible to the public,” adding, “The public will see more armed police on the transport network and on our streets…”

Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said this would free up 1,000 armed police officers for use on the streets.

Earlier, May seized the opportunity to push for more surveillance powers, declaring,

“[W]e are looking very carefully at the powers that our police and security service have to make sure they have the powers they need,” while “working with the Internet companies.”

She also announced a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron “to talk about what more we can be doing to ensure that we deal with the terrorist propaganda, with the extremist propaganda, with the hatred that is put out across the Internet.”

During the evening, Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack via its news agency.

The rush hour attack appears to have been deliberate and indiscriminate. Passengers close by reported hearing a loud bang and seeing a “wall of flame” coming down the train. A number of people suffered burns, while others were injured in the panicked rush that followed the explosion, as commuters scrambled to exit the station.

The London Ambulance Service reported that 29 people were taken to hospital, mostly with flash burns. As of early Friday evening, 21 were still receiving treatment at Imperial, Chelsea and Westminster, and St George’s hospitals.

One passenger spoke of a seeing a burning “white builder’s bucket” in a supermarket bag, with “a lot of wires hanging out of it.” Images and videos circulating on social media appeared to confirm this.

The Daily Mail and other sources said the wires appeared to be fairy lights, which have been used in homemade explosive devices in the past. It appears that the “bucket bomb” device did not explode as intended. Later reports stated the device had a timer of some sort, and a circuit board was recovered from the scene.

Another eyewitness heard a “large bang on the other side of the tube train,” then a “really hot, intense fireball” flew above his head, singeing his hair. He saw people with facial burns.

Another told the Guardian:

“Suddenly there was panic, lots of people shouting, screaming, lots of screaming.” He continued, “I saw crying women, there was lots of shouting and screaming, there was a bit of a crush on the stairs going down to the streets. Some people got pushed over and trampled on.”

A woman, Emma Stevie, who was on the train when the explosion happened, described being caught in a “human stampede” as people tried to escape from the train.

“I wedged myself in next to a railing, I put myself in the fetal position. There was a pregnant woman underneath me, and I was trying really hard not to crush her. I saw a poor little boy with a smashed-in head and other injuries. It was horrible.”

Transport services were badly disrupted. Train service on the District Line, which crosses the entire width of London, was suspended between Wimbledon and Edgware Road stations. The entire line was subsequently shut down. Roads around Parsons Green station were closed, and bus routes terminated.

Police immediately launched a major operation with a huge manhunt. The incident, initially handled by the British Transport Police, was handed over to the Metropolitan Police’s SO15 anti-terror unit and declared to be terrorist-related. Police, including heavily armed and protected Counter Terrorist Specialist Firearms Officers, were deployed on the streets, a cordon was thrown up around the area, and houses and flats near the station were evacuated by the police. Helicopters circled overhead.

Shortly before midday, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley announced that “hundreds of detectives” were “involved looking at CCTV, forensics work and speaking to witnesses.” Rowley reported that the security service MI5 and the GCHQ spy network were “bringing their intelligence expertise to bear on the case.”

The Guardian reported Friday evening that the police have obtained CCTV images that capture the bomber as he boarded the train with the bomb.

As with all such outrages, there is no reason to assume that the attack comes as a surprise to the British intelligence agencies.

An indication that the security services know more about whoever carried out the attack than they are letting on came in the form of a tweet put out by US President Donald Trump, who called the perpetrators “sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard. Must be proactive!”

Asked about Trump’s tweet, Prime Minister May rebuked the US president, saying,

“I never think it’s helpful for anybody to speculate on what is an ongoing investigation.”

The Metropolitan Police described Trump’s comment as “pure speculation.”

The truth is that over the past decade, most terror attacks in Britain and Europe have been carried out by individuals, often radicalised Islamists, who were known to the state, had been monitored for years, and whose associations were of direct use to the major powers in their neo-colonial wars in Africa and the Middle East.

Similar statements were made by May and the British police after the May 22 Manchester Arena suicide bombing attack in which 22 people died. This was in response to US intelligences sources revealing, within hours, the identity of the bomber, Salman Abedi, and the fact that he was well known to British intelligence.

It is now established fact that that Abedi did not act alone, but was part of wider network that had been monitored and allowed to operate by British intelligence for years.

Similarly, the June 3 attack on London Bridge and Borough Market, which killed eight people and injured 48, was perpetrated by three individuals all of whom were well known to the intelligence services and police.

This is the fourth time that the threat level has been placed at “critical” in the past 11 years. The last occasion was following Manchester attack, amid official warnings that another assault was “imminent.” Nearly 1,000 armed troops were mobilised and put onto the streets, mainly in London, to reinforce counterterrorism officers.

The June deployment was in line with Operation Temperer, a covert plan devised by David Cameron’s Conservative government, when May was home secretary.

Temperer followed a series of terror attacks in France by known intelligence assets and informers in 2015. These were seized on by the French state to implement Operation Sentinelle, which deployed 10,000 troops and imposed emergency powers allowing indiscriminate searches and arrests without judicial consent and increased surveillance. Presented as anti-terror measures, the emergency powers are still in effect two years later, to be used against social opposition in the working class.

Temperer was “accidentally” made public when minutes associated with it were uploaded to the National Police Chiefs’ Council website earlier this year. The minutes revealed plans for up to 5,100 troops to be placed on the streets to “augment armed police officers engaged in protective security duties.”

The Daily Mail noted that Temperer could be triggered by the COBRA committee following terrorist attacks, and that the military top brass recognised that the “Army played an important part in national resilience and supported the work going forward.”

“National resilience” could mean almost anything, and makes clear that Temperer is in place to back up the police with the army as and when required. Temperer was kept secret at the time because, according to the Daily Telegraph, then-Prime Minister David Cameron was concerned that comparisons would be made with British Army operations in Northern Ireland during the “Troubles,” the decades-long dirty war against Irish republicans.

Featured image is from India TV.

Following the ground-breaking 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and Russia, the US, China, France, the UK, as well as Germany and the EU, to end its nascent nuclear weapons program, Tehran — in honoring the terms of the unprecedented treaty — has nonetheless seen Washington implement a host of new sanctions against the Middle Eastern country, including asset freezes and limits on global financial transfers.

According to Iranian Central Bank President Valiollah Seif, Chinese state-owned CITIC investment company has opened a $10 billion credit line to several banks in Iran to be used to fund wide-ranging infrastructure projects in the country, according to a report by the Times of Israel.

The significant credit line will primarily use euros and yuan to bypass the US sanctions.

Seif indicated that the $10 billion, alongside an additional previous $15 billion of Chinese investment into other unnamed projects in the country, show “a strong will for continuation of cooperation between the two countries,” according to Pakistan’s geo.tv media outlet.

China is seen to be opening trade to the region as part of a trillion-dollar “One Belt, One Road” strategy to increase ties to Africa and Europe. China is the biggest recipient of Iranian oil, and accounts for almost a third of Tehran’s overall trade.

In pledges to significantly increase trade with Iran, Beijing previously opened two credit lines equalling $4.2 billion, to build high-speed railway lines between Tehran and the cities of Mashhad and Isfahan, according to the Iran Daily, hot on the heels of an €8 billion credit agreement between Tehran and Seoul’s Exim bank signed in August.

While western banks remain cautious, particularly as Washington has imposed what many consider to be unnecessary financial blocks on Tehran, negotiations are progressing between banks in Austria, Denmark and Germany to provide a $22 billion credit line to Iran.

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

Longstanding US hostility toward the DPRK poses a serious threat to its security – its leadership acting rationally to defend itself against feared US aggression.

Failure to develop the strongest possible deterrent would be irresponsible. The menace America poses forced North Korea to prepare for the worst.

The lesson of defenseless nations victimized by US aggression is not lost on its government and military officials.

The root of the problem on the Korean peninsula lies in Washington, not Pyongyang.

“The nature of the North Korea nuclear problem is a security issue. The core of it is the conflict between the US and North Korea,” China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying explained, adding:

“The cause of escalating tensions is not China, and the key to the problem is also not China. Parties…directly involved should do their duty and, any attempts to push away the problem is irresponsible.”

Beijing already made great sacrifices by agreeing to harsh sanctions on Pyongyang, Hua stressed. Her comments indicate China’s unlikelihood to permit further Security Council sanctions on the country.

Knowing they’re counterproductive, making things worse, not better, why didn’t China and Russia put a stop to them by vetoing the latest US draft Security Council resolution and earlier ones, heightening, not easing tensions, forcing the DPRK to continue developing its nuclear and ballistic missile deterrents, its only option given the major threat it faces.

According to Korean affairs expert Cai Jian,

“North Korea will not stop developing nuclear weapons because of the sanctions, as the regime now sees greater importance in increasing its bargaining power before any negotiations take place.”

“The firing of a second missile over Japan basically shows that North Korea could hit Guam, which it has threatened to do. So I still think it is not an option for the US to start a war when it seems North Korea’s nuclear weapons are more developed than expected. Both sides will have to sit down somehow.”

Stepping back from the brink on the Korean peninsula and avoiding possible war is only possible through diplomacy, an option Washington rejects, wanting endless political and economic war on Pyongyang to continue, threatening hostilities, risking possible conflict by accident or design.

After decades of an uneasy armistice, successive US administrations from Truman to Trump, refusing to formally end the 1950s war with a peace treaty, their unwillingness to respect North Korea’s sovereign independence, and today’s menacing US posture toward the country makes resolving things no simple task no matter what happens going forward.

Time and again, Washington showed it’s untrustworthy, lacking good faith, breaching deals made, North Korea and other countries leery of negotiating with a duplicitous partner.

The deplorable way America treats Iran shows what other independent countries are up against.

Aggressive wars Washington is waging against nonbelligerent states reveal the real threat North Korea faces, the same one Tehran faced for years.

Russia’s lower house State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Leonid Slutsky called Pyongyang’s latest missile test, three days after newly imposed sanctions, “a clear challenge for the global community.”

The launch “proves the uselessness of sanctions and pressure,” what Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping stress while opposing the DPRK’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs because they heighten regional tensions and risk possible war.

“There is a need to search for a diplomatic solution to the North Korea issue rather than hold military drills near North Korea’s borders, threatening to conduct preventive strikes and reciprocal missile launches,” Slutsky stressed.

The obvious need is unacceptable to Washington.

“(T)alking is not the answer,” Trump roared.

“Political prostitute” Nikki Haley called the Sino/Russian double-freeze proposal “insulting.” Dealing with a belligerent nation like America to resolve major issues diplomatically is near-impossible.

Its favored strategy is endless wars of aggression. It could smash North Korea harder than earlier if it wishes. The major difference between now and then is the DPRK can hit back hard – against US regional forces, South Korea and Japan.

War on the peninsula would threaten millions of people. If waged with nuclear weapons, millions could perish.

China and Russia could be forced to intervene because of the threat to their security.

The worst case scenario is unlikely but risky enough to go all-out to prevent. Large-scale conflicts begin incrementally, the way WW I and II developed.

America wasn’t involved in the first world war until more than two-and-a-half years after it began (April 1917) – over two years after Hitler attacked Poland in September 1939.

Tens of millions of people perished in both conflicts. How many regional lives would be lost if Washington dares attack North Korea, especially if nuclear war erupts?

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.

This past August marked the second anniversary of the Greek debt crisis and the third major piling on of debt on Greece in August 2015 by the Eurozone ‘Troika’ of European Commission, European Central Bank, and the IMF. That 2015 third debt deal added $86 billion to the previous $230 billion imposed on Greece—all to be paid by various austerity measures squeezing Greek workers, taxpayers, retirees, and small businesses demanded by the Troika and their northern Euro bankers sitting behind it.

Studies by German academic institutions showed that more than 95% of the debt repayments by Greece to the Troika have ended up in Euro bankers’ hands.

But the third debt deal of August 2015, which extends another year to August 2018, was not the end. Every time a major multi-billion dollar interest payment from Greece was due to the Troika and their bankers, still more austerity was piled on the $83 billion August 2015 deal. The Troika forced Greece to introduce even more austerity in the summer of 2016, and again still more this past summer 2017, to pay for the deal.

Last month, August 2017, Syriza and its ‘rump’ leadership—-most of its militant elements were purged by Syriza’s leader, Alex Tsipras, following the August 2015 debt deal—-hailed as some kind of significant achievement that the private banks and markets were now willing to directly lend money to Greece once again. Instead of borrowing still more from the Troika—-i.e. the bankers representatives—-Greece now was able once again to borrow and owe still more to the private bankers instead. In other words, to pile on more private debt instead of Troika debt. To impose even more austerity in order to directly pay bankers, instead of indirectly pay their Troika friends. What an achievement!

Greece’s 2012 second debt deal borrowed $154 billion from the Troika, which Greece then had to pay, according to the debt terms, to the private bankers, hedge funds and speculators’ which had accumulated over preceding years and the first debt crisis of 2010. So the Troika simply fronted for the bankers and speculators in the 2nd and 3rd debt deals. Greece paid the Troika and it paid the bankers. But now, as of 2017, Syriza and Greece can indebt themselves once again directly to the bankers by borrowing from them in public markets. As the French say, everything changes but nothing changes!

What the Greek debt deals of 2010-2015, and the never-ending austerity, show is that supra-state institutions like the Troika function as debt collectors for the bankers and shadow bankers when the latter cannot successfully collect their debt payments on their own. This is the essence of the new, 21st century form of financial imperialism. New, emerging Supra-State institutions prefer weaker national governments to indebt themselves directly to the banks and squeeze their own populace with Austerity whenever they can to make the payments. The Supra-State may not be involved. But it will step in if necessary to play debt collector if and when popular governments get control of their governments and balk at onerous debt repayments. And in free trade currency zones and banking unions, like the Eurozone, that Supra-State role is becoming increasingly institutionalized and regularized. And as it does, forms of democracy in the associated weaker nation states become increasingly atrophied and eventually disappear.

Syriza came to power in January 2015 as one of those popularly elected governments intent on adjusting the terms of debt repayment. But after a tragic, comedy of errors negotiation effort, capitulated totally to the Troika’s negotiators after only seven months.

The capitulation by Syriza’s leader, Alex Tsipras, in July 2015 was doubly tragic in that he had just put to a vote to the Greek people a week beforehand whether to reject the Troika’s deal and its deeper austerity demands. And the Greek popular vote called for a rejection of the Troika’s terms and demands. But Tsipras and Syriza rejected their own supporters, not the Troika, and capitulated totally to the Troika’s terms.

The August 2015 3rd debt deal quickly thereafter signed by Syriza-Tsipras was so onerous—-and the Tsipras-Syriza treachery so odious—-that it left opposition and popular resistance temporarily immobilized. That of course was the Troika’s strategic objective. Together with Tsipras they then pushed through their $83 billion deal, while Tsipras simultaneously purged his own Syriza party to rid it of elements refusing to accept the deal. Polls showed at that time, in August-September 2015, that 70% of the Greek people opposed the deal and considered it even worse than the former two debt agreements of 2010 and 2012. Other polls showed 79% rejected Tsipras himself.

To remain in power, Tsipras immediately called new Parliamentary elections, blocking with the pro-Troika parties and against former Syriza dissidents, in order to push through the Troika’s $83 billion deal. This week, September 20, 2017 also marks the two year anniversary of that purge and election that solidified Troika and Euro banker control over the Syriza party—-a party that once dared to challenge it and the Eurozone’s neoliberal Supra-State regime.

The meteoric rise, capitulation, collapse, and aftermath ‘right-shift’ of Syriza raises fundamental questions and lessons still today. It raises questions about strategies of governments that make a social-democratic turn in response to popular uprisings, and then attempt to confront more powerful neoliberal capitalist regimes that retain control of their currencies, their banking systems, and their budgets–such as in the case of Greece. Even in the advanced capitalist economies, the message is smaller states beware of the integration within the larger capitalist states and economies–whether by free trade, central banking integration, budget consolidations, or common currencies. Democracy will soon become the victim in turn.

The following is an excerpt from the concluding chapter of this writer’s October 2016 book, ‘Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges’, Clarity Press, which questioned strategies that attempted to resurrect 20th century forms of social-democracy in the 21st century world of supra-State neoliberal regimes. It summarizes Syriza’s ‘fundamental error’—a naïve belief that elements of European social democracy would rally around it and together they—i.e. resurgent social democracy and Syriza Greece—would successfully outmaneuver the German-banker-Troika dominated Euro neoliberal regime that solidified its power with the 1999 Euro currency reforms.

Syriza and Tsipras continue to employ the same error, it appears, hoping to be rescued by other Euro regime leaders instead of relying on the Greek people. Tsipras-Syriza recently invited the new banker-president of France, Emmanuel Macron, who this past month visited Athens. Their meeting suggests Tsipras and the rump Syriza still don’t understand why they were so thoroughly defeated by the Troika in 2015, and have been consistently pushed even further into austerity and retreat over the past two years.

But perhaps it no longer matters. Polls show Tsipras and the rump Syriza trailing their political opponents by more than two to one in elections set to occur in 2018.

EXCERPT from ‘Looting Greece’, Chapter 10, ‘Why the Troika Prevailed’.

Syriza’s Fundamental Error

To have succeeded in negotiations with the Troika, Syriza would have had to achieve one or more of the following— expand the space for fiscal spending on its domestic economy, end the dominance and control of the ECB by the German coalition, restore Greece’s central bank independence from the ECB, or end the control of its own Greek private banking system from northern Europe core banks. None of these objectives could have been achieved by Syriza alone. Syriza’s grand error, however, was to think that it could rally the remnants of European social democracy to its side and support and together have achieved these goals—especially the expanding of space for domestic fiscal investment. It was Syriza’s fundamental strategic miscalculation to think it could rally this support and thereby create an effective counter to the German coalition’s dominant influence within the Troika.

Syriza went into the fight with the Troika with a Greek central bank that was the appendage, even agent, of the ECB in Greece, and with a private banking system in Greece that was primarily an extension of Euro banks outside Greece. Syriza struggled to create some space for fiscal stimulus within the Troika imposed debt deal, but it was thoroughly rebuffed by the Troika in that effort. It sought to launch a new policy throughout the Eurozone targeting fiscal investment, from which it might benefit as well. But just as the ECB was thwarted by German-core northern Euro alliance countries, the German coalition also successfully prevented efforts to promote fiscal stimulus by the EC as well. The Troika-German coalition had been, and continues to be, successful in preventing even much stronger members states in France and Italy from exceeding Eurozone fiscal stimulus rules. The dominant Troika German faction was not about to let Greece prevail and restore fiscal stimulus, therefore, when France and Italy were not. Greece was not only blocked from launching a Euro-wide fiscal investment spending policy; it was forced to introduce ‘reverse fiscal spending’ in the form of austerity.

Syriza’s insistence on remaining in the Euro system meant Grexit was never an option. That in turn meant Greece would not have an independent central bank providing liquidity when needed to its banking system. With ECB control over the currency and therefore liquidity, the ECB could reduce or turn on or off the money flow to Greece’s central bank and thus its entire private banking system at will—which it did repeatedly at key moments during the 2015 debt crisis to influence negotiations.

As one member of the Syriza party’s central committee reflected on the weeks leading up to the July 5 capitulation,

“The European Central Bank had already begun to carry out its threats, closing down the country’s banking system”.

