Gay Plebiscites: Australia’s Crisis on Same-Sex Marriage

August 8th, 2017 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

What a fabulous mess. And a churning one it is for the Australian government, now mired in yet another farce of weak leadership and bullying factions. A mess for those who feel that this issue need never have gotten this far. A mess for others who just wish to be left alone with their decisions. Such is the nature of the same-sex marriage debate down under.

While other countries have been going along their merry way, through parliament or through the ballot box, to legalise gay marriage, Australia remains suspended. In Germany, the Bundestag finally agreed to pass a four-year-old bill legalising same-sex marriage. Earlier this year, Finland and Slovenia joined the growing ranks. The politicians in Canberra, however, continue to limp.

The Liberal party room antics have managed to stir the political spectrum with vigour. A handful of MPs from the government side began issuing threats: take the vote to Parliament, or we will force the issue. (The opposition Labor Party has threatened, at points, to do so, though this would necessitate a suspension of standing orders.)

Tony Abbott - 2010.jpg

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, ever sniping against the man who ousted him, suggests that the Turnbull government is no longer in control of much. With authoritarian tenacity, he insists that “Coalition MPs are honour-bound to oppose same-sex marriage in the absence of a plebiscite.”[1]

Another former Australian prime minister and verbal knuckle duster Paul Keating was venomous as ever on the Liberal Party wobbling:

“‘I didn’t want to vote for gay marriage – the plebiscite made me do it!’ Is that what this is all about?”[2]

On Monday, the wobblers and the firmly rooted within the party gathered to deliberate the issue. Potential renegades who threatened to take the matter to the floor of parliament and make the issue of same-sex marriage Parliament’s business failed to change the party’s course.

The cabinet wished to push for another vote in parliament to have a plebiscite, another tactic that is bound to fail given the composition of the Senate. No matter, claims Finance Minister Matthias Corman, whose determination remains a testament to hope over experience.

“Our preference is to give the Australian people a say through a compulsory attendance plebiscite.”[3]

This is the stance favoured by the hardliners who remain committed to delaying what can only be the inevitable. For them, resolving the same-sex marriage debate through Parliament in the absence of a plebiscite would break an electoral promise.

Another alternative was also put on the table: a non-binding postal vote, and even more strikingly for Australian polls, a non-compulsory one, that would bypass any Senate opposition. For MP Craig Kelly, this was, by far and away, the “second-best option”.

Advocates for gay marriage see a plebiscite as a muddling, disgruntling affair. It will agitate the prejudiced, stimulate the bigots, and tease the tax payer’s purse strings. And for what? Those against same-sex marriage are not necessarily going to vote for a change in the Marriage Act, given their burning consciousness. In short, all pantomime and show.

Image result

Alex Greenwich (Source: Heaps Gay)

The Australian Marriage Equality group was none too impressed by the proposal. Alex Greenwich, the group’s co-chair, deemed the postal plebiscite “a bloody stupid idea that will weaken Parliament because it basically says people are not prepared to do their job.”[4]

Greenwich and his colleagues are also finding a legal route to frustrate the government proposals. They may well have good reason in succeeding, given a lack of authority to expend funds on such a venture. Bypassing the senate, whose authority would be needed to finalise such supply, would be distinctly prohibited.

Today host Karl Stefanovic, who makes a habit of disturbing the airwaves with headlines, told the political classes in Canberra to pull their proverbial fingers out “and get on with it”.

“Why do we elect officials if not to make decisions that reflect our beliefs?”

The default of Australian democracy is parliamentary paternalism. Much red-faced consternation tends to take place about the supposed effectiveness of a system that remains a constitutional monarchy, overseen by the unelected official in Canberra known as the governor general.

Nonetheless, the Australian High Court, in 2013, made it clear that marriage as termed in the Australian Constitution refers to a consensual, enduring union between natural persons entailing mutual rights and obligations, terminable in accordance with prescribed formalities.[5] In less than gentle fashion, the judges also preferred the matter to be resolved through Parliament.

The plebiscite, in short, will be mere pageantry. Parliament will ultimately decide the matter irrespective of the outcome. The actual decision on whether Australia decides, kicking and waddling, to change an old law will still resolve itself by personal prejudice. The window dressing approach will be to term this a matter of conscience.

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

Notes

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Gay Plebiscites: Australia’s Crisis on Same-Sex Marriage

To allege ‘antisemitism’ is a bogus defence to a 10 year illegal blockade of essential goods against 2m civilians in Gaza; the illegal settlement of 600,000 Israelis on to Palestinian land; the razing of Arab villages, their homes and olive groves – and is a deliberate deception to cover the criminal acts of an undeclared nuclear-weapons state, (armed and funded by a lobby-controlled US Congress), that is arguably the greatest threat to world peace since WW2.  

Its undeclared arsenal is estimated to contain up to 400 nuclear warheads, plus a fleet of German-built, nuclear-armed, Dolphin-class submarines, sufficient to destroy the entire Middle East and most of Europe. Yet the Israeli government continues to defend the indefensible by cries of ‘antisemitism’ that have intimidated European governments to bring in legislation to defend Jewish communities as a result. Meanwhile the occupation and illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories, continue unabated, as does the consequential criticism against those who support such criminal activity.

Unless the Israeli state is forced to:

1. declare its nuclear weapons arsenal and subject it to immediate inspection by the IAEA and to become a party to the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, as per the European Union and the international community

2. become a party to both the Chemical Weapons (CWC) and Biological Weapons (BWC) Conventions, as per the European Union and the international community

3. repatriate all Israeli citizens from Palestinian land, back to their homes in Israel behind the Green line, and to dismantle all illegal settlements in compliance with UNSC Resolution 2334

4. return to the negotiating table to agree the terms for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, within twelve months

5. declare all of Jerusalem to remain an international city with free access to all faiths as per UN Resolution and as agreed by the European Union and the international community

then inevitably there will be war, leading to devastation of unknown proportions that will spill over into Europe and probably the rest of the world.

The constant cry of ‘antisemitism’ from the perpetrators of violent occupation, is a smokescreen to further expropriate Palestinian land in a bid to illegally extend territory beyond the Green line.

This must be resisted at all costs to avoid a nuclear conflagration from which there can be no return. Time is of the essence. The UN and the EU must act, for it is now already very late in this strategic game. Britain and Europe are now vulnerable to both a nuclear threat from the Middle East and from secret, nuclear-armed submarines with cruise missiles that even now patrol the seas around Europe, unseen.

In an unpredictable, unstable world that is becoming subject to harsh climate change; unprecedented refugee flows from Africa and the Middle East plus the threat of a nuclear conflict – Britain needs