The ECB had actually begun turning the economic screws on Syriza well before the final weeks preceding the referendum: It refused to release interest on Greek bonds it owed under the old debt agreement to Greece from the outset of negotiations. It refused to accept Greek government bonds as collateral necessary for Greek central bank support of Greece’s private banks. It doled out Emergency Lending Assistance, ELA, funds in amounts just enough to keep Greek banks from imploding from March to June and constantly threatened to withhold those same ELA funds when Troika negotiators periodically demanded more austerity concessions from Greece. And it pressured Greece not to impose meaningful controls on bank withdrawals and capital flight during negotiations, even as those withdrawals and money flowing out of the country was creating a slow motion train wreck of the banking system itself. The ECB, in other words, was engineering a staged collapse of Greece’s banking system, and yet Syriza refused to implement any possible policy or strategy for preventing or impeding it.

Azerbaijan has suddenly been subjected to a massive infowar attack in response to its increasingly independent foreign policy reducing the US’ level of control over this strategic energy supplier, and the end result of this coordinated operation is to replace the Turkic county with “Israel” as the EU’s anchor in a reconstructed Southern Energy Corridor.

International media has been abuzz over the past two weeks concerning the allegations levelled against Azerbaijan in two high-profile “leaks”. The first one originated earlier this summer and claims to prove through purportedly hacked emails from one of the country’s embassies that Azerbaijan has clandestinely played a key role in the global arms trade, especially the one with non-state actors such as Daesh. The second one is less sensational but similarly explosive because it tries to tie Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to a major influence operation all across the EU, one which his enemies have framed as a bribery ring. The timing of these two major offensives against Azerbaijan’s reputation and soft power isn’t coincidental, as it all perfectly correlates to larger ongoing processes in Eurasia as the world transitions towards an emerging Multipolar World Order.

Azerbaijan has begun to practice a more independent foreign policy as its international balancing act acquired crucial strength through the country’s ongoing rapprochement with Russia, which has manifested itself in the ambitious cross-continental North-South Transport Corridor with Iran and India, as well as through the skillful employment of “military diplomacy”. Concurrent with Turkey’s newfound Great Power partnership with Russia – in spite of the 2015 anti-terrorist fighter jet provocation carried out by the Fethullah Gulen Terrorist Organization (FETO) and the subsequent pro-American coup attempt against President Erdogan less than a year later – Azerbaijan has followed in the footsteps of its fraternal state and altogether allowed Russia to maximize its influence to historically unseen proportions along its southern Mideast-Caucasus periphery.

This naturally drew the attention of the US, which for the past few years has waged a mild infowar campaign against Azerbaijan in accusing its government of being a “dictatorship”. It’s not a coincidence that this is the same modus operandi earlier applied against Presidents Putin and Erdogan, and President Aliyev is just the most recent Eurasian leader to fall victim to this tried-and-tested tactic. Part of the reason why he’s being targeted at this time has to do with his country being “collateral damage” in the EU’s post-coup tensions with Turkey, which has seen the US go all out in its claims that the country has totally turned away from democracy. Seeing as how Azerbaijan is Turkey’s closest international partner and vice-versa, it was inevitable that it would get dragged into this dispute sooner than later.

It also doesn’t help any that Azerbaijan was upgrading its ties with Russia at the time either, as this made Baku an irresistible target for the US. In fact, this point is even more relevant than ever before considering the prevalence of conspiracy theories in the US about Russia’s global power and intentions following the 2016 election. The idea of “dictator Putin” controlling “puppet dictator Aliyev” in order to “neutralize” the original intentions of the Southern Energy Corridor in providing an alternative to Russian-sourced energy reserves is the type of wide-ranging and crazy conspiracy that American decision makers might not only believe, but even try to convince their European partners of too. In fact, it doesn’t matter if the US believes this or not, to be honest, since all that’s important is that it arguably looks like America is indeed trying to get the EU to agree with this narrative.

In pursuit of this end, the US has weaponized so-called “leaks” in order to strategically craft the perception that Azerbaijan is a “rogue state” which “regularly violates Western/European norms” through the supposed illegal shipment of arms across the world and to terrorist groups, allegedly conducts extensive bribery operations against elected officials, and is apparently fortifying an hereditary dictatorship at home. The point here isn’t so much to get the general public to believe all of this, but decision makers and key politicians, as the US wants them to disengage from Azerbaijan just as the entire bloc is doing with Baku’s ally Turkey. If important individuals in charge of their country’s or the EU’s foreign and energy policies don’t submit to American-Armenian pressure, then the next step would be to incite the masses against them in large-scale rallies using the information in the “leaks” as the pretext for protesting against them.

At this point it’s worthwhile to consider what the whole point of this is in the first place, since smearing what had previously been an EU-friendly country in as vicious of a way as the West is attacking Russia nowadays seems illogical if it’s supposedly only for the sake of it. Actually, there’s a very real reason why all of this is happening, and it’s because the US wants the EU to no longer prioritize Baku as the terminal point in the Southern Energy Corridor but to instead replace it with “Israel” through the recently announced pipeline that will be built from its Eastern Mediterranean Leviathan gas field to the EU via Cyprus and Greece. Although no physical progress has been made on its construction yet, the US is attempting to imply by contrast that the optics of the EU doing business with “Israel” are a lot more “pleasant” than with Azerbaijan.

For instance, Azerbaijan is Russia’s Turkic Muslim partner with a unique country-specific system of national democracy, while “Israel” is the US’ (ethnically) European Jewish ally with a system of “Western democracy”. In and of itself, this shouldn’t have any difference on Baku’s ability to satisfy the EU’s energy demands, but the US is politicizing Azerbaijan’s foreign and domestic choices, and even its own ethno-religious identity, in a desperate bid to diminish the country’s attractiveness. The overarching strategy is to utilize weaponized “leaks” in order to put pressure on EU decision makers to seriously consider “Israel” as a Southern Energy Corridor replacement for Azerbaijan, relying on trumped-up arguments completely unrelated to the country’s envisioned apolitical business role such as Baku’s Russo-Turkish partnerships, alleged international “misconduct” (illegal arms sales and bribery rings), and supposed violation of “Western democratic norms” by “establishing a dictatorship” at home.

There’s even more of a self-interested motive for why the US is doing all of this aside from crafting the conditions for its “Israeli” ally to acquire unparalleled energy – and resultantly, political – influence over the EU, and it’s that America also intends to turn the bloc into one of its main LNG markets in the future. Right now, the price of Russian and Azeri energy supplies is much more competitive than anything that the US can offer, but if Washington can succeed in engineering an atmosphere of distrust between the EU and Azerbaijan similar to what it’s already succeeded in doing between the EU and Russia, or even the EU and Turkey for that matter, then it can force Brussels to reorient itself away from Eastern-originating energy supplies and towards Western ones (bearing in mind that “Israel” is socio-politically conceived of as “Western”) like the much more expensive LNG that the US plans to export to its newly captive European market.

Without squeezing Azerbaijan out of the EU’s Southern Energy Corridor and replacing it with “Israel” through a reengineered route across the Eastern Mediterranean, the US and its newly elected businessman leader Donald Trump have no chance at making billions of dollars of profit from selling costly LNG to Europe, but in order to reach the point where this is even possible, it’s relying on weaponized “leaks” that are deliberately designed to pressure EU decision makers into backing away from their erstwhile partnership with Baku. The particular details of the accusations pale in comparison to the reason and timing behind their announcement, though they’re intentionally supposed to be so sensational that the general public overlooks their suspiciously coordinated release and focuses solely on what the US expects to be their predicted emotional reaction, which is to condemn Azerbaijan and subsequently fall into the trap of political chain reactions that Washington has set for them.

(Originally written for the Moscow-Baku.ru web portal)

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

All images in this article are from the author.

Featured image: A chicken with a deformed bill appears unwell while living at a farm supplying Nando’s, Lidl and Asda. (c) Animal Equality International

Charity Animal Equality have said the farm that supplies chicken to Nandos, Lidl and Asda is not doing enough to secure the welfare of chickens, after footage filmed by undercover investigators has revealed cruel and dirty conditions.

Animal Equality a month ago published video including one clip showing a chicken lying on its back and exposing a purple, apparently swollen underbelly. The international animal advocacy charity claims the bird is unable to walk and is forced to sit in ammonia soaked litter, which causes burns.

The upsetting footage shows another chicken seemingly struggling to support its own body weight. Others sit close to the ground, lethargic and blinking or breathing slowly as if ill. The charity described birds being kicked, carried around flapping after their necks were snapped and dying on their backs unable to reach water.

Dr. Toni Shephard, UK Executive Director of the charity said:

“When Faccenda received our footage showing suffering and neglect on their farm, they said they would be investigating the farm and it would not be restocked with birds until they were satisfied that welfare standards had improved. But how can you assess welfare standards when the sheds are empty?

“Quite disappointingly, Faccenda gave the farm the all-clear just a week after our expose, conveniently timed for when the sheds were due to be re-stocked anyway. This leaves us questioning how rigorous the investigation was, particularly as there were no birds on the farm at the time.”

Dead chicks in bins

Cambria Farm in Taunton supplies Faccenda, the second-largest chicken supplier in the country, and houses over 150,000 chickens in four giant sheds.

Modern breeds of chicken are used because they gain weight very quickly. This leads the young birds to struggle to support an adult-sized body on small legs and puts their hearts under huge pressure.

The film shows farmers dumping buckets full of dead chicks in bins and wheelbarrows. One clip seems to show a chick dumped on the pile of bodies still breathing. Workers were also filmed picking up chickens and throwing them into crates.

Dr. Shephard, said:

“The birds were just a few days old when we first filmed, yet already hundreds of chicks were dying every day and the bins outside the giant sheds were full of tiny bodies, still with their yellow baby feathers.

Appropriate action

“Just a couple of weeks later, the skips were fuller still and many of the birds were suffering from painful lameness. By our last visit, the sheds were so crowded it was difficult to walk through them.”

Animal Equality has passed the evidence on to the Animal and Plant Health Agency (AHPA) for further investigation. An APHA spokesperson said “appropriate action is taken” where welfare regulations are breached, but were unable to comment on individual cases.

The charity says this footage shows clear breaches of the government’s welfare code which states that injured or sick birds should be “immediately be removed to a hospital pen and treated or humanely killed”.

Defra’s welfare code also states no animal must be transported in a way that may cause injury or unnecessary suffering to the animal. The undercover footage shows workers at the farm carrying birds by one leg and violently catching and crating the birds.

An independent vet

A spokesperson for Faccenda told The Ecologist the company is taking the complaints “seriously” and have had multiple vets visit the site to investigate the allegations, but have now decided to recommence activities on the farm.

They said this will occur with, “additional monitoring and ongoing support from our vet to ensure adherence to standards and practices.”

Paul Vaughan-France, owner of the farm, had told The Times:

“I will take the images as good feedback and will do everything I can to work on every aspect of my husbandry. I have had an independent vet on site to review my practices and he is satisfied with his findings.”

A spokesperson for Nandos said:

“The farm in question is being thoroughly investigated by both parties and we have been assured that it will meet Red Tractor standards before it will be allowed to supply chicken again. We intend to remain close to the situation to ensure that happens.”

A spokesperson for Asda said the company “take animal welfare very seriously” and have “strict processes in place to ensure all of the farms that supply Asda meet our own high standards and are Red Tractor approved.” They said:

“We have addressed this matter with our supplier who have conducted a full investigation following these allegations.”

A Lidl spokesperson said:

“Lidl UK takes the issue of animal welfare very seriously and were in close communication with the supplier on this matter, whilst their investigations carried out.

“We have a code of conduct in place with all of our suppliers, with agreed expectations regarding responsible business practices, which may be audited by an independent third party at any point.”

Frances Rankin is a multimedia journalist based in London. She also contributes to DeSmog UK and can be found on Twitter at @FranRankin

Reading The New York Times these days is like getting a daily dose of the “Two Minutes Hate” as envisioned in George Orwell’s 1984, except applied to America’s new/old enemy Russia. Even routine international behavior, such as Russia using fictitious names for potential adversaries during a military drill, is transformed into something weird and evil.

In the snide and alarmist style that the Times now always applies to Russia, reporter Andrew Higgins wrote – referring to a fictitious war-game “enemy” –

“The country does not exist, so it has neither an army nor any real citizens, though it has acquired a feisty following of would-be patriots online. Starting on Thursday, however, the fictional state, Veishnoriya, a distillation of the Kremlin’s darkest fears about the West, becomes the target of the combined military might of Russia and its ally Belarus.”

This snarky front-page story in Thursday’s print editions also played into the Times’ larger narrative about Russia as a disseminator of “fake news.” You see the Russkies are even inventing “fictional” enemies to bully. Hah-hah-hah! The article was entitled, “Russia’s War Games With Fake Enemies Cause Real Alarm.”

Of course, the U.S. and its allies also conduct war games against fictitious enemies, but you wouldn’t know that from reading the Times. For instance, U.S. war games in 2015 substituted five made-up states – Ariana, Atropia, Donovia, Gorgas and Limaria – for nations near the Caucasus mountains along the borders of Russia and Iran.

In earlier war games, the U.S. used both fictitious names and colors in place of actual countries. For instance, in 1981, the Reagan administration conducted “Ocean Venture” with that war-game scenario focused on a group of islands called “Amber and the Amberdines,” obvious stand-ins for Grenada and the Grenadines, with “Orange” used to represent Cuba.

In those cases, the maneuvers by the powerful U.S. military were clearly intended to intimidate far weaker countries. Yet, the U.S. mainstream media did not treat those war rehearsals for what they were, implicit aggression, but rather mocked protests from the obvious targets as paranoia since we all know the U.S. would never violate international law and invade some weak country! (As it turned out, Ocean Venture ’81 was a dress rehearsal for the actual U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983.)

Yet, as far as the Times and its many imitators in the major media are concerned, there’s one standard for “us” and another for Russia and other countries that “we” don’t like.

Yellow Journalism

But the Times’ behavior over the past several years suggests something even more sinister than biased reporting. The “newspaper of record” has slid into yellow journalism, the practice of two earlier New York newspapers – William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal and Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World – that in the 1890s manipulated facts about the crisis in Cuba to push the United States into war with Spain, a conflict that many historians say marked the beginning of America’s global empire.

Illustration by Chesley Bonestell of nuclear bombs detonating over New York City, entitled “Hiroshima U.S.A.” Colliers, Aug. 5, 1950.

Except in today’s instance, The New York Times is prepping the American people for what could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America’s Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you’ll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to that.

At this stage, the Times doesn’t even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism. Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a case of “Russian aggression” or a “Russian invasion.” The Times routinely ignores what actually happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a violent coup that overthrew Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been demonized in the Western media.

Even as neo-Nazi and ultranationalist protesters hurled Molotov cocktails at police, Yanukovych signaled a willingness to compromise and ordered his police to avoid worsening violence. But compromise wasn’t good enough for U.S. neocons – such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland; Sen. John McCain; and National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman. They had invested too much in moving Ukraine away from Russia.

Nuland put the U.S. spending at $5 billion and was caught discussing with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who should be in the new government and how to “glue” or “midwife this thing”; McCain appeared on stage urging on far-right militants; and Gershman was overseeing scores of NED projects inside Ukraine, which he had deemed the “biggest prize” and an important step in achieving an even bigger regime change in Russia, or as he put it: “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. … Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

The Putsch

So, on Feb. 20, 2014, instead of seeking peace, a sniper firing from a building controlled by anti-Yanukovych forces killed both police and protesters, touching off a day of carnage. Immediately, the Western media blamed Yanukovych.

Shaken by the violence, Yanukovych again tried to pacify matters by reaching a compromise — guaranteed by France, Germany and Poland — to relinquish some of his powers and move up an election so he could be voted out of office peacefully. He also pulled back the police.

Sen. John McCain appearing with Ukrainian rightists of the Svoboda party at a pre-coup rally in Kiev.

At that juncture, the neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists spearheaded a violent putsch on Feb. 22, 2014, forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. Ignoring the agreement guaranteed by the three European nations, Nuland and the U.S. State Department quickly deemed the coup regime “legitimate.”

However, ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, which represented Yanukovych’s electoral base, resisted the coup and turned to Russia for protection. Contrary to the Times’ narrative, there was no “Russian invasion” of Crimea because Russian troops were already there as part of an agreement for its Sevastopol naval base. That’s why you’ve never seen photos of Russian troops crashing across Ukraine’s borders in tanks or splashing ashore in Crimea with an amphibious landing or descending by parachute. They were already inside Crimea.

The Crimean autonomous government also voted to undertake a referendum on whether to leave the failed Ukrainian state and to rejoin Russia, which had governed Crimea since the Eighteenth Century. In that referendum, Crimean citizens voted by some 96 percent to exit Ukraine and seek reunion with Russia, a democratic and voluntary process that the Times always calls “annexation.”

The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a “Kremlin stooge” in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq’s WMD in 2002-03 were called “Saddam apologists.”

But what is particularly remarkable about the endless Russia-bashing is that – because it started under President Obama – it sucked in many American liberals and even some progressives. That process grew even worse when the contempt for Russia merged with the Left’s revulsion over Donald Trump’s election.

Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian “meddling” in the 2016 election as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate.

The Times, The Washington Post and pretty much the entire U.S. news media joined the “resistance” to Trump’s presidency and embraced the neocon “regime change” goal for Putin’s Russia. Very few people care about the enormous risks that this “strategy” entails.

For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother Russia.

The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn’t seem to bother the neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and honest journalism.

The Times and rest of the mainstream media are just having too much fun hating Russia and Putin to worry about the possible extermination of life on planet Earth.

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).

Fed up with the “staggering” number of leaks from an uncommonly fractured White House, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has issued a sweeping new call for government-wide training to prevent unauthorized disclosure of both classified and some unclassified information – disclosure, he declared, that “causes harm to our Nation and shakes the confidence of the American people.” With Trump’s White House marked by impressively persistent leaks at every level, McMaster upped the ante by aiming at leakers not just within intelligence agencies but in every department. Requesting “Provision of Training on Unauthorized Disclosures,” he argued,

“It will be time well spent to shine a spotlight on the importance of this issue, and engage the workforce in conversation about what it means to be a steward of United States Government information.”

With his call, McMaster is continuing a months-long, to-date-fruitless effort to stop the deluge of leaks. In August, Jeff Sessions condemned leaks “undermining the ability of our government to protect this country,” announced a new FBI unit to squash them, said the Justice Department has tripled its leak investigations from the days of Obama – who was blasted for his pursuit of same – and, in an Orwellian twist, proposed lie detector tests for government employees.

McMaster’s email, sent to over 50 heads of government agencies, sought one-hour, organization-wide trainings next week to discuss “the importance of protecting classified and controlled unclassified information, and measures to prevent and detect unauthorized disclosures”; suggested “training materials” include the 15-minute C-SPAN video of Sessions complaining about leaks, and a Fox News video of an interview with the National Counterintelligence and Security Center director. McMaster’s email was marked “UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO (For Official Use Only).

We know, because in a move gleefully emblematic of a gang that can’t shoot, leak or evidently do anything else straight, some mutinous, indefatigable rogue staffer promptly leaked the memo to Buzzfeed, which ran with it. They wrote a straightforward story about the “broad new anti-leak program,” only taking a sliver of a moment to note, “We got the memo.” They offered no other information on their source – thus, all things being relative these days, inspiring “the confidence of the American people.”

The origins of the group are closely connected to Le Cercle, a right-wing organisation whose activities include political subversion – and the clandestine arrangement of business transactions, especially arms deals and fraud. (Read Meet Le Cercle – Making Bilderberg Look Like Amateurs).

Its original founder was Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, member of the House of Lords and the 7th Marquess of Salisbury and member of a number of Eurosceptic and Neoconservative connected organisations such as Open Europe.

European chair of Le Cercle, Julian Amery, was a member and later patron of The Conservative Monday Club. John Biggs-Davison, another Cercle member, was also an active member.

Founded in 1961, in the belief that the Macmillan government had taken the party too far to the left, the club became embroiled in the decolonisation and immigration debate for which it is most famous for. By highlighting the controversial issue of race, which dominated its image ever since, at its height in 1971 the club had 35 MPs, six of them ministers, and 35 peers, with membership (including branches) totalling about 10,000.

In 1982, the constitution of the Monday Club was re-written, with more emphasis on support for the Conservative Party, but subsequent in-fighting over the club’s ‘hard right’ agenda led to many resignations.

In 2001, the Conservatives formally severed relations with the club due to its continued extreme right-wing views.

Originally, it believed that the principles needing to be reasserted included the preservation of the constitution and existing institutions, the freedom of the individual, the private ownership of property, and the need for Britain to play a leading part in world affairs. It disliked what it regarded as the expediency, cynicism and materialism which motivated Harold Macmillan‘s government.

In addition it was concerned that during this period “the left wing of the Party had gained a predominant influence over policy” and that as a result the Conservative Party had shifted to the left, so that “the floating voter could not detect, as he/she should, major differences between it and the Socialists” and, furthermore, “loyal Conservatives had become disillusioned and dispirited.”

The group brought together supporters of White Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa; the main impetus for the group’s formation was the Conservatives’ new decolonisation policies. The club opposed what it described as the “premature” independence of Kenya, and the breakup of the Central African Federation, which was the subject of its first major public meeting in September 1961. 

The club is notable for having promoted a policy of voluntary, or assisted, repatriation for non-white immigrants.

In 1969 the Monday Club launched a “Powell For Premier” campaign to make anti-immigration MP Enoch Powell Tory leader. However, despite complaints that it was trying to set up a separate organisation or even establish a separate party, it remained powerful on the right wing of the Conservative Party.

Oxford political scholar Roger Griffin referred to the club as practising an anti-socialist and elitist form of conservatism. In the 1970 Conservative Party election victory, six MPs who were club members were given government positions.

In September 1972, the club held a “Halt Immigration Now!” public meeting in Westminster Central Hall, opposite Parliament, at which the speakers, Ronald Bell, QC, MP, John Biggs-Davison, MP, Harold Soref, MP, and John Heydon Stokes, MP, (all club members) called on the government to halt all immigration, repeal the Race Relations Act (1968 Commonwealth Immigration Act), and start a full repatriation scheme. A resolution was drafted, approved by the meeting, and delivered to the Prime Minister, Edward Heath, who replied that

“the government had no intention of repealing the Race Relations Act”.

The playwright David Edgar described the Monday Club in an academic essay as “proselytising the ancient and venerable conservative traditions of paternalism, imperialism and racism.”

In the early 1970s it faced entryism from the National Front and other extremist organisations, while remaining the mainstream face of anti-immigration sentiment. In the 1970s and 1980s it campaigned heavily against immigration from the “New Commonwealth” (i.e. the non-white bits of the former British Empire) and protested the new wave of legislation protecting black immigrants from discrimination.

Its 1982 policy document called for the abolition of the Commission for Racial Equality, repeal of all race relations laws, an end to immigration from non-white commonwealth countries.

Various scandals has dogged the Monday Club over the years, such as Harvey Procter who had taken part in sexual relationships with males aged between 17 and 21, in his London flat. The age of consent for same-sex sexual relationships was still 21 in 1986. 

During the period that Margaret Thatcher led the Conservative Party, the Monday Club were prolific publishers of booklets, pamphlets, policy papers, an occasional newspaper, Right Ahead, and a magazine Monday World .

The club was anti-communist and had an active Defence Committee chaired for over 15 years by Sir Patrick Wall, MP, MC, and produced much literature on the perceived threat posed by Soviets and communists everywhere.

When it appeared that communism was failing in the Eastern Bloc, the club’s Foreign Affairs Committee called upon Members of Parliament to be ready and to argue for the German borders to be restored to the position they stood at on 1 January 1938, saying there must be no gains for communism.

The club continued its support for white minority rule in South Africa, and were actively against the release of Nelson Mandela. Right-wing MP Teddy Taylor even advocated the shooting of the Mandela.

By 1989 the club adopted a firm anti-European Union (EU) position.

After its 2001 General Election defeat, the Conservative Party made efforts to appear less of a racist, anti-gay, anti-poor, “Nasty Party”, and moved in a more centrist direction. Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith and chairman David Davis took steps to break the Monday Club’s links with the Conservative party.

John Bercow, now speaker of the House of Commons, formerly secretary of the Immigration and Repatriation Committee of the Monday Club, was a supporter of Enoch Powell. Despite being Jewish himself, Bercow was accused of racism by the Essex University Jewish Society in the 1980s over his links to the Monday Club and other far-right groups.

Derek Laud, a British lobbyist, businessman, political adviser, speechwriter, and journalist had known Bercow well over a 20 year period and although being former member himself eventually described it as an ‘absurdly nasty fringe group of lunatics’.

“Watching John in action could sometimes be stomach-turning. He was on the ‘edge’ and, with fellow ‘Thatcherite guerrillas’ Marc-Henri Glendening, Doug Smith and Mark MacGregor, made speeches about supporting the UNITA movement in Angola, in tune with the American Right-wing, despite the fact it had plunged that country into civil war.”

Tory big beasts Norman Tebbit, Peter Bottomly, Neil Hamilton and Alan Clark were all members as were many others. Former prime minister Alec Douglas Home and Enoch Powell were supportive or spoke at its events.

From 2001, a number of notable Tory MP’s were ordered to resign from the Monday Club as the Conservative party wanted to make it more attractive to people from ethnic minorities.

In 2013 The Telegraph ran a story about Jacob Rees-Mogg attending a dinner hosted by a man who advocates the repatriation of “non-indigenous” Britons, despite being warned of the group’s far-Right links.

In 2015, the aforementioned Derek Laud, who was also Baroness Thatcher’s ex speech-writer and David Cameron’s friend branded the party ‘ultimate racists’ for its 2013 anti immigration campaign saying further that – “They like keeping black people in one place – or in their place.”

The Monday Club website states on its home page

“We are the home of those members and supporters of the Conservative and Unionist Parties who represent traditional conservative values.” 

Their values include policing with a zero-tolerance stance, including even minor crime such as shop-lifting, are strongly anti-European and immigration and continue to demand the Human Rights Act to be scrapped.

Since its inception dozens Conservative MP’s and members of the House of Lords have been active members of the Monday Club.

As the Conservative party has moved politically further to the right in recent years, there are rumours that the Monday Club has hopes to fully re-establish links with the Conservatives severed by Iain Duncan Smith and David Davis.

Featured image is Monday Club Booklet 1971 – Standing Room Only, The Population Problem in Britain.

It’s ‘sidekick’ in the Middle East is the state of Israel. The American principal and its Israeli satellite, work in concert to control both the global economy and international politics through their combined position in the United Nations and through the economic and political power of the US Congress.  All this is done publicly with no attempt to hide this extraordinary blatant, bilateral US-Israeli agenda. 

That agenda is to overtly increase its economic and political power to the exclusion and at the expense of the rest of the world i.e. the other 191 member states of the United Nations General Assembly. This is no secret pact but a stated aim of the US President.

‘America First’ means just that, including of course its creature state, Israel, which was established in 1948 solely, at that time, thanks to the pressure exerted by the American Zionist Committee, now better known as AIPAC.

It has always been a matter of conjecture as to whether, in essence, America exploits Israel or vice-versa. Both mutually benefit enormously by their undue influence over world affairs, and have done so for the past half century under successive American presidents.

However, it is only now in 2017 that international affairs, in general, are in the hands of not only these two heads of state but also that of their families i.e. wives, children, sons in law and various other unelected family intimates. Currently, certain individuals within this bilateral family grouping are being officially investigated for corruption, bribery and/or fraud. This does not, however, appear to have had any impact upon their global political activities.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California spoke by phone on September 13th with U.S. President Donald Trump’s Chief of Staff, General John Kelly, aiming to transmit to President Trump, from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, a trade of ‘proof’ of Russian non-involvement in the transmission to the public of internal Democratic Party information during the 2016 Presidential contest with Hillary Clinton, in return for the U.S. Government’s stopping its efforts to prosecute Mr. Assange. Assange wanted finally to become freed from his years-long virtual house-arrest inside Ecuador’s London Embassy, by the United States Government efforts to force him to be tried in U.S. courts. So, he wants to offer this trade in which Assange would provide to the White House physical ‘proof’ that Russia had nothing to do with the Democratic Party leaks from (or what Russia’s enemies call ‘hacks’ into) Democratic Party computers, which produced the revelations which Hillary Clinton says cost her the 2016 election.

According to the WSJ report, General Kelly refused to inform President Trump of the offer.

The news-report was published on Friday night, September 15th, in the Wall Street Journal, and headlined “GOP Congressman Sought Trump Deal on WikiLeaks, Russia: California’s Dana Rohrabacher asks for pardon of Julian Assange in return for evidence Russia wasn’t source of hacked emails”. It said:

“Mr. Kelly didn’t make the president aware of Mr. Rohrabacher’s message, and Mr. Trump doesn’t know the details of the proposed deal.”

However, the news-report didn’t make clear whether Mr. Trump is even aware that Congressman Rohrabacher had attempted to communicate to the President the offer that Mr. Assange was wanting to communicate. Perhaps if Mr. Trump reads the Wall Street Journal, he’ll learn that Mr. Assange had wanted to offer this deal.

According to the WSJ’s report, Congressman Rohrabacher was apparently so desperate to communicate Mr. Assange’s offer to the President, that Rohrabacher even asked Kelly if Rohrabacher would be allowed to communicate the offer to CIA Director Mike Pompeo, an anti-Russia hardliner, for transmission through Pompeo, to the President. Apparently, Mr. Kelly stovepipes to the President only information that Kelly wants the President to know, but Trump can, on his own, learn of other information if he sees or hears it in the newsmedia.

The WSJ’s report also noted the background of the alleged Assange offer:

Mr. Rohrabacher, who has long been a pro-Russia voice in Congress, traveled to London in August to meet with Mr. Assange, who has been living in Ecuador’s embassy since 2012 to avoid arrest and extradition to Sweden on allegations of sexual assault. Mr. Rohrabacher’s travel wasn’t paid for by the U.S. House of Representatives and wasn’t an official government trip, aides said.

The Swedish investigation into Mr. Assange ended in May, but he remains in the embassy to avoid arrest and extradition by the U.S.

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

The Syrian Arab Army have achieved yet another dramatic victory this time lifting the ISIS siege of the heroic city of Deir Ezzor. For years Deir Ezzor has been surrounded by enemies and under siege first by the FSA and Al Nusra and then by ISIS. They have withstood repeated attacks by the US-NATO air force most infamously last fall when the Americans bombed Deir Ezzor right after agreeing to a ceasefire, a treacherous move that paved the way for a nearly successful ISIS offensive to capture the city. The brave defenders of Deir Ezzor withstood these endless attacks becoming a symbol of the heroic resistance of all of Syria. For years Syrians and their friends around the world have dreamed that one day this siege would be lifted. Our dreams have finally come true and faster then anyone could have imagined.

The liberation of Deir Ezzor from ISIS siege is the culmination of months of dramatic SAA victories against ISIS. Now we dream that a final victory may be near in Syria. Once again the SAA and their allies Hezbollah, Russia, and Iran have stunned the world. The empire of Chaos is in a panic. Netanyahu of Israel is hysterical with rage attempting to spoil the victory in Deir Ezzor with yet another of it’s illegal and cowardly air strikes on Syria. The whole strategic balance of the world is changing before our eyes. And it is all due to the enormous courage of the Syrian people who have withstood this dirty war launched by seemingly half the world on their country. Syria has resisted the US, Israel, the British, the Saudis, Qatar, Turkey, UAE, Kuwait, France, Germany, and the rest of the GCC/NATO lackeys that make up the the Axis of Chaos. They have resisted armies of fanatical, brutal, killers recruited across the middle east, Africa, Europe, and Central Asia. They have defeated a CIA trained horde of torturers, rapists, slavers, cannibals, and of course killers. Has any country in history battled against the odds Syria has faced? Is the victory in Deir Ezzor the most glorious in human history? 

Only a few short months ago it was unclear whether Deir Ezzor would survive long enough for the SAA to lift the siege. ISIS launched offensive after offensive and with the help of the earlier  US air strikes ISIS even managed to cut the city in half last January. Then even more desperate offensives followed and ISIS made some dangerous strategic gains. ISIS always began every offensive with their trademark suicide truck bomb attacks. However the SAA managed to crush these ISIS offensives turning the town into the graveyard of ISIS. The SAA were under the command of the legendary Major General Issam Zahreddine who has lead the defense of the city since July of 2014. Every day for over 1000 days the SAA, Hezbollah and the local national defense forces were on the front lines defending the cities’ 100,000 residents from ISIS. The civilians were equally heroic in withstanding years of siege especially the defiant women of Deir Ezzor who braved kidnappers,  snipers and rocket attacks to find food for their families. Their husbands were often dead or fighting on the front lines and it was the stubborn bravery of the women of Deir Ezzor that allowed the city to survive the siege. The people of Deir Ezzor withstood untold suffering their electricity was cut off, food was scarce, medicine hard to find. Thanks to the treacherous attack of the US air force ISIS was able to seize the towns clean water supply and the town was forced to drink polluted river water to survive. Rockets, artillery,  mortars and sniper fire terrorized them like so many Syrians who have survived these terrorist sieges. They lived in constant fear that ISIS might capture the city. Despite all this they remained defiant determined to resist to the end. I’ll never forget the sight of hundreds of Syrian mothers, and grandmothers armed with Ak-47s and warning ISIS they would fight to the death to defend their families. Thankfully due to bravery of the SAA and their allies it never came to that and against all the odds the city resisted every attempt to capture it. In the end they were defending the city with only 2 tanks and artillery that were long past their life expectancy after being fired so many times without replacement.

The victory at Deir Ezzor is the culmination of months of SAA offensives that have liberated thousands of square kilometers in the past few months. To the North expanding on the victory in Aleppo the SAA steadily advanced east towards and then past Raqqa. To the south of them was a huge swath of Syrian territory occupied by ISIS separating them from the SAA territory extending into Palmyra. In a stunning series of victories the SAA managed to cut this ISIS pocket off from it’s supply lines divide it in two and completely encircle them liberating a huge amount of territory and opening the way for the final push towards Deir Ezzor. Those who followed the amazing victories of the NAF during the war in Ukraine could not help but recognize the brilliant behind the scenes role Russian Spetsnaz advisers played in the recent SAA victories. ISIS is still desperately resisting it’s inevitable defeat but it is clear that the SAA, Hezbollah and Russia have dealt it a decisive defeat in Syria. These victories owed much to Syria’s elite Tiger Forces who also played a decisive role in both the victory in Aleppo and the end of the siege of Deir Ezzor. In a war where battles have raged for weeks over a tiny village or even a single building the SAA have managed to liberate thousands of miles in recent weeks. Once again the SAA have accomplished the impossible.

It is no wonder Syria’s enemies are acting even crazier then usual. The US has sent it’s SDF Kurdish mercenaries to try to block further SAA advances. The Kurds would be wise to break out of their servitude to the empire soon before the Americans provoke some terrifying disaster.   At the same time the US is trying to embroil the Kurds with a war with the SAA rumor has it the US has already made plans to abandon them to their fate. In the week before the siege on Deir Ezzor was broken the US sent it’s helicopters in to evacuate certain key ISIS commanders exposing yet again that ISIS is merely a tool of the CIA and it’s allied intelligence agencies. In revenge Russia bombed ISIS with a thermobaric bomb and has been showing off it’s cruise missiles in devastating attacks on ISIS which are also a warning to the US and it’s SDF pawns.  The US responded to the liberation of Deir Ezzor by bombing a nearby refugee camp killing Syrian children in a criminal and cowardly attack. The US is also in an ever intensifying panic over Russia although it seemed impossible for the anti-Russian Hysteria to grow even crazier. They are locked in a diplomatic war with Russia expelling each others diplomats and installing more harsh sanctions on Russia, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. They are targeting RT and Sputnik. It has gotten so out of control that USA Today foolishly attacked my blog for exposing the fascist coup in Ukraine. It was part of the latest Russian propaganda Hysteria backed by the CIA/BND Front the German Marshall Fund and it’s Alliance for Securing Democracy’s Hamilton 68 Project which spies on 600 pro-Russian twitter accounts or as they call them “Kremlin controlled bots and trolls.” Basically anyone who opposes fascist Ukraine or the schemes to have Al Qaeda and ISIS destroy Syria is now being labeled a Russian propagandist regardless of whether they are Americans, Canadians or western europeans and are accused of destroying democracy by informing the public. This arrogant NATO think tank believes the only way “to secure democracy” is to destroy free speech. Luckily they are far too late to prevent the world from realizing the criminal nature of American Foreign Policy which brings destruction, misery, poverty, and war to the entire planet.

Syria’s other enemies are also in a panic. Netanyahu of Israel made himself into a global laughingstock when he traveled to Russia to beg Putin to stop the SAA advances which he insanely believed was Iranian expansionism. Putin told him Iran was a Russian ally and they say Netanyahu flew into a rage and threatened to bomb Assad’s presidential palace. He had to content himself with yet another illegal Israeli bombing. Still Israel remains dangerous and unpredictable and is in a panic over the fact that Hezbollah has only grown stronger during the war on Syria. Hezbollah achieved a major victory in the Qalamoun mountains finally cleaning out a nest of ISIS terrorists who were forced to evacuate in busses to their ever shrinking territory in Eastern Syria. The Saudis are feuding with the Qataris while they continue their US-UK-NATO backed genocidal war on Yemen. Meanwhile the whole world is wondering wether mad emperor Trump will embroil the world in a nuclear war over North Korea. I predict that the whole thing is just an embarrassing bluff another humiliation for the Empire of Chaos. Still the US is on the attack everywhere in the world. It’s latest coup plot in Venezuela has met a humiliating defeat the fascist opposition discredited themselves with their reign of terror and Venezuela has voted to further advance the Bolivarian Socialist Revolution.

Meanwhile in Syria they are celebrating and rebuilding, Syrian’s forced to flee as refugees are now returning home now that the NATO death squads have been driven out of so much of the country. Where two years ago there was a gloomy determination now Syrians are again dreaming of the bright future ahead when they have rebuilt their country. The liberation of Deir Ezzor was celebrated across Syria especially in Deir Ezzor itself. Now that the SAA have broken the siege food and medical supplies can finally enter the town and children can now go to school without fear of being shot by snipers. Everywhere in Syria people are dreaming of a final victory and the return of peace. Unfortunately the war is far from over but Syria has become an inspiration to the world a symbol of heroism and resistance. In the face of all the Axis of Chaos could throw at them the armies of terrorists, NATO bombers, the US marines, the CIA plots, the billions in weapons, the sanctions and the propaganda war Syria refused to surrender. A lesson to everyone resisting the empire of chaos remember Syria and never stop fighting.

Sources

ANNA news Documentary on life in Deir Ezzor under ISIS Siege

https://youtu.be/KewY8HETxhY

ANNA News Documentary on Lifting the ISIS Siege of Deir Ezzor

https://youtu.be/OoRPvHVQASQ

The latest from Deir Ezzor as SAA continue their offensive

https://southfront.org/syrian-army-captures-important-areas-around-deir-ezzor-continues-advance-in-eastern-hama/

Sharmine Narwani on Israel’s Panic over SAA victory

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/israels-geopolitical-gut-check

Dr. Shaaban: On the Syrian Victory

https://syria360.wordpress.com/2017/08/25/the-defeat-of-their-project-and-the-victory-of-ours/

Flashback to the my article on the treacherous US bombing of Deir Ezzor

http://anti-imperialist-u.blogspot.com/2016/09/bombing-at-deir-ezzor.html

Featured image: Russian and Armenian presidents after talks in Moscow, March 2017

While there are a host of differences between the two states, the one that Russia is beginning to care the most about nowadays is how Armenia is standing in the way of Moscow’s Great Power engagement with the “Ummah” while Azerbaijan is doing everything it can to facilitate it.  

Analyzing Armenian-Azerbaijani relations is a lot like talking about those between India & Pakistan and “Israel” & Palestine, in that they’re extraordinarily complex, deeply rooted in history, and involve very passionate arguments about land, religion, and geopolitics, among many other factors. There’s no “easy way” to address them without risking the ire of one or the other side, though there’s also no avoiding that such seemingly intractable conflicts exist as a fact in today’s world. That being said, it’s worthwhile to discuss how a Great Power such as Russia understands its developing role in the emerging Multipolar World Order vis-à-vis these disputes, and the most pertinent one to look at is over Nagorno-Karabakh, seeing as how Moscow was a direct – if albeit unofficial – participant in it and is also a party to the OSCE Minsk Group which aims to bring about a resolution to this long-standing problem.

A Geopolitical Thaw

In fact, it’s actually the last point which is the most important to dwell on for the moment, since it had long been assumed by outside observers – whether rightly or wrongly – that Moscow had an interest in indefinitely “freezing” the conflict, but that’s no longer the case. The old and debunked argument goes that Russia, due to the Orthodox Christian roots that it shares with its fellow Armenian co-confessionals, was always tacitly on Yerevan’s side and will forever remain that way no matter what, which is what many Armenians had assumed. Passively allowing the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to remain “frozen” was supposedly a signal from Russia that it approved of Armenia’s position on the issue, which implied that Moscow didn’t believe that disputed territory should ever return to Baku’s control. That may have been the case for the past two decades, but in recent years Russia’s attitude has remarkably changed as it began a pronounced rapprochement with Azerbaijan.

“Military Diplomacy”

To be clear, relations between the two were never completely in the doldrums like some have presented them as, since Russia has consistently remained Azerbaijan’s military partner. It’s actually this part of their bilateral relationship which upsets Armenians the most, since they have difficulty understanding the “military diplomacy” that Russia’s been applying towards this pair of rivals and others. To summarily explain what the author wrote in his Sputnik piece last year about how “Army Expo 2016 Showcases Russia’s Success at Military Diplomacy”, Russia sells weapons to both sides of a conflict in order to maintain the strategic parity between them, believing that this prevents one side or the other from obtaining a decisive advantage that would consequently encourage them to restart hostilities, such as what the US regularly hopes that its military partners will be able to do one day in upsetting the regional balance of power in Eurasia.

“The 19^th-Century Great Power Chessboard”

Russia’s employment of military diplomacy is a complementary part of its envisioned 21^st-century geostrategic role in the emerging Multipolar World Order, which is to ultimately become the supreme balancing force in the Eurasian supercontinent. To that end, it also adheres to the paradigm of the “19^th-Century Great Power Chessboard”, whereby Russia prioritizes its relations with similarly sized Great Powers at the perceived (key word) expense of its smaller- and medium-sized ones such as Serbia, Syria, or in this case Armenia, in order to advance the “greater good” of multipolarity. This guiding concept plays a major influence on the decision-making mindset of Russia’s “progressive” foreign policy faction, as explained by the author in his recent piece about how “Russia’s Foreign Policy Progressives Have Trumped The Traditionalists” in making sense of Moscow’s foreign policy pivots to the Ummah.

Keeping Out Of The Karabakh Conflict

Partially due to these abovementioned factors, Russia refused to militarily get involved during the brief flare-up between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh in spring 2016. The author discussed this in extensive detail in his analysis at the time titled “Armenian-Azeri Tensions Just Got Alarming: Here’s Why It’s Happening”, but the overriding reasons were twofold; the first is that its Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) mutual defense obligations only apply to internationally recognized Armenian territory, which doesn’t include Nagorno-Karabakh because not even Yerevan officially recognizes its self-proclaimed “independence” and desire to unite with Armenia; and the second is that Moscow wasn’t really sure who started the latest round of violence and was very wary about getting tricked into sparking a larger region-wide conflagration that would only work out to the US’ grand strategic interests.

Walking With Caution In The Caucasus

To expand on this last detail about Russia’s lingering suspicions, it’s worthwhile to read what the author wrote last year about a potential Nagorno-Karabakh Continuation War and the “Armenian Dagger” in his work about “Greater Eurasia Scenarios In The Mideast”. Basically, Russia fears that hyper-nationalist Color Revolutionaries might overthrow the “moderate” government and spark another war with Azerbaijan, all with the intent of dragging Russia into a chain reaction of regional conflicts through its CSTO mutual defense obligations to Armenia. Even in the event that there’s no pro-American regime change in the country, the Western diaspora-backed “grassroots” pressure on the authorities could be sufficient enough to move them in that direction anyhow. This may have even been responsible for the spring 2016 flare-up that interestingly followed the heavy Color Revolution unrest the preceding summer, which led the author to conclude at the time that “’Electric Yerevan’ Is Sliding Out Of Control”.

Baku As The Eurasian Bridge

Just a few days after the “Four Day War” in Nagorno-Karabakh, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with his Iranian and Azerbaijani counterparts in Baku and announced that all three sides had agreed to integrate their transport infrastructure in creating the North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC), which is planned to eventually connect India with the EU by means of their three countries. Baku’s newfound role as the indispensable civilizational bridge connecting European, Russian, Iranian/Persian, and Indian civilizations harmoniously corresponds to the multipolar tenets of peaceful integration and win-win cooperation between countries. While it may have looked to some outside observers as though Russia was “pivoting” towards Azerbaijan, nothing of the sort happened because this was merely just another tweak in Moscow’s Eurasian balancing act, especially in working to achieve an equilibrium in its already excellent relations with Yerevan and its burgeoning ones with Baku.

Russia’s Armenian Ally

To expand on the previous, President Putin recently lauded the fantastic state of bilateral relations between Russia and Armenia, remarking that “Moscow and Yerevan have been effectively cooperating within the integration processes taking place in Eurasia, coordinating their activities to ensure regional security and stability.” This is certainly true on all accounts because of Armenia’s membership in the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAU) and the CSTO, as well as the Russian base in Gyumri and the two countries’ joint air defense system. On the surface of things, relations are proceeding just fine and there’s nothing to be worried about, but peek behind the curtain just a little bit and it becomes apparent that some Armenians are furious at Russia’s outreaches to Azerbaijan, believing that this constitutes a “betrayal” of their national interests and could even threaten their preferred status quo in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Abandonment And Betrayal

Many Armenians believe that Russia’s refusal to overstep its CSTO mutual defense obligations and launch a coordinated full-scale offensive against Azerbaijan in 2016 was an unforgiveable disappointment, and they think that Moscow’s continued “military diplomacy” with Baku in the months afterwards and its new trilateral initiative to turn Azerbaijan into a Eurasian Bridge between civilizations are “anti-Armenian” to the core. Believing that Russia was the first to “abandon” and then “betray” it, Armenia ironically took the actual first step in doing this against Russia by making headway in reaching an EU “Association Agreement” and deciding to participate in a multilateral NATO exercises this year, though curiously pulling out of a second planned one right before it began for what can only be speculated was heavy Russian pressure.

The author wrote about this in two separate pieces lately titled “Armenia Abandoning Russia: Consequences For The Caucasus” and “Are Armenia, India, And Serbia “Balancing” Against Russia Or “Betraying” It?” which analyze this issue more in depth, but the main point is that Armenia is abrogating its institutional obligations to Russia via the EAU and CSTO through its surprising outreaches to the EU and NATO. To be fair, though, Armenia doesn’t see this as an “abandonment” or “betrayal” but rather a “balancing act” in response to its disappointment with Russia’s improved relations with Azerbaijan. Herein, however, lays the irreconcilable strategic divergence between Russia and Armenia.

Unfreeze In Order To Federalize

Unlike whatever Russia may have thought in the past, the full-spectrum paradigm shifts unfolding all across the world as a result of International Relations entering into the tumultuous transitional phase from unipolarity to multipolarity have given Moscow the impetus to unfreeze the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in order to settle it once and for all, thereby preventing this festering problem from being abused by the US and its allies to disrupt Eurasian integration processes. Although no official plan has been publicly presented, at least not as of yet, it’s very likely that Russia’s envisioned conflict resolution strategy is to see the progressive reintegration of Nagorno-Karabakh into the Azerbaijani state that it’s unanimously recognized by all UN members as being a part of, following in the footsteps of what Moscow has suggested for Donbas vis-à-vis Ukraine.

One can argue about the wisdom and merits of reintegrating Donbas into post-coup Ukraine, but it can safely be assumed that if Russia would promote this approach when it comes to its own ethnic compatriots in Eastern Ukraine, that it more than likely wouldn’t think twice about doing the same to Armenians in Western Azerbaijan.

There is some theoretical (key word) basis to this approach, however, in that Russia believes that federalized solutions could empower the reintegrated minority group with extra – and in some cases, depending on the constitutional processes involved, even disproportional – political influence over the rest of the larger state. This doesn’t necessarily make them “Trojan Horses” of a foreign power, but could be seen as an added incentive for their breakaway authorities to peacefully return to the national governments that they’re universally recognized as being a part of. It could end up being that foreign peacekeepers might have to play a role in some capacity during the initial reintegration transition, but that’s a point that could be discussed if the general proposal itself proceeds far enough along the line to be taken seriously by all parties.

As it relates to Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan is definitely in favor of a peaceful solution to the long-running conflict and has expressed flexibility in the past about how this could play out, while Armenia is dead-set against any change to the status quo which would endanger its ethnic compatriots’ full control over the disputed territory.

“Obstructionists” vs. “Integrationalists”

Accordingly, it’s accurate to speak of Armenia as being an “obstructionist” in Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan as an “integrationalist”, which are very important differentiating concepts to bear in mind considering the positive predisposition that Russia’s progressivist leading foreign policy faction has towards integration, particularly with the Ummah. In fact, the obstructionist and integrationalist labels can also be applied more broadly as it relates to these two states’ roles in either hindering or helping Russia’s unprecedented rapprochements with Turkey and Iran.

Armenia is prone to relying on the divisive “Clash of Civilizations” narrative to imply that its fellow Orthodox co-confessionalists in Russia are obligated to support it out of “Christian solidarity” against Muslims. Some Armenian voices even assert that their country is the only thing standing in the way of what they fear monger as the supposedly anti-Russian strategy of “Pan-Turkism” which they say poses an existential threat to Slavs. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, doesn’t have to resort to guilt-tripping Russia and scaring it in order to advance its interests, as these overlap with Russia’s own and aren’t unnatural to Moscow like what Yerevan wants it to do.

For example, Azerbaijan is poised to become a convergence point between Russian (Slavic), Azerbaijani (Turkic), Iranian (Persian), and Indian (majority-Hindu) civilizations through the NSTC, so there’s more of a win-win integrational reason for Moscow to conform to Baku’s position on Nagorno-Karabakh than to adhere to Yerevan’s obstructionist one which would – whether intentionally or inadvertently – perpetuate unnecessary divisions and distrust in the Russian-Turkish-Iranian geopolitical crossroads of the Caucasus. Accepting that the foreign policy progressives are in power and that they’re calling the shots on the “19^th-Century Great Power Chessboard”, then it increasingly becomes apparent that Russia would prefer for Armenia to seek a peaceful compromise on Nagorno-Karabakh in order to promote the “greater good” of multipolarity.

The unresolved  Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, perpetuated to this day by Armenia’s obstinate  position despite Yerevan’s ironic refusal to “recognize” the self-proclaimed “independence” of its own proxy statelet, dangerously obstructs the multipolar process of Eurasian integration by serving as a ticking unipolar-influenced time bomb positioned smack dab in the heart of the Great Power Tripartite of Russia, Iran, and Turkey, threatening to go off in the future on America’s command as the ultimate “scorched earth” tactic to divide and rule the Caucasus.

Concluding Thoughts

The international situation has so profoundly changed since the commencement of the New Cold War in late-2013 that it’s difficult for some people to accept all that’s transpired since then, especially when it comes to the historic progress that Russia has made in its efforts to promote strategic partnerships with the Muslim countries of Turkey, Iran, and especially in this case Azerbaijan. As was explained in the analysis, Russia endeavors to become the supreme balancing force in 21^st-century Eurasia, and to this end it sought to “wipe the slate clean” in its relations with its non-traditional partners in order to begin completely anew on a neutral and unbiased footing.

This win-win strategy is commonplace among multipolar states and isn’t directed against any other party, though some countries – especially those who are Russia’s “legacy” partners – adhere to the unipolar “zero-sum” paradigm in jealously believing that this is detrimental to their own national interests. Such is the case with Armenia, which cannot accept Russia’s newfound and sincere high-level strategic partnership with Azerbaijan, believing that the “military diplomacy” between them on a bilateral level and their much broader multilateral cooperation on the NSTC are “anti-Armenian” and explain why Moscow “abandoned” and “betrayed” Yerevan during the spring 2016 flare-up in Nagorno-Karabakh.

In response to these subjective perceptions, Armenia is clumsily moving towards its own objective real-life “abandonment” and “betrayal” of Russia as it attempts to “balance” between its traditional Moscow ally and the West, irresponsibly flirting with the EU and NATO in capacities which draw into question its legal and tacit commitments to the EAU and CSTO. All of this is being done because Armenia is unwaveringly opposed to changing the status quo in Nagorno-Karabakh and the former majority-Azerbaijani-populated but now-cleansed regions surrounding it that are presently occupied by its ethnic compatriots, which makes Yerevan the main obstacle to peacefully resolving this conflict.

The progressive foreign policy faction in charge of Russia’s grand strategy is eager to put an end to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict once and for all, fearing that this festering geopolitical wound could dangerously damage Moscow’s rebalancing act in Eurasia, especially as regards the Ummah and Russia’s two-closest Muslim Great Power neighbors of Turkey and Iran. Therefore, Russia has begun to slowly but surely make its intentions known to resolve this issue in line with international law, which in all cases favors Azerbaijan because not a single country in the world – Armenia included – recognizes the self-declared “independence” of the disputed territory and its ethnically cleansed environs.

Going forward, Russia’s relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan will continue to be determined by their respective attitudes towards peacefully reintegrating the occupied territories into the rest of the country that they’re unanimously recognized by all UN member states as being a part of, as well as allowing for the consequent return of all internally displaced people to their hometowns. Given that Armenia is adamantly against both of these principles, Russia will have no choice but to perceive of it as being an obstructionist player, especially in terms of impeding multipolar Great Power integration processes in Eurasia, whereas its Azerbaijani rival will be positively assessed as facilitating these game-changing continental dynamics.

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

All images in this article are from the author.

Tyler Shipley will be presenting on his book Ottawa and Empire: Canada and the Military Coup in Honduras on Wednesday October 11 at 7:00pm at the Hinton Auditorium, 3rd floor of the Toronto Reference Library at 789 Yonge St.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Just as America’s exceptionalist myth is one of bringing ‘peace and democracy’ to the world, Canadians typically expect their foreign policy to be geared around trying to act in the interests of peoples in the countries with whom their governments engage.

As reported on several episodes of this radio series, Canadian foreign policy has been directed more by the mandates of the nation’s capitalist class than by the will of the people who supposedly provide direction for their policy-makers.

Honduras provides a stunning case-study of an imperialist Canada paving internationalist terrain for mining companies, sweat shops, hydro-electric projects and other enterprises behind a veneer of benevolence.

In June of 2009, masked soldiers apprehended elected Honduran president Manuel Zelaya at his presidential palace. While still in his pyjamas and bare feet, the Head of State was escorted to Soto Cano air base before being moved to Costa Rica. The Honduran military then went on to cut off water, electricity and communications from several major cities. This was on the occasion of a referendum vote to be held that day, geared toward reforms benefiting large sectors of the Honduran working class. [1]

Hondurans have since had to confront a climate of impunity around violence directed at environmental, Indigenous, and human rights defenders, the March 3, 2016 murder in her home of Bertha Caceres being a case in point. [2][3]

Far from expressing outrage of this subversion of democracy, Canada helped provide diplomatic cover for it. Further, multiple Canadian companies, including the notorious Montreal-based firm Gildan, directly profited from the subversion of the will of the Honduran people.

A young Canadian college professor named Tyler Shipley has devoted years to detailing the history of Honduras, the progress of social movements in recent decades, the conditions that have prevailed

since the coup, and the involvement of Canadian government and business interests throughout. The results of his labours have been chronicled in the newly published volume Ottawa and Empire: Canada and the Military Coup in Honduras.

In an interview recorded in the summer during his tour stop in Winnipeg, Professor Shipley addresses questions of the strategic importance of Honduras for imperialist powers, the progress of social movements cut short by the 2009 coup, Canada’s precise role in enabling the coup, and the interests that have benefited. Shipley also details some of the conditions besetting the population, including Bertha Caceres, whom he interviewed several times between 2009 and 2016.

Tyler Shipley is professor of culture, society, and commerce at the Humber Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning. He is also an associate fellow with the Centre for Research on Latin America and the Caribbean (CERLAC). His latest book is available from the publisher Between the Lines.

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. Tyler Shipley (2017), ‘Ottawa and Empire: Canada and the Military Coup in Honduras’ pg.34,-35, Between the Lines
2. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/03/berta-caceres-and-the-open-wounds-of-honduras/
3. Tyler Shipley (2017), pg. 161-162

Badwani, Madhya Pradesh | September 15, 2017: In an unprecedented turn of event, Madhya Pradesh Government coercive measures resulting drowning of more than 40000 families living in the submergence area of Sardar Sarovar Dam. Since yesterday, water level is continuously rising and now reached to 128.50 meters drowning Rajghat, Nisarpur and other villages. Water level is continuously rising after release of large amount of water from unfilled dams just to celebrate the Narmada Mahotsav on Modi’s birthday. This is nothing but a shameless show of personal obsession by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and disastrous submission by Shivraj Singh Chouhan to the dirty politics supported by Gujarat and Maharashtra Government. Water being released from other dams to fill the Sardar Sarovar, resulting drowning of thousands of families, Houses, bridges, Cattles, trees and large tracts of forest and prime agricultural land.

A large number of affected families haven’t received the house plots and compensation entitled to them, thousands of applications remain unheard before the Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA), leaving no options to the families but to protest on streets.

In Gujarat, the Narmada Canals is also not complete and only able to construct nearly 30% of the total length of Canal network, which exposes the claims of Government to bring water to Kutch and other districts of Gujarat. This is nothing but a politics of giving false hope to people of Gujarat to win elections at the cost of life of lakhs of people of Narmada Valley.

This cannot be more shameless act by the elected Government of any democratic country. WE APPEAL TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY TO STAND WITH PEOPLE OF NARMADA VALLEY AND CALL OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES and ask them to immediately stop filling Sardar Sarovar dam till the rehabilitation is complete as per the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award (NWDTA), state policy and many court judgments. Please call to the following contact numbers, email them and held them accountable for safeguarding the constitutional right of life and livelihood.

Important Contact Details of Authorities and Officials who can avert the tragedy are mentioned below:

Sriman Shukla (Dhar Collector/Magistrate) – +91 7292234702 (Office), +91 7292234701 (Res.)

Tejaswi S Naik (Barwani Collector) – +91 7290224001 (Office), +91 7290224002 (Res)

Ashok Kumar Verma (Collector, Khargone) – +91 7282223263 (Office), +91 7282232364 (Res)

Ganesh Shankar Mishra (Collector, Alirajpur) – +91 7394234400 (Office), +91 7394234500 (Res)

President of India

Shri Ramnath Kovind – [email protected] – +91 11 23015321 ( Off.), +91 11 23017290, 23017824 (Fax)

Tweet @rashtrapatibhvn

Secretary to President

Sanjay Kothari – [email protected] – +91 11 23013324, +91 11 23014930
Write to Prime Minister of India

Click on the link and register your grievance

http://pgportal.gov.in/pmocitizen/Grievancepmo.aspx

Tweet @narendramodi

Tweet @PMOIndia

Principal Secretary to Prime Minister
Sh. Nripendra Misra – 011 – 23013040

Addl. Principal Secretary to Prime Minister
Dr. P. K. Mishra – 011 – 23014844

Ministry of Water Resources
Shri Nitni Gadkari – [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] – +91 11 23714200,23714663 ( Off.)
+91 11 23710804 (Fax)
Twitter @nitin_gadkari

Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
Minister of State (Independent Charge) Shri Dr. Harsh Vardhan – [email protected], +91 11 24695136, 24695132 (Off.), +91 11 24695329 (Fax)
Tweet @drharshvardhan
Hardik Shah, PS to Minister – [email protected]

Ministry of Law and Justice
Minister Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad – [email protected], +91 11 23387557, 23386615 (Off.), +91 11 23384241 (Fax)
Tweet @rsprasad

Ministry of Rural Development
Minister Shri Narendra Singh Tomar – [email protected], +91 11 23782373, 23782327 (Off.), +91 11 23385876 (Fax)
Tweet @nstomar

Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
Minister Shri Thaawar Chand Gehlot – [email protected], +91 11 23381001, 23381390 (Off.), +91 11 23381902 (Fax)
Minister of State Shri Krishan Pal – +91 11 23072192, 23072193 (Off.), +91 11 23072194 (Fax)
Minister of State Shri Ramdas Bandu Athawale – [email protected], +91 11 23381656, 23381657 (Off.), +91 11 23381669 (Fax)

Ministry of Tribal Affairs
Minister Shri Jual Oram – [email protected], +91 11 23388482, 23381499 (Off.), +91 11 23070577 (Fax)
Tweet @jualoram

Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister
Shivraj Singh Chauhan – [email protected] – Office Phone : +91 755 2441581, +91 755 2441033, Office Fax : +91 755 2441781,
Tweet @ChouhanShivraj

Gujarat Chief Minister
Shri Vijaybhai R. Rupani – Office Phone : +91 79 23232611
+91 79 23232619, Office Fax : +91 79 23222101
Tweet @vijayrupanibjp

Maharashtra Chief Minister
Shri Devendra Fadnavis – [email protected] – Office Phone : +91 22 22025222, +91 22 22025151, Office Fax : +91 22 22029214,
Tweet @Dev_Fadnavis
National Human Rights Council of India

Send Complaints to National Human Rights Council of India at [email protected]

Secretary General / Chief Executive Officer of the Commission – [email protected]

Director General (Investigation) – [email protected]
National Commission for Women in India – [email protected]

Complaint Cell – [email protected]
National Commission for Scheduled Castes

Prof. Dr. Rameshankar Katheria (Chairman) – +91 – 24620435, +91 – 24606802

Shri L. Murugan, Vice Chairman – +91 – 24654105, +91 – 24606828
National Commission for Scheduled Tribes

Shri Nand Kumar Sai, Chairperson – [email protected]

Mr. Vinod Kumar Nagvanshi, APS to Chairperson – [email protected]

Featured image is from the author.

There is now a discernible pattern to US manipulation of the UN Security Council when it wants UN endorsement for US-NATO acts of aggression. It is a formula which led to the destruction of Iraq and Libya, and in 1950-1953 led to the destruction of North Korea and most of South Korea. This deadly trajectory is once again becoming visible, and the code is revealed in the three words: “all necessary measures,” which are deciphered to mean US-NATO aggressive war.

This formula begins with sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter: approximately eleven sanctions have been inflicted upon North Korea, and four presidential statements. The sanctions are, in themselves aggressive action, intended to weaken and demoralize the intended nation-targeted victim, and ultimately destroy the will, the spirit and unity of the nation. The now twelve sanctions on the DPRK are reminiscent of the words Richard Nixon used for the CIA engineered destruction of the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile:

“Make the economy scream!!”

The goal of these resolutions is the total destruction of the targeted victim-nation, in the present case, the independent socialist government of North Korea. Because the bar is continually raised, and it is impossible to comply with these imperialistic sanctions without betraying and destroying the core values of the nation being targeted, eventually the US compels the Security Council to announce that more “robust” (violent) measures are required, the end resulting in military attack upon the targeted nation.

Each sanction is a humiliation, an act of psychological violence and an assault on the dignity of the people of the targeted country. The sanctions are intended to cause such misery among the people of the nation targeted that havoc will result, culminating in regime change. If the victim has the strength to resist, more overt aggression will be used.

On September 8, 2017 the U.S. draft resolution revealed their ultimate intent: demanding the power to board North Korean ships, and use “all necessary measures” (military force) to coerce compliance to inspect their cargo. Although this demand was deleted from the sanctions resolution 2375 adopted on September 11, such coercion, if it had remained in the resolution finally agreed upon, would have the violation of the sovereignty of the DPRK, and would have constituted a form of rape of North Korea. Resistance by Russia and China resulted in the abandonment of that particular form of violation of the DPRK, but the cumulative force of the resolutions, now numbering 12, are strangling the economy and people of North Korea, and the US-NATO trajectory seems intent upon some form of military aggression, with or without UN Security Council approval.

In the September 18 issue of “The New Yorker,” author Evan Osnos quotes his North Korean guide, Pak, saying:

“If the US puts sanctions and sanctions and sanctions and sanctions, they drive us to the edge of the cliff, we will attack. That’s how the world wars have started. Don’t push us too hard because you’re going to start a war. And we should say, we’re not going to die alone.”

NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg

On September 9, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said:

“North Korea is a global threat and requires a global response; and that, of course, also includes NATO.”

UK’s Defense Minister Michael Fallon supported NATO’s position.

US Ambassador Nikki Haley’s crude insinuation that “North Korea is begging for war” so grossly distorts the truth that the DPRK referred to her as a “political prostitute,” and the US Ambassador’s reference to the Chinese-Russian proposal of “suspension for suspension” as “insulting,” is a shocking repudiation of the only viable step toward beginning negotiated reduction of tension, leading to a peaceful resolution of this crisis. The US Ambassador’s absurd comment reveals her deliberate falsification of the realities involved and her reversal of cause and effect is a form of paranoia. North Korea needs nuclear defenses to protect itself from violent aggression by the South-Korean-US axis.

Article 2 of the China/DPRK Mutual Assistance Treaty obligates China to defend North Korea if the US attacks. If the DPRK attacks first, China will not assist. While the DPRK will not initiate attack, ever, it is being subjected to intolerable provocations, set-ups and false-flag operations which may make it impossible to avoid counter-actions in defense.

The US Ambassador, many of the Security Council members, willingly or unwillingly and many others elsewhere are, it seems, deliberately refusing to respect, nor take responsibility for the horrifying massacre of 3-4 million North Koreans between 1950-1953, and ignore fact that the ongoing menace of South Korean and US military threats are inflicting an unendurable state of terror upon North Koreans, to which they must respond in the only way that will either ensure their survival or raise the cost of an attack against them to a point that the US-NATO-Japan- ROK axis are reluctant or unwilling to pay.

It is therefore alarming evidence of a stealthy plan to attack and overwhelm the DPRK in every conceivable way, that yesterday’s New York Times announced South Korea’s plan to “Decapitate” the North Korean leadership. …”The measures have raised questions about whether South Korea and the United States, its most important ally, are laying the groundwork to kill or incapacitate Mr. Kim and his top aides before they can even order an attack.” This again recalls the Nixon-Kissinger-CIA Chilean coup scenario, when “make the economy scream” was not sufficient to incite a popular uprising to overthrow the government of Socialist President Allende, and the honorable Chilean top military leadership refused to enact a coup d’etat, which would have violated the constitution. Thereupon, the Nixon-Kissinger-CIA axis arranged the assassination of Chile’s loyal top military leaders, beginning with General Rene Schneider, who was kidnapped and murdered for refusing to stage a coup, and his loyal second in command, General Carlos Prats was cruelly degraded and forced out of Chile. Eventually the CIA found a compliant officer, and a pawn, Pinochet.

The leadership of the DPRK has sought meetings with the US leadership for decades. The North Koreans never refused negotiations. The US refused all such meetings, perhaps assuming they could impose US will by force, in any case. South Korean “Decapitation Units” directly contradict US Secretary of State Tillerson’s assurance that the US “does not seek regime change, nor regime collapse.” The new South Korean “Decapitation Unit,” the “Spartan 3000, will be mandated to conduct ‘cross-border raids with retooled helicopters and transport planes that penetrate North Korea at night.” This is a situation absolutely identical to the South Korean provocations that led to the 1950-1953 Korean war.

During the September 11 Security Council meeting at which the new sanctions resolution was adopted, Chinese Ambassador Liu stated:

“We hope the US will incorporate the following four ‘don’ts into its relevant policies regarding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: don’t seek regime change, don’t incite a collapse of the regime, don’t seek an accelerated reunification effort of the peninsula, and don’t send its military north of the thirty-eighth parallel.”

Russian Ambassador Nebenzia stated: “The measures involving financial and economic pressure on the leadership of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had basically been exhausted and any further restrictions would be tantamount to attempts to suffocate its economy, including the placing of a total embargo on the country and provoking a deep humanitarian crisis. In other words, what we are talking about here is not just cutting off the channels that allow for banned nuclear and missile activities, but, rather, inflicting unacceptable damage on innocent civilians……Furthermore, the authors’ unwillingness to include in the resolution the idea of using the good offices and mediation potential of the Secretary-General, as well as the refusal to reaffirm the statement made by the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Tillerson, on the ‘Four Nos’—that there are no plans to start a war, effect regime change, force the reunification of the two Koreas or violate the 38th parallel—all give rise to very serious questions in our minds to which we have not yet received answers.

The UN Secretary General is adamantly opposed to a military solution, and equally adamant that only a negotiated solution is permissible. However, the US opposes his utilizing his “good offices” to peacefully resolve the crisis.

While it is impossible to predict the outcome, when taken together, the US actions seem to indicate their intent to attack the DPRK, overtly or covertly, or through proxies, though the risks are catastrophic. Only the dangerous possibility of China’s involvement could deter this intent. North Korea is now being crushed economically and subjected to intolerable provocations. Although the “status quo” may appear to be in the interest of all parties, recalcitrant and irrational aggressive forces are being unleashed within US-NATO, with or without UN authorization. If US-NATO military power is permitted to obliterate North Korea, their resultant intoxication with military force, combined with their economic weakness makes it inevitable that China and Russia are their next quarry. It is imperative that Russia and China take this seriously, as they surely do. The time is long overdue for Russia and China to use their veto power. Their appeasement of US/NATO interests is short-sighted and enabling a war of possibly incalculable proportions. It is preferable to live with a nuclear armed North Korea than to die in a nuclear holocaust. Indeed, even the venerable Susan Rice factored in this option.

Former President Jimmy Carter (Source: The Carter Center / Facebook)

And it is time for US-NATO to heed the words of former President Jimmy Carter:

“The North Koreans emphasized that they wanted peaceful relations with the United States and their neighbors, but were convinced that we planned a preemptive military strike against their country. They want a peace treaty, especially with America to replace the ceasefire agreement that had existed since the end of the Korean war in 1953, and to end the economic sanctions that had been very damaging to them during that long interim period. A commitment to peace by the United States and North Korea is crucial.”

Yesterday the North Korean Foreign Ministry stated that the UN Security Council resolutions are an “infringement on its legitimate right to self-defense, and aim at completely suffocating its state and people through full-scale economic blockade.” These United Nations Resolutions are deliberate provocations, actually inflaming and exacerbating this crisis. And it is possible that the authors of the September 11 Resolution anticipated and actually intended this outcome. War is profitable. It should be no surprise that today North Korea launched another missile, demonstrating its capacity. And today the UN Security Council is holding another “emergency” meeting. One can only hope that Russia and China will take a stand against any continuation of this vicious spiral.

Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y.

It all began with an announcement, made public on the website of the Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics at Harvard University. Chelsea Manning would be joining a curious array of Visiting Fellows, including Mr Disaster, Robby Mook, and Sean Bumbling Spicer. (Manning, Spicer and Mook has a curious ring to it, the name, perhaps, of an error-prone debt recovery agency.)

Mook will have something to tell members of the Kennedy School, being credited with directing one of the worst electoral campaigns in US electoral history. His fanatical insistence on statistical determinations had its own role to play in sinking Hillary Clinton, the person who hired him to get elected.

Spicer hardly needs an introduction, handed the task of being the first press secretary of the Trump administration. (Remember, he explained, Hitler did not use chemical weapons.) In a world supposedly hostile to facts, he wore his crown proudly and comically, before taking leave.

Where, then, would the ire come against this rogues gallery of appointments? There was potentially room for everyone to have a crack. Within hours, it became a shooting gallery with one ultimate target: Chelsea Manning.

Apart from the usual blood lusting, chest-beating patriots who adore that fiction known as a country, Manning’s appointment was bound to generate a few frowns. But what should have been mere creases became full blown furrows, with the Central Intelligence Agency taking the noisy lead.

Coercive blackmail on the decision makers was first exerted by a former employee of that less than principled organisation. Michael Morell’s letter to Douglas Elmendorf, dean of the Kennedy School, was hectoring, irate.[1] It did not even matter that his own fellowship appointment (because former CIA employees are worth it) was in the Belfer Center, where he would not necessarily be sharing beverages with the crew at the Institute of Politics.

The former deputy and acting director of the CIA insisted that the very fact of leaking classified information – never mind of what nature – was a reprehensible, disqualifying act. It was “my right, indeed my duty, to argue that the School’s decision is wholly inappropriate and to protest it by resigning from the Kennedy School – in order to make the fundamental point that leaking classified information is disgraceful and damaging to our nation.” (How are nations ever damaged in that way has never been satisfactorily demonstrated by the actuaries in the security establishment.)

Current CIA director Mike Pompeo also lobbed a bomb of indignation at Harvard’s Rolf Mowatt-Larssen after cancelling a scheduled appearance at the John F. Kennedy, Jr. Forum. The rationale was predictable from a person who pretends to see the world in clearly minted, binary terms, where the warriors of light will vanquish those of the dark. By attending the event, he would be sending a large announcement of betrayal to the former, while giving an incentive to the latter.[2]

Pompeo’s reasoning pans Manning as a felon “found guilty of 17 serious crimes for leaking classified information to WikiLeaks.” He then reiterates a sentiment trumpeted from the start of his tenure:

“WikiLeaks is an enemy of the United States akin to a hostile foreign intelligence service.”

It is worth nothing that, for all the efforts made by the prosecution in the Manning case, the charge of supplying classified information to a foreign enemy failed to convince Judge Denise Lind. To have taken that step would have been tantamount to drawing a wide net over the fourth estate, the security state’s ultimate vengeance.

Who, then, should be Fellows, visiting or otherwise? Bill Delahunt, acting director of the IOP, was clear:

“We welcome the breath of thought-provoking viewpoints on race, gender, politics and media.”[3]

Such enlightenment, such maturity.

It was not a point shared by Pompeo:

“Harvard’s actions implicitly tell its students that you too can be a fellow at Harvard and a felon under United States law.”

This position is hard to entertain in any credible, intellectual sense, especially coming from the director of an organisation trained in the dark arts of destabilisation, interrogation and extra-judicial killings.

Morell, of course, was singled out by Pompeo as the exemplar of public service.

“You have traded a respected individual who served his country with dignity for one who served it with disgrace and who violated the warrior ethos she promoted to uphold when she voluntarily chose to join the United States Army.”

Contradiction be damned.

The upshot of this was a whimpering victory for the CIA, a crude one won by the invocations of bullying. The Kennedy School duly rescinded Manning’s title, and did so in the most mealy-mouthed of ways.

“We invited Chelsea Manning,” came the statement from dean Elmendorf, “because the Kennedy School’s longstanding approach to visiting speakers is to invite some people who have significantly influenced events in the world even if they do not share our values and even if their actions or words are abhorrent to some members of our community.”[4]

Debate was not justification; discussion did not entail approval.

What Elmendorf then does, after patting the institutional back for intellectual tolerance, is to empty the term “Fellow” of any clear meaning. Don’t presume, we are told, that it has any distinguishing merit to it. A Visiting Fellow, he suggests, is merely a visitor.

“In general, across the School, we do not view the title of ‘Fellow’ as conveying a special honour; rather, it is a way to describe some people who spend more than a few hours at the School.”

Manning had only been invited, we are informed, to spend one day at the School, specifically to “meet with students and others who are interested in talking with her, and then to give remarks in the Forum where the audience would have ample opportunity – as with all of our speakers – to ask hard questions and challenge what she had said and done.”

The dean then moves into a mode of apology. “Visiting Fellow” could be construed, mistakenly, as “honorific”, a point that should have been considered. A weighing should have also taken place between educating the Kennedy School community and “the extent to which the person’s conduct fulfills the values of public service to which we aspire.” On this basis, inviting Manning “was wrong.” The term “Visiting Fellow” would duly be stripped from Manning, even though the invitation to still spend a day at the School and speak to the forum would stand.

This entire charming episode shows, regrettably, how spines go on sudden holiday in the academy when political forces knock at the door. Academics tend to be the first to fold when matters of courage are concerned, and often do so in graceless dissimulating prose. The Kennedy School of Government has not just been made safe for the CIA, but for academic hypocrisy.

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

Notes

Last night, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) Tiger Forces, the Syrian Republican Guard (SRG) and their allies fully secured the Baghiliyah area from ISIS northwest of Deir Ezzor city after capturing the missiles base, the Hajjanah regiment, the radio transmitter station, the al-Jazeera university, the Saiqa Camp and the arms depots around Baghiliyah.

Separately, government forces captured the Nishan oil field, the Nishan gas station and the water pumping station east of Thurdah mount number 3 fully securing the western flank of Deir Ezzor Airport.

Southeast of Deir Ezzor, the SAA captured the Dhamn base and al-Kurum hill and deployed in about 35km from al-Mayadeen city, one of the key ISIS strongholds in the Euphrates Valley.

The Russian Aerospace Forces and the Russian Navy supported the government advance.

Two submarines, the Velikiy Novgorod and Kolpino, have fired seven Kalibr cruise missiles on ISIS targets, including “control centers, communications hubs, the militants’ weapons and ammunition warehouses in the ISIS controlled areas in the south east of the city of Deir Ezzor,” according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

According to local sources, Russian warplanes conducted multiple airstrikes on ISIS units and fortifications in the same area.

On Friday, the SAA and the SRG further advanced in the direction of Ayyash northwest of Deir Ezzor and Abu Amr southeast of the city using a superiority in the firepower.

The ISIS-linked news agency Amaq claimed that ISIS fighters destroyed two vehicles of the SAA east of al-Taim oil field southwest of Deir Ezzor city.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) captured Al-Husseiniyeh town capturing the eastern bank of the Euphrates River north of Deir Ezzor city.

With this advance, the SDF and the SAA fully besieged ISIS units deployed along the Euphrates River between the southern Raqqa countryside and the northwestern Deir Ezzor countryside. Maadan, At Tibini and Al Karash are the key ISIS strong points in the area.

Pro-government sources believe that no less than 1,000 will-armed ISIS fighters are deployed in this part of the Euphrates Valley. A major part of them is on the government-held bank of the river. This will create additional problems if the SAA and its allies want to push towards the Iraqi border. The ISIS terrorists remaining in southern Raqqah will pose a threat to the rear of the government assault force.

Amaq claimed that 120 civilians including 100 children were killed in an airstrike by the US-led collation on a refugee camp near the village of Jadid A’akidat in east of Deir Ezzor. So far, the mainstream media has ignored these claims and the US-led coalition has not commented on the issue.

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

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

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: 2 new chapters)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

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)

*     *     *

Hostile US Actions Against RT and Sputnik News

By Stephen Lendman, September 15, 2017

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called US hostile actions against RT and Sputnik News an attempt to censor their operations, a cause for great concern. US and other foreign correspondents in Russia operate freely without interference.

The Russian Hacking Story Continues to Unravel

By Mike Whitney, September 15, 2017

Let’s start with the fact that there are at least two credible witnesses who claim to know who took the DNC emails and transferred them to WikiLeaks. We’re talking about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ally, Craig Murray. No one is in a better position to know who actually took the emails than Assange, and yet, Assange has repeatedly said that Russia was not the source. Check out this clip from the report.

Fake News, “Human Rights” and “Free Speech” in the USA: State-Sponsored Intimidation, or When FARA Goes Too Far

By Andrew Korybko, September 14, 2017

As could have been expected, the same forces pushing for Sputnik and RT to register as “foreign agents” under FARA aren’t interested in equally applying these expanded “standards” to other publicly financed international media outlets such as Al Jazeera and the BBC.

“The Guy Is Hiding Something”: Top Hillary Aide Suggests Bernie Sanders Also Colluded with Russia…

By Joshua Caplan, September 10, 2017

In the middle of Parkomenko’s thread, the Clinton aide insinuates something quite explosive — Bernie Sanders may have colluded with Russia in the Democratic primary.

U.S. Congress and Media Push for War Against Russia

By Eric Zuesse, September 10, 2017

Ever since the U.S. coup in February 2014 overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine and thus caused two regions of Ukraine (Crimea and Donbass, both of which had voted more than 75% for him) to break away from Ukraine, and Obama then slapped sanctions against Russia for supporting the two breakaway regions on its doorstep, the U.S. Congress and the U.S. (and allied foreign) ‘news’media have been trying to build up a case to overthrow Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, if not to force him to war with NATO.

US Sponsored Economic Warfare against Russia: Who’s Going to be the Ultimate Loser?

By Phil Butler, September 04, 2017

Full scale economic war in between America and Russia is underway. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said so, and the US administration and the American congress voted it in with new sanctions. The only question that remains is “who will win?” Here’s a look at the future of US-Russia relations and the ultimate loser in this new type of Cold War.

I riflettori politico-mediatici, focalizzati sui test nucleari e missilistici nord-coreani, lasciano in ombra il quadro generale in cui essi si inseriscono: quello di una crescente corsa agli armamenti che, mentre mantiene un arsenale nucleare in grado di cancellare la specie umana dalla faccia della Terra, punta su testate e vettori high tech sempre più sofisticati.(…)

It is fascinating to watch some U.S. senators tripping over themselves as they attempt to defend their support for or opposition to proposed legislation that would make it a federal crime to support the international campaign to Boycott, Divest, or Sanction (BDS) Israel for its continued occupation of Palestinian lands. What ties these officials up in knots are their efforts to square the circle of their “love of Israel,” their opposition to BDS, their support for a “two-state solution,” and their commitment to free speech.   

The bill in question, S.720, was introduced on March 23, 2017 by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD). S.720 opposes calls by the United Nations to boycott or “blacklist” companies that support Israeli activities in the territories occupied in the 1967 war. The bill further prohibits any U.S. person from supporting this U.N. call to boycott and establishes stiff fines and/or imprisonment for Americans who violate this prohibition.

There are a number of problems with the legislation. In the first place, supporters of S.720 grossly mischaracterize the intent of the U.N. approach as “anti-Israel.” In fact, as S.720, itself, acknowledges, the U.N. Human Rights Council specifically targets only businesses that engage in activities in “territories occupied [by Israel] since 1967.” The U.N. target is not Israel, but Israeli actions that serve to consolidate its hold over the occupied territories.

Then there is the concern that by making illegal either the act of boycotting Israel, or advocating for such a boycott, S.720 is criminalizing free speech and stifling legitimate peaceful protest.

Sen. Ben Cardin

Finally, the legislation continues to build on earlier congressional legislation using sleight-of-hand language in an attempt to erase the distinction in U.S. law between Israel and illegal Israeli settlements in occupied territories. While earlier legislation accomplished this by referring to “Israel and areas under Israel’s control,” S.720 notes that its boycott prohibition applies to “commercial relations…with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel.”

Since S.720 quickly gained 48 co-sponsors (35 Republicans and 13 Democrats) and has been supported by AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League, one might have expected it to sail effortlessly through the Congress and be put on the president’s desk for his signature. That, however, has not been the case, due to the efforts of many, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other progressive organizations led by MoveOn.

While the ACLU has based its opposition on the concern that the legislation violates the free speech rights of American citizens, MoveOn has taken a more expansive approach addressing both the concern with free speech and the fact that S.720 “erases the distinction in U.S. law between Israel and Israeli settlements.”

Given the capacity of both organizations to influence and organize liberal opinion, some Democratic senators have felt compelled to either justify their support for the bill or to distance themselves from it. In too many instances, these efforts have been awkward.

Two sponsors, Sens. Cardin and Ron Wyden (D-OR), have gone to great, but unconvincing, lengths to explain that S.720 does not violate an individual’s right to free speech. They argue that the bill is only directed at businesses or individuals who boycott Israel in response to international entities (like the U.N. or the European Union). But what they cannot explain is how punishing an American citizen who advocates for a U.N. boycott would not violate that citizen’s right to free speech.

Cardin, Wyden and other Democrats who support S.720 also go to great lengths to pledge their support for a “two-state solution.” But their pledges are hollow, since they fail to acknowledge that the provision of S.720 that protects Israel’s settlement enterprise (“entities organized under the laws of Israel”) makes realization of a “two-state solution” impossible—given the location, size and continued expansion of these illegal settlements.

Even those who have come out against S.720 have had some difficulty explaining themselves. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand​ (D-NY), for example, was one of the bill’s early endorsers. She courageously removed her name as a sponsor after learning of the free speech concerns of constitutional lawyers, saying

“I cannot support the bill in its current form if it can be interpreted as stifling or chilling free speech… So I took my name off the bill.”

Gillibrand, nevertheless, felt the need to balance her free speech concern with her support for Israel and her opposition to BDS, adding,

​”I cannot state this more clearly: I vehemently oppose the BDS movement.”

It’s this last point that requires closer examination. While Israel and its supporters make a brave show of shrugging off the threat of BDS, they clearly feel threatened—otherwise why the hyper-activity to punish BDS? S.720 isn’t the first such effort in the Congress, and nearly one-half of the 50 states have been pressed to pass their own versions of anti-BDS resolutions.

In order to build support for their effort, advocates for Israel have tried to portray BDS in the harshest of terms. They have made Israel the victim, while portraying advocates of BDS as “virulently anti-Semitic” aggressors. All of this has been done to obfuscate the reality that BDS is nothing more than a “strategic Palestinian-led form of nonviolent resistance to the occupation and denial of human rights.”

A Challenge to Act

After 50 years of occupation, Palestinians have taken it upon themselves to challenge the world community to act. They have had enough of seeing their homes demolished and lands confiscated to make way for Jewish-only roads and settlement colonies in their midst. They want an end to the daily humiliation of being a captive people denied basic freedoms and justice. Instead of submitting to the occupier, they have decided to boycott, and have urged those who support their human rights to join them in their call for an end to the occupation. Their action is as legitimate as was the call of African Americans in the Deep South in the ’50s, and that of Nelson Mandela in South Africa in the ’80s.

For the Senate to oppose or to punish those who support this Palestinian call to individuals, businesses and governments to boycott, divest, or sanction Israel for its oppressive occupation would put the Senate in the position of saying that: they support Israeli practices; they don’t want Palestinians to use nonviolent means to protest their treatment; and/or they simply don’t believe that Palestinians are equal humans who deserve to have their rights protected.

And so the messages we should send to senators are clear. To those who support S.720: “Shame on you.” To those who oppose S.720: “Thank you for your opposition, but think again about whether the problem is BDS or the occupation that gave birth to it.” And to all senators: “Stop hiding behind your hollow profession of support for ‘two states.’ If you are serious about peace, justice and equality, stop enabling the occupation that makes the realization of those goals impossible.”

James J. Zogby is president of the Arab American Institute in Washington, DC.

This September will be the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Sabra-Shatila Massacre in West Beirut. Three thousand unarmed refugees were killed from 15-18 September 1982.

I was then a young orthopedic trainee who had resigned from St Thomas Hospital to join the Christian Aid Lebanon medical team to help those wounded by Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. That invasion, named “Peace for Galilee”, and launched on 6 June 1982, mercilessly bombarded Lebanon by air, sea, and land. Water, food, electricity, and medicines were blockaded. This resulted in untold wounded and deaths, with 100,000 made suddenly homeless.

I was summoned to the Palestine Red Crescent Society to take charge of the orthopedic department in Gaza Hospital in Sabra- Shatila Palestinian refugee camp, West Beirut. I met Palestinian refugees in their bombed out homes and learned how they became refugees in one of the 12 Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. Before this encounter, I had never heard of Palestinians.

They recounted stories of being driven out of their homes in Palestine in 1948, often fleeing massacres at gunpoint. They fled with whatever possessions they could carry and found themselves in neighboring Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

The United Nations put them in tents while the world promised they would return home soon. That expectation never materialized. Since then the 750,000 refugees, comprising half of the population of Palestine in 1948, continued to live in refugee camps in the neighboring countries. It was 69 years ago that this refugee crisis started. The initial 750,000 has since grown to 5 million. Palestine was erased from the map of the world and is now called Israel.

Soon after my arrival, the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) evacuated. It was the price demanded by Israel to stop the further relentless bombardment of Lebanon and to lift the ten-week military blockade. Fourteen thousand able-bodied men and women from the PLO evacuated with the guarantee by Western powers that their families left behind would be protected by a multinational peacekeeping force.

Those leaving were soldiers, civil servants, doctors, nurses, lecturers, unionists, journalists, engineers, and technicians. The PLO was the Palestinians’ government in exile and the largest employer. Through evacuation, fourteen thousand Palestinian families lost their breadwinner, often the father or the eldest brother, in addition to those killed by the bombs.

That ceasefire lasted only three weeks. The multinational peacekeeping force, entrusted by the ceasefire agreement to protect the civilians left behind, abruptly withdrew. On September 15, several hundred Israeli tanks drove into West Beirut. Some of them ringed and sealed off Sabra-Shatila to prevent the inhabitants from fleeing. The Israelis sent their allies; a group of Christian militiamen trained and armed by them, into the camp. When the tanks withdrew from the perimeter of the camp on the 18 September, they left behind 3,000 dead civilians. Another seventeen thousand were abducted and disappeared.

Our hospital team, who had worked non-stop for 72 hours, was ordered to leave our patients at machine-gun point and marched out of the camp. As I emerged from the basement operating theatre, I learned the painful truth. While we were struggling to save a few dozen lives, people were being butchered by the thousands. Some of the bodies were already rotting in the hot Beirut sun. The images of the massacre are deeply seared into my memory: dead and mutilated bodies lining the camp alleys.

Only a few days before, they were human beings full of hope and life, rebuilding their homes, talking to me, trusting that they would be left in peace to raise their young ones after the evacuation of the PLO. These were people who welcomed me into their broken homes. They served me Arabic coffee and whatever food they found; simple fare but given with warmth and generosity. They shared their lives with me. They showed me faded photographs of their homes and families in Palestine before 1948 and the large house keys they still kept with them. The women showed me their beautiful embroidery, each with motifs of the villages they left behind. Many of these villages were destroyed after they left.

Some of these people became patients we failed to save. Others died on arrival. They left behind orphans and widows. A wounded mother begged us to take down the hospital’s last unit of blood from her to give to her child. She died shortly afterward. Children witnessed their mothers and sisters being raped and killed.

The terrified faces of families rounded up by gunmen while awaiting death; the desperate young mother who tried to give me her baby to take to safety; the stench of decaying bodies as mass graves continued to be uncovered will never leave me. The piercing cries of women who discovered the remains of their loved ones from bits of clothes, refugee identity cards, as more bodies were found continue to haunt me.

The people of Sabra Shatila returned to live in those very homes where their families and neighbors were massacred. They are a courageous people and there was nowhere else to go. Afterwards, other refugee camps were also blockaded, attacked and more people were killed. Today, Palestinian refugees are denied work permits in 30 professions and 40 artisan trades outside their camps. They have no passports. They are prohibited from owning and inheriting property. Denied the right of return to their homes in Palestine, they are not only born refugees, they will also die refugees and so will their children.

But for me, painful questions need to be answered. Not why they died, but why were they massacred as refugees? After 69 years, has the world already forgotten? How can we allow a situation where a person’s only claim to humanity is a refugee identity card? These questions have haunted me and they have yet to receive answers.

Dr. Swee Chai Ang is a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and founder of Medical Aid for Palestinians. She is the author of: “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” published by The Other Press.

All images in this article are from the author.

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

The latest US hostile action against Russia requires a company providing services for RT America to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), along with an FBI probe of Sputnik News to check for FARA violations.

Enacted in 1938 one year before WW II began, it requires agents representing foreign powers politically or quasi-politically to disclose their relationship with other governments, along with information about their activities and finances.

Originally administered by the State Department, FARA later came under Justice Department jurisdiction.

From 1938 until amended in 1966, enforcement focused on foreign propagandists, during WW II used in 23 criminal cases, the last time America had an enemy, none since then except invented ones to justify unjustifiable imperial wars.

Since 1966, FARA focused on foreign lobbying instead of propaganda. From then to now, no one was convicted of violating the law.

In 1995, the term “political propaganda” was removed from removed from its text. FARA was created to target foreign agents and lobbyists as amended, not media operations.

Targeting RT America through its services supplier and Sputnik News violates the letter and spirit of the law, perhaps prelude to censoring, then banning both operations in America.

RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan called what’s going on a possible move to undermine RT and Sputnik News, saying:

“The war the US establishment wages with our journalists is dedicated to all the starry-eyed idealists who still believe in freedom of speech. Those who invented it, have buried it.”

Earlier this year, congressional legislation called the Agents Registration Modernization and Enforcement Act was introduced, aiming to broaden FARA’s scope with RT and Sputnik News in mind.

Simonyan condemned it, saying

“I wonder how US media outlets, which have no problems while working in Moscow…not required to register as foreign agents, will treat this initiative.”

Sputnik’s Washington bureau editor-in-chief Mindia Gavasheli blasted the FBI’s investigation into its operations, saying it’s

“not surprising, since the atmosphere of hysteria in relation to everything that belongs to Russia has been created in the country, and everything with the word ‘Russian’ is seen through the prism of spy mania.”

“We are journalists, and mostly Americans work here. We believe that any assumption that we are engaged in anything other than journalism is an absolute lie and fabrication.”

The same goes for RT. FARA was never intended to censor or interfere with media operations. It targeted Axis propagandists, the law a relic of that time, out-of-line to use against legitimate Russian media.

I’ve been interviewed by both operations. I’m a commentator, journalist, analyst, not a propagandist – nor are others like myself I personally know who’ve appeared on one or both networks.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley called hostile moves against Russian media in America “cross(ing) a long-observed red line…”

“Countries around the world have long accused media of being tools of foreign governments as a pretense for (wrongful) investigations and arrests.”

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called US hostile actions against RT and Sputnik News an attempt to censor their operations, a cause for great concern. US and other foreign correspondents in Russia operate freely without interference.

If RT and Sputnik News are censored, undermined or shut down, Moscow will no doubt respond in kind – in keeping with what Sergey Lavrov called “parity,” the criterion Washington established.

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 Daily Beast.

TruePublica Editor: This is a really interesting article by a political scientist from the University of Colorado. It highlights the cost of military expenditure in the US and breaks down that cost as if presented to each citizen as a tax bill. One wonders just how much people would want to pay for the bombing of nations on the other side of the world and 800 global military bases if a military tax bill was presented each year! I wondered how this might compare in Britain?

In Britain, the overall military defence budget is around 2% of GDP or £45 billion. Add in the unfunded military pension scheme costing £4.5 billion (overall unfunded pension scheme approx. £130bn) per year that supports nearly half a million retirees. The lifetime healthcare costs of each amputee as a result of the Afghanistan conflict alone is costing £1.06million per person and there’s a few hundred of them to consider. In a breakdown of injuries sustained by military branch or service between 2006 and 2014, the British Army was hardest hit with 3,544 wounds, followed by the Royal Marines’ 383 injuries. The RAF sustained 190 and the Royal Navy sustained 40. A 2014 statistical analysis based on Freedom of Information (FoI) requests carried out by the military charity Help for Heroes claimed that up to 59,000 Afghanistan and Second Iraq War veterans could be suffering the effects of mental injury.

The true medical costs, plus housing and other benefits as a result of being unable to work are unknown. In addition, the cost of the activities of MI6 and GCHQ in terms of military ‘support’ is also not known. In fact, the true overall hidden costs just keep escalating. As a guesstimate, it would be more than reasonable to state that 3% of the national GDP goes towards supporting the military one way or another – or £1,634 per working age adult (aged 16-65). The ONS states that of this group of taxpayers, 8.7 million are not in work. Equally, the amount of total taxpayers, including taxpaying pensioners adds up to 29.5 million in total, or £2,271 per taxpayer. Median individual earnings in the UK sits at £21,000 per year. Of course taxation into the treasury comes from all sorts of sources but like the article below it highlights the cost of military expenditure on a more personal basis.

Mises Institute: Government employees and their apologists like to lecture Americans about how “freedom isn’t free.” And indeed it isn’t. In recent years, the US military establishment has cost the American taxpayer around $700 billion per year. Thanks to the hard work of the American taxpayer, the US military — and other “defense” agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security — the US government is the most well-funded in the world. In spite of numerous ongoing interventions worldwide, casualties in the US military are low thanks to highly-advanced technology funded by — you guessed it — the American taxpayer.

Now, for the sake of argument in this article, we’ll just assume that the full $700 billion per year has something to do with actual defense. This is a highly debatable notion, of course. As more astute observers have noted in the past decade, it is not at all clear that the trillions of dollars spent in Iraq and Afghanistan have done anything at all to augment security in the United States. We’ll also conveniently ignore the catastrophic failures of our extremely-well-heeled American security states, such as those on September 11, 2001.

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Table 4.1

All of that aside, we still find that American taxpayers are toiling mightily for their alleged freedom.

For this, reason, I’ve noted in the past that rather than the taxpayers thanking military personnel for their service, things should be the other way around: 

The taxpayers should be regularly approached on the street by soldiers and other government agents saying things like:

• “Thank you for paying me a salary that is higher than what I could earn with my skills and education level in the private sector.”
• “Thank you for providing us with state-of-the-art weapons, vehicles, and other equipment that keep casualties among American soldiers extremely low when compared with other militaries.”
• “Thank you for subsidizing my higher education, my mortgage, and for providing funding for other programs designed to assist veterans.”
• “Thank you for for getting up and going to work every day to so we call can enjoy a high standard of living, safe streets, and so much more that depends on a productive and hard working private-sector population.”

There is no doubt that $700 billion is a lot of taxpayer money. But just how does this total break down on a per-person basis?

Well, if we divide $700 billion by the 320 million people in the United States, the per-person total comes out to $2,187 dollars. That’s for each man, woman, and child.

But that’s not the real total. We also need to add in the substantial amounts paid in interest to service a debt that has largely been run up to finance military spending. To be conservative, let’s say that one-fifth of the interest goes toward servicing war debts.1

That brings us up to $2,300 per person, per year.2

Now, of course, these costs are not spread out evenly among all taxpayers. The relatively high-income households pay more than low-income people when it comes to federal taxes.

So, military personnel should especially be thanking higher-income taxpayers for their service.

But, if American were taxed evenly for military costs, that would mean that a family of four would be paying $9,200 per year for “defense.” After all, children need military defense, too, and somebody has to pay for it. Why not their parents?

A large family, say one with four children, would be paying $13,800.

Given that the median household income in the United States is $52,000, this is no small amount.

If we’re so concerned about Americans knowing that “freedom isn’t free” it might be best to move toward a fee-for-service model. In that case, Americans would be acutely aware of how much they’re shelling out for the military. On the other hand, were households faced with a $9,000 “defense” bill every year, they might be less inclined to thank someone else for spending all that money.

Taxation Via Regulation

None of this includes the many non-monetary ways that Americans are taxed to support the military establishment and its employees. We could also include as “taxation” the destruction of privacy in the name of “fighting terrorism.” Thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act, among other pieces of legislation, Americans are subject to many violations of their Fourth Amendment rights in the name of “protecting” freedom.

The many abuses and excesses of American airport security under the TSA are a form of taxation as well. Every time an American taxpayer is forced to miss a flight, has property confiscated, or is generally treated like garbage by the TSA, this is an additional cost imposed.

Border controls impose many costs as well. Americans are now routinely subjected to extensive searches and seizures at the border, as border agents rifle through personal effects, seize phones, and subject taxpayers to hours of questioning upon re-entry.

Moreover, in the name of security, the US can close off Americans from access to foreign resources. This occurs when the US imposes trade embargoes or other trade restrictions in the name of security. When an American wishes to buy goods from a person in a “restricted” country, or wishes to sell goods to a person in the same country, that cuts the American off from using her or her private property in a peaceful manner.

A similar problem occurs when the US denies entry to persons who have been invited into the US by American taxpayers. When a taxpayer invites a friend or colleague into the US — but then that friend or colleague is denied entry — this imposes yet another cost on American taxpayers.

None of these costs show up in tax bills, of course. But they exist.

All the while, we’re being told that these restrictions, embargoes, searches, domestic spy operations, and bans are all necessary to protect freedom and security. That may or may not be true. But even if they are true in some cases, let’s stop pretending that they’re not imposing a significant cost on those who are supposedly receiving a gift from government agents who are “serving” the American public.

This isn’t to say that defense of property — including human persons — is something that need not be done. Of course security is an essential service in any society. This is true even when monopolistic government agencies co-opt security services.

But, this doesn’t make security services special. Food production, energy production, and home construction are all essential services. Nevertheless, we’re not told to run up to farmers and oil workers and roofers and thank them for their “service.” But, we’d notice a lack of food, housing, and energy immediately, were those workers to disappear. Moreover, try running a military without food and gasoline. You’ll quickly find it’s rather difficult.

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Notes

1. See table 4.1 here: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

2. Active duty military personnel make up only 0.4 percent of the US population.

Featured image is from the author.

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

The right of self-defense is sacrosanct. International law affirms it, including in the UN Charter.

North Korea is threatened by possible US aggression. Without powerful deterrent weapons, it’s defenseless, an unacceptable situation no responsible leadership would permit.

That’s why it continues developing its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities – for defense, not offense. Pyongyang never preemptively attacked another country in its entire history. It threatens none now despite phony US accusations otherwise.

Washington needs to claim the fiction of a North Korean threat to maintain its northeast Asia military presence. The DPRK is a convenient punching bag, China and Russia the real targets.

If North Korea didn’t exist, it would have to be invented. Creating nonexistent threats is how America justifies its menacing military presence worldwide – the US, NATO, Israel and their rogue allies the only legitimate threats to humanity.

On Friday, Pyongyang conducted its latest ballistic missile test, a clear response to new Security Council sanctions it rejects.

Reports indicated the missile flew 3,700 km (2,300 miles), reaching an altitude of 770 km (478 miles). It overflew Japan’s Hokkaido island, splashing down harmlessly in Pacific waters – sending a clear message to America that it won’t be cowed by its hostile actions.

Rex Tillerson responded belligerently, demanding China and Russia take “direct actions” against Pyongyang, “indicat(ing) their intolerance” for these launches.

Japanese Prime Minister Sinzo Abe sounded like Nikki Haley, calling the DPRK’s latest test a “dangerous provocative action that threatens world peace.”

It’s unclear so far what type missile was tested, likely an intermediate-range Hwasong-12. South Korea conducted live-fire missile drills in response.

National Security Council meetings were called in Seoul and Tokyo. A closed-door Security Council meeting is scheduled for Friday afternoon.

Let’s see if I have this straight. It’s OK for America, Britain, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel to have nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, including tests conducted in their development.

Despite a real threat to its security, it’s unacceptable for North Korea to have the same weapons it wants solely as defensive deterrents against feared US aggression.

The disturbing double standard needs no explanation. As long as America threatens Pyongyang’s security, it’ll continue testing and developing its powerful weapons.

Counterproductive sanctions create a greater urgency to be as prepared as possible to deter possible US aggression.

Washington needs adversarial relations with Pyongyang, as explained above. Its tactics include hostile sanctions, threats, saber rattling and other provocations.

Expect more of the same following North Korea’s latest test – including likely unilateral US sanctions if Russia and China reject tougher Security Council ones.

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.

In the 1990s, US officials, all of whom would go on to serve in the George W. Bush White House, authored two short, but deeply important policy documents that have subsequently been the guiding force behind every major US foreign policy decision taken since the year 2000 and particularly since 9/11.

These documents include the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–99 fiscal years (more commonly known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine). This document, as the name implies was authored by George W. Bush’s deeply influential Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as well as I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who served as an advisor to former US Vice President Dick Cheney.

The other major document, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, from 1996 was authored by former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee in the administration of George W. Bush, Richard Norman Perle.

Both documents provide a simplistic but highly unambiguous blueprint for US foreign police in the Middle East, Russia’s near abroad and East Asia. The contents of the Wolfowitz Doctrine were first published by the New York Times in 1992 after they were leaked to the media. Shortly thereafter, many of the specific threats made in the document were re-written using broader language. In this sense, when comparing the official version with the leaked version, it reads in the manner of the proverbial ‘what I said versus what I meant’ adage.

By contrast, A Clean Break was written in 1996 as a kind of gift to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who apparently was not impressed with the document at the time. In spite of this, the US has implemented many of the recommendations in the document in spite of who was/is in power in Tel Aviv.

President George W. Bush, Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld, and Dep. Sec. Wolfowitz in March 2003. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

While many of the recommendations in both documents have indeed been implemented, their overall success rate has been staggeringly bad.  

Below are major points from the documents followed by an assessment of their success or failure. 

1. Regime change against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (A Clean Break)

This objective is in many ways both the clearest initial success and also the most strident overall failure.

In 1996, Richard Perle suggested that removing Saddam Hussein from power would be good for the US and Israeli interest because it would weaken a powerful, large Arab state that had poor relations with the US since 1990 and historically poor relations with multiple regimes in Tel Aviv. While Iraq’s President was removed from power by illegal force in 2003, that which happened subsequently, did not deliver the outcome Perle had desired.

A Clean Break suggests that a post-Saddam Iraq could and should be ruled by a restored Hashemite dynasty, which was originally overthrown in 1958. Perle continues to suggest that Jordan, the last remaining Hashemite state in the Arab world, could work with Israel and the US to make this happen. Even more absurdly, Perle suggests that a Hashemite would-be union between Jordan and Iraq would be able to command more loyalty from Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon than Iran.

The realities could not be more different. After the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq, the idea of restoring the Hashemite dynasty was never again floated in any serious forum, as the idea would be simply impossible to implement. There was no will among any major faction in Iraq to restore a monarchy that was overthrown in a revolution in 1958 that many Iraqis continue to look back on with national pride.

Ironically, the biggest Arab bulwark against a resurgent Iran was Saddam Hussein. In the 1980s, the future neo-cons realised this, though they seemingly ignored what they once knew, as early as in 1992.

Since Saddam Hussein’s removal from power and violent execution, Iraq’s majority Shi’a population have generally rallied around Iran politically, militarily and spiritually. Iraq has recently signed a defensive military pact with Iran and it is well known that many of the Shi’a volunteer brigades which are fighting ISIS in Iraq have received training and advice from Iranian experts.

While the US bases in Iraq make a US military presence closer to Iran than it was prior to 2003, by the same token Iran’s influence in the Arab world, especially in Iraq has grown substantially. In any case, the desired illegal ‘regime change’ war against Iran will likely never happen for two reasons. First of all, many in the Pentagon and in Washington moreover, realise that such a war would be an unmitigated disaster for the US and secondly, Iran has many influential international partners that it did not have in the 1990s, primarily Russia. Russia as well as China would not stand for a war on Iran in 2017.

In this sense, the US got very little of what it claimed it wanted in overthrowing Saddam apart from the weakening of a united Iraq.

2. ‘Containing’ Russia and China by preventing them from becoming superpowers (Wolfowitz Doctrine)

This policy has failed on every front. Since the rise of George W. Bush, the first White House adherent to the Wolfowitz Doctrine, Russia and China have risen to a status which means that there are three global superpowers, not the lone American superpower dreamt of by Wolfowitz and Libby.

China’s economic rise has fuelled a more robust stance from Beijing on global affairs. China now vigorously defends its claims in the South China Sea, has continually outflanked the US on the Korean issue, is engaged in the building of One Belt–One Road, the most wide reaching trade and commerce initiative in modern history and has opened its first military base overseas.

At the same time, the People’s Liberation Army continues its modernisation programme, making it as formidable a force which for all practical purposes, is as battle ready and capable as those of the US and Russia, countries which during the Cold War, had far superior armed forces to China.

Likewise, Russia’s return to superpower status, has been equally crushing in respect of the goals of Wolfowitz and Libby. Russia has not only strengthened old alliances but is now an important ally or partner to countries which were former Cold War opponents or otherwise non-aligned countries. This is true in respect of Russia’s alliances and partnerships with China, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, Philippines and increasingly Indonesia. Russia is also becoming ever closer to South Korea and even Japan.

With Russia’s military now boasting modern defence systems which can rival those of the US and in many cases are objectively superior to those of the US, the idea that the US would prevent Russia from re-attaining super-power status and China emerging as a super-power has become a patent absurdity.

3. Containing Syria via Turkey and Jordan (A Clean Break)

For a while, this plan was implemented with some degree of success by the Obama administration. While Jordan never played a substantial part in the proxy wars on Syria, apart from being a NATO transport corridor, Turkey did help to undermine Syria’s sovereignty with its armed forces and its own proxies.

While relations between Turkey and Syria remain poor, relations between Turkey and the rest of its NATO ‘allies’ is also poor.

Turkey has quietly ceased its support for terrorist groups (aka the opposition) in Syria, is participating in the Astana Peace Process with long time Syrian allies Russia and Iran and is engaged in multiple trading and commercial deals with Russia, including the purchase of the Russian made S-400 missile defence system.

The overall result of Turkey’s participation in the Syrian conflict has been a strengthening of Turkey’s relationship with historical adversaries, Russia and Iran, something which has happened simultaneously to Turkey’s essentially dead relationship with the EU and its incredibly weakened relationship with the US.

All the while, Ba’athist Syria has emerged from the conflict victorious with its commitment to the Palestinian cause as strong as ever.

Far from being “contained”, Syria is now more admired throughout the wider world than at any time in the last three decades.

4. Molesting Russia’s borderlands (Wolfowitz Doctrine)

In the original text of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, there was a provision stating that the US must work to make sure that places like Ukraine and Belarus became part of the US economic and geo-political orbit, maintaining both “market economies” and “democracies”.

The 2014 US engineered coup against the legitimate government in Kiev was a knee-jerk US response to the fact that Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych rejected an economic association agreement with the EU, under the guise that the Ukrainian economy cannot afford to cut itself off from Russia.

17 December 2013 Ukrainian–Russian action plan (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Yanukovych was subsequently overthrown in a violent coup, and a neo-fascist pro-western regime was installed. However, this can hardly be considered a success as the sheer violence and incompetence of the current Kiev regime has made it so that Ukraine, a place whose borders were always dubious to begin with, will almost inevitably fracture into something unrecognisable.

Already, much of Donbass has been incorporated into the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics that will never go back to Kiev rule and Crimea, whose relationship with Kiev was even more tenuous is now happily reunited with the rest of the Russian Federation.

Seeing the coup in Kiev, Belorussian President Alexander Lukashenko has pledged to crack down on any would be trouble-makers, all while remaining a committed albeit tantrum prone ally of Russia.

The only part of this element of the Wolfowitz Doctrine which has not been a failure has been the weaponisation of eastern Europe. The reason this has succeeded is due to the fact that Russia has no interest in invading eastern Europe. Russia has merely responded by building up its defences against NATO’s provocative weaponisation of Poland and the Baltic States.

5. Weakening Hezbollah (A Clean Break)

In 2017, Hezbollah is not only more popular than ever, but is militarily might is stronger than at any time in its history. Hezbollah’s role in fighting terrorism in Syria has won the party praise from groups in Lebanon that previously were never keen on Hezbollah, as well as individuals in the wider world who seek to build a genuine anti-terrorist coalition.

The conflict in Syria has drawn Iran, Iraq, Syria and southern Lebanon (the heartland of Hezbollah) closer together than they have ever been. This has in many ways been a result of the common cause of fighting groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda that bound them all together.

In 2006, Hezbollah dealt Israeli forces a major defeat in South Lebanon. Today, Hezbollah is even stronger and everyone in Israel is all too aware of this.

This was a major failure in respect of implementing the ‘destruction’ of Hezbollah advocated by Richard Perle.

6. North Korea not to be allowed nuclear weapons (Wolfowitz Doctrine)

The fact that North Korea just tested what is widely believed to be a hydrogen bomb, is a clear indication that this major goal of Wolfowitz and Libby has failed.

Beyond this, while Russia has condemned both North Korea and US led provocative acts on the Korean peninsula, Russian President Vladimir Putin has acknowledged that North Korea does have the right to self-defence, something which has become even more prescient after North Korea witnessed the destruction of Iraq and Libya which did not have weapons capable of deterring a US invasion.

Russia and China have clearly seized the initiative on the Korean issue. Apart from launching a disastrous war on North Korea, the US can now do little to change the realities in Pyongyang.

Conclusion:

The aggregate effect of this analysis indicates that the US is still highly capable of starting wars and igniting conflicts throughout the world, but that it is likewise hardly ever capable of winning these conflicts or even achieving a majority of its own stated goals.

As the two most revealing foreign policy documents from the US in the post-Cold War era, both the Wolfowitz Doctrine and A Clean Break have been abject failures. In many cases, in attempting to achieve the goals of these documents, the United States has ended up achieving the opposite.

The US is militarily strong, but strategically, diplomatically and geo-politically, it is actually close to impotent.

Featured image is from Michal Shlapentokh-Rothman / Prezi.

Featured image: Chelsea Manning (Source: NPR)

“I have an obligation to my conscience – and I believe to the country – to stand up against any efforts to justify leaks of sensitive national security information.” – Michael Morrell, former Deputy Director, CIA, Sep 14, 2017

Michael Morrell could barely stomach the revelation, which tormented him like indigestible gruel. Chelsea Manning was coming to Harvard’s Institute of Politics.

“Harvard,” noted Alex Ward, “gained a celebrity, and it just lost a distinguished public servant.”[1]

In a letter to Douglas Elmendorf, dean of the Kennedy School, Morrell, the former acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, barely contained his disgust at the decision making Manning a visiting fellow.

In quitting his post at the Belfer Center for his scandalized conscience, one favourably attuned to drone warfare and torture, Morrell recycled and regurgitated the tried and untested themes that remain the staple of the secret state.

“Senior leaders have stated publicly that the leaks by Ms Manning put the lives of US soldiers at risk.”[2] (Even Morrell stops short of citing deaths or injuries.)

Morrell saw in Manning the efforts of a celebrity criminal on the road of justification.

“The Kennedy School’s decision will assist Ms Manning in her long standing effort to legitimize the criminal path that she took to prominence, an attempt that may encourage others to leak classified material as well”.

The last assertion is precisely the reason why Manning should be garlanded with floral tributes of acknowledgement on getting to the Kennedy School. Even President Barack Obama, whose administration proved crack addicted to prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, had to concede as a presidential candidate that revealing abuses and corruptions were indispensable to the health of the republic.

Despite hardening on getting to the White House, Obama did issue an executive order and sign a law beefing up whistleblower protections in 2012. As ever, he preferred to keep the intelligence community in its traditional, singular nook, where officials remain squeamish about notions that a whistleblower might be anything better than a flag tarnishing traitor.

Obama did make one concession on Manning’s legacy in reducing her draconian 35-year old prison sentence, deeming it “very disproportionate relative to what other leakers had received.” Not exactly the sort of statement to expect for a person who had supposedly put US soldiers at such mortal risk.

The president, nevertheless, made it unquestionably clear that Manning was an example of gold standard deviance, what should not be done when advancing a cause.

“I feel very comfortable that justice has been served and that a message has still been sent.”

The Manning appointment cast an eager cat amongst very puzzle pigeons. Appearances were cancelled, notes sent more in sorry than anger. Current CIA director Mike Pompeo was certainly one of those explicit in describing Manning as an “American traitor,” a point he made to Harvard’s Rolf Mowatt-Larssen after cancelling a scheduled appearance at the university.

While it was not a decision taken “lightly,” the CIA director had made the miraculous discovery of having a conscience, a troubled one which “will not permit me to betray [CIA staff] by appearing to support Harvard’s decision with my appearance at tonight’s event.”[3]

Again, in robotic unison with other CIA officials past and present, Pompeo would assert that Manning’s actions, according to “many intelligence and military officials,” had “put the lives of the patriotic men and women at the CIA in danger.”

Even worse for Pompeo was that the Manning decision was something of a stab wound, cruel, indifferent to servicemen and women, not least of all the director himself, who had gotten a degree from that university.

“I am especially saddened because I hold a degree from Harvard Law School.”

Any academic institution worth its sacred salt ought to have a wide tent, suitably capacious, to accommodate the wounded, the tainted heroes, the credible deviants. If an institution appoints fellows from an organisation that overseas insurrections, disruptions and the occasional off-the-record killing, it would surely be appropriate to have that person’s counter, the whistleblower, the person who reveals, to provide some context. Patriotism, a refuge for the scoundrel that it is, affords space for the many.

Reading Pompeo’s letter reveals an exercise of acne-ridden disappointment, the pubescent whose voice is just breaking, a pain that the world of grey is far more evident in his circles than one of light and dark.

“The very motto of Harvard ‘Veritas’, truth, is a core principal [sic] of the agency I now lead. We deliver the truth to America’s leaders everyday.”

Touching that an agency specialising in mendacity, dissimulation and disinformation should be so dedicated to the holy verities.

One such salient verity is worth recounting, notably in terms of its whistleblowing legacy. Farcically bitter as this is, a former CIA employee was sentenced to 30 months in prison for revealing that waterboarding was deployed in the heyday of the “War on Terror”. It proved to be the very person who exposed its practice, rather than any perpetrator, whose identity had been unlawfully revealed. Presumably John Kiriakou would have such doors to academic fertilization and discussion closed, his mind forever caged by the law’s presumption that he had betrayed his country. Veritas indeed!

Manning’s role remains Socratic in its tragedy, remarkable in its endurance. Far better a fallen individual who has served time in actually breaching laws to expose crimes and misdemeanours, than counterfeit saints or pious servants revered by the choristers of patriotism.

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

Notes

The United Nations Human Rights Council reportedly plans to go ahead with the publication of a list of companies operating in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory and the Golan Heights, in spite of immense diplomatic pressure from the United States and Israel.

According to a report published Tuesday by Israel’s Channel 2, the full list will be published in December, and will include some of the biggest firms in the Israeli industry as well as major US companies, a translation of the report from Times of Israel said.

Some of the international companies on the list reportedly include Coca-Cola, TripAdvisor, Airbnb, Priceline, and Caterpillar, in addition to Israeli companies such as pharmaceutical giant Teva, the national phone company Bezeq, bus company Egged, the national water company Mekorot, and the country’s two largest banks, Hapoalim and Leumi.

The list was recently delivered to the Foreign Ministry, the report said.

Last year, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution to support forming a database of all companies conducting business in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, amid fierce opposition by the United States and Israel.

The Washington Post previously reported that Zeid Raad al-Hussein, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said that the UN planned to publish the list by the end of this year, which prompted the Donald Trump administration to work with Israel to obstruct its publication.

However, according to the US newspaper, Israel and the United States had unsuccessfully attempted to block funding for the database.

PLO Executive Committee Member Hanan Ashrawi condemned the US and Israeli efforts at the UN as “morally repugnant” at the time.

The attempt “exposes the complicity of Israeli and international businesses in Israel’s military occupation and the colonization of Palestinian land,” Ashrawi said. “This is a clear indication of Israel’s persistent impunity and sense of entitlement and privilege.”

Ashrawi highlighted in her statement that Israel’s settlement activities constituted a “war crime” and were in direct violation of international law and several UN resolutions.

“Any company that chooses to do business in the illegal settlements becomes complicit in the crime and therefore liable to judicial accountability,” she said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has complained that the list unfairly targets Israel and has noted that it was part of the larger Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which targets specific companies profiting off of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and falls within the traditions of the nonviolent boycott movement against the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Israel and the United States have been starkly opposed to any move that could give weight to the BDS movement, and have often claimed that any support of a boycott against Israel amounts to anti-Semitism.

Israel has tightened the noose on the BDS movement in recent months, most notably by passing the anti-BDS law, which bans foreign individuals who have openly called for a boycott of Israel from entering the country.

Furthermore, Israel has routinely condemned the UN for what it sees as their anti-Israel stance, as numerous resolutions have been passed in recent months condemning Israel’s half-century occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and its relentless settlement enterprise that has dismembered the Palestinian territory.

However, Palestinians and activists have long pointed out that nonviolent movements, expressed both in BDS activities and raising awareness on the international stage, are some of the last spaces to challenge Israel’s occupation, as Israeli forces have clamped down on popular movements in the Palestinian territory, leaving many Palestinians with diminished hope for the future.

Several power centers were formed in Libya as a result of the fall of Muammar Gaddafi‘s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the destruction of the statehood. None of them has a national legitimacy. The pursuit of personal interests by some political leaders to the detriment of the general state is intertwined with territorial fragmentation. The historic regions – Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan – have de facto separated from each other. The Libyan phenomenon of the city-state arose (Misrata, Al-Zintan, Sirte, etc.). The separatist tendencies of the tribes grew stronger.

Along with it, the UN attempts to stabilize the situation in the country. In December 2015, the United Nations brokered the Libyan Political Agreement (LPA), the Presidential Council (PC) was set up and a Government of National Accord (GNA) headed by Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj was formed. The agreement also confirmed the legitimacy of the House of Representatives (HoR) based in Tobruk in eastern Libya with the support of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, the Libyan National Army (LNA) commander.

Despite the UN efforts, however, the conflict between Islamist, Anti-Islamist, secular, tribal and simply criminal groups which resulted in another civil war is caused by historic, social, economic and political circumstances including the interests and interference of foreign parties. NATO involvement in contravention of UNSC Resolution 1973 only turned Libya into a perfect place for terrorist and extremist groups, a center for human trafficking and cheap resources market.

Today, the country is de facto divided by the East-West axis. The eastern regions are under LNA control. In early July, Marshal Haftar’s troops recaptured Benghazi partly stabilizing the situation in the East.

Meanwhile, in the West, the tension between the groups allegedly supporting Fayez al-Sarraj’s Government of National Accord and those who were loyal to Khalifa al-Ghawil‘s Government of National Salvation grew into violent clashes. Rival militias have been battling heavily against one another in Tripoli since December 2016.

The South of the once rich and beautiful country became a battlefield of the eastern and western sides, tribes and terrorists where Haftar’s supporters were slain by the Misrata-based Third Force militants in early May 2017.

The crisis is aggravating because of various Salafist jihadi groups with different ideologies that are in constant conflict in western Libya. Such groups include Libya Dawn (Libya Fajr), the Benghazi Revolutionaries Shura Council, Ansar al-Sharia, the 17 February Martyrs Brigade, the Libya Shield Force, the Libyan Petroleum Facilities Guard (PFG), etc.

However, the West, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey possess more powerful tools in destabilizing the region e.g. ISIS, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and the Muslim Brotherhood.

A key part in counteracting IS and AQIM belongs to general Haftar who is taking measures to eliminate jihadists on the Libyan soil, near Sabha and Sirte cities in particular. Having lost Sirte, the terrorists dispersed in three directions: to the southwest of Sabha, to the west of Sabratah and to the southeast near the Sudan border. The main problem of neutralizing the groups is that they are being reinforced with volunteers from Tunis, Algeria, Mali, Chad and Nigeria and the terrorists fleeing from Syria and Iraq.

However, while the situation in the east has stabilized, the western regions are less stable and prone to changes. Mostly, this is tied to the lack of political will of Sarraj and the GNA, and to the diversity of the ultra-conservative Salafist groups in the west.

Although these opposing factions are nominally loyal to Prime Minister Saraj, experience has shown that they are not associated with any political leader. The most telling example is when at the end of October 2016, the forces of Haitham Tajouri, who heads Tripoli’s largest militia and who was allegedly loyal to the Government of National Salvation, allowed the units of Khalifa al-Ghawil to seize a number of ministries in Tripoli. There is also a question of the legitimacy of supporting these essentially terrorist formations by Fayez al-Sarraj. Probably, the latter uses them as a force capable in the future to counter the rising popularity of Khalifa Haftar among the population of Libya.

Unlike Prime Minister F. Saraj, Marshal H. Haftar is a serious military and political figure on the Libyan chessboard capable of uniting tribes and clans under his banners, limiting the flows of illegal migration to the EU, liquidating the terrorist organizations like ISIS, AKIM and Muslim Brotherhood, thus restoring the statehood in the country.

All images in this article are from the author.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative portends a monumental transformation of the global economic order; one which poses an existential threat to the Pax Americana which has existed since the end of the Cold War. Understanding this context is critical to making sense of the current hysteria gushing from the NGO-Industrial complex and being fuelled by Western liberal punditry.

As I’ve argued previously, decisions taken by the Trump administration since January indicate a shift in US foreign policy. No longer concerned with waging petty wars on behalf of the Israel lobby and the billionaire class, attention has been focused acutely on Asia, and in particular China. Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon was quite forthright about this in his August 16 interview with American Prospect magazine:

“To me, the economic war with China is everything. We have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we’re five years away, I think, 10 years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we’ll never be able to recover.”

Without a hint of irony, Bannon later added

“China right now is Germany in 1930. It’s on the cusp. It could go one way or the other.” “A hundred years from now, this is what they’ll remember — what we did to confront China on its rise to world domination.” “We have to reassert ourselves as the real Asian power: economically, militarily, culturally, politically.”

China’s BRI is an $8 trillion infrastructure project which aims to rebuild the ancient Silk Road, integrating the Eurasian continent in a vast network of road, rail and sea routes across 60 plus countries, and absorbing much of China’s current overcapacity in what President Xi Jinping describes as an open, innovative path to win-win cooperation. It also signals the end of permanent US global hegemony.

Significant foreign policy decisions taken so far under the Trump administration include strategic retreat from Syria, increased hostilities toward Iran, dropping the 11-ton mother-of-all-bombs on eastern Afghanistan, and a doubling down on troop deployment in America’s longest war. All of these are signs of a single-minded approach focused on disrupting China’s growing regional influence by any and all means possible.

One of six economic corridors making up the BRI, the 2800 km Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) corridor will link Kolkata in India with Kunming in China’s Yunnan province, via Dhaka (Bangladesh) and Mandalay (Myanmar). The central hub of this corridor is the Kyaukphyu Special Economic Zone (KSEZ), which includes an express railway and deep water port, and has the potential to turn Myanmar into a regional logistics hub drawing in trade from neighbouring Thailand and Laos.

Source: International Road Transport Union / Los Angeles Times

But rather than a great opportunity for regional development, the generals at the Pentagon see the BCIM as an enemy supply line. With the US flexing its military muscle in the South China Sea and eyeing off the Strait of Malacca – a potential choke point for the supply of oil into China – the $10bn Sino-Myanmar pipeline running from the Bay of Bengal to China’s Yunnan province is now critical to China’s energy security. Placing Rakhine state under US/NATO protection would be an obvious way to sabotage this project.

Like the Uighur of China’s Xingxang province, Myanmar’s Rakhine Muslim minority, known more widely as ‘Rohingya’, include insurgent groups backed by Western political interests, such as Harakah al-Yaqin, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. Playing the role of agents provocateur in the latest round of psy-ops, reports from locals accuse these radicals of burning their own villages and killing their own people in order to incite violence. Additionally, their violent crimes against the local Buddhist population have provoked brutal counter attacks against ethnic Muslims across the country – violence which the “international community” blames on the Burmese authorities.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been the darling of the liberal ‘free press’ for two decades. The poster child for Burmese independence, her opposition to Myanmar’s military Junta earned her a Nobel Peace Prize and 15 years under house arrest before her National League for Democracy finally won a landslide victory in 2015. Suu Kyi now finds herself in the illustrious company of Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega and Ngo Dinh Diem – a rogue asset whose lease has expired and who is about to be thrown under the proverbial bus.

So far the Russian foreign ministry is not buying the imperial line on Myanmar, and China has refused to support UN involvement in the crisis.

Turkey has been most vocal in its calls for humanitarian intervention, which comes as no surprise given its track record. It was Turkey after all which led the call to arms on behalf of Libyan Muslims, allegedly the victims of rape and genocide under the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi. Embarrassingly Amnesty International would later be forced to admit that these claims weren’t based on any actual evidence – sadly too late for Ghadaffi, whose capture and extra-judicial execution set a new low standard for network TV voyeurism. Turkey was also an important player in the six year effort to topple Syria’s secular democracy and replace it with a Wahhabist theocracy favourable to Western oil interests. Unlike Libya, which was completely destroyed and handed over to terrorists within six months, Syria has so far survived, thanks to the dedication and determination of its army and its allies, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

Before we allow our emotions to be manipulated into supporting more humanitarian violence, we should have no illusions about what comes next. Responsibility to Protect is almost always a precursor to genocide. One of the principle advocates of the Libyan war was French public intellectual and media personality Bernard-Henri Lévy. When asked by BBC Hard Talk’s Stephen Sackur

“Would you agree that the military intervention in Libya is not going the way you hoped it would?”,

Lévy replied

“No (laughs) No no, I never doubted it would go this way.”

This article was originally published by The Last Yawn.

Featured image is from Asia Times.

As I heard Florida’s governor demanding gas, I wondered why they don’t learn from Cuba, and send buses. Cuba was there in the CBC newscasts about Florida. It was the country under the satellite image, under the “lingering” eye of category five Irma. For hours, that awful image was in the background as the CBC anchor kept returning to Florida’s need for gas.

They won’t learn from Cuba. And it is not because Cuba is part of the world’s “left-overs”, who don’t count and whose ideas don’t count either. It’s not even because of Cold War mentality. The problem is deeper. It’s about culture and truth. In short, it’s about a culture that denies truth.

The popular cultural anthropologist, Wade Davis, says cultures teach us about humanness.[i] He claims to catalogue cultural wealth to know what it means to be human. He gives a platform to cultural representatives expressing “the better angels of our nature”.

He doesn’t catalogue the culture of imperialism. And he gives no platform to the cultures of resistance long opposing it. He writes,

“Within this diversity of knowledge and practise [of cultures] … we will all rediscover the enchantment of being what we are, a conscious species”.

Well, not all.

Cuban scholar, Juan Marinello, writes that one of the great puzzles about Cuba, for its enemies, is how ideas have survived. Somehow, in the late nineteenth century, with the US in economic glory, Jose Martí, independence leader, knew Latin Americans could be modern and free without following the US.

And he grasped something not then expressed, which 60 years later would galvanize the poor on three continents: anti-imperialism. Many who study Cuba fail to understand, or even to ask, how such ideas remained motivating through six dark decades of US cultural imposition after Martí’s death.

It’s because they were true. In the North, we don’t believe in truth. Sure, we believe in science. But when it comes to better ways to live, that is, better than what we imagine or expect, given how we currently live, based on values we already hold, there’s no truth.

There are different ways to see things, but they’re “all good”. None are closer to the truth than others because, after all, “who’s to say?” Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor, says we live in an “age of authenticity” when the ultimate authority on well-being is ourselves.

Davis is typical. He tells us no one who understands the life of the Waorani of Ecuador would want it preserved. But, regrettably, the Penan of Borneo lost a “unique vision of life”. We see that only some cultures express our “better angels”. But Davis doesn’t say how he decides. Supposedly, he just knows.

Martí knew that imperialist culture, like Davis, just knows. And Martí knew it didn’t. Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educator, knew it too.

Freire claimed that “authentic humanity” has to be discovered, and moreover that it is impossible that it not be discovered.[ii] Of course. The “non-persons” exist, as people. Martí and Freire could not not know the imperialist claim was false. They were human. They knew it and they knew that they knew it.

One of the first things that struck me about Cuba was that they take seriously the task Davis dismisses: how to know what it means to be human. When I mentioned this in academic presentations, I got jeered. In retrospect, I don’t think I was understood. How could I be?

There is not that expectation where I live. True, plenty of people dedicate themselves to self-help. But the self-help industry is not about being better people. It is about pursuing happiness. It is not about being better. It is about feeling better – about yourself.

Sometimes, to know something is true, you have to live it. And sometimes you live it, and you don’t fully understand, but you know you’re empowered in some way, humanly. So, you keep on.

It’s what happened to Thelma in the 1990s film, Thelma and Louise: Two women claim their independence from dominating men. Their lives get hard. Louise asks Thelma if she wants to go back. Thelma says, “I don’t know about you, Louise, but something’s crossed over in me and I can’t go back”.

That’s what I heard Cubans saying in the early 90s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the US tightening the blockade. They were skinny, alone, almost universally mocked. I asked,

“Where are you going?” The answer: “We don’t know but we won’t turn back.”

Like Thelma: You find truth, you live it and you learn about human capacities. You continue. It’s more compelling than “happiness”, and more interesting.

Floridians can’t learn from Cuba. Progressive academics talk about listening to the oppressed and marginalized. They debate “epistemic injustice”. But they forget the need for a question, for doubt. Listening is not the issue. Respect is not the issue.

Academics can listen to cultures of resistance without learning about humanness if they think they already know, and if there’s no doubt, no question. The Second Declaration of Havana (1962) states that

“Cuba and Latin America are part of … the struggle of the subjugated people; the clash between the world that is dying and the world that is being born”.

We won’t learn about the world being born. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, North Korea have “pointed out the danger hovering over America and called it by its name: imperialism”. Those who want the real “enchantment”, based on truths, must do the same. Truths, about how to live freely as human beings, are not got academically, not now. Anti-imperialism must raise the question.

Ana Belén Montes raised the question. She’s in jail under harsh conditions. [iii] (Please sign petition here.)

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

Notes

[i] Light at the Edge of the World (2007); The Wayfinders (2009).

[ii] Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970)

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

Featured image is from el-toro | CC BY 2.0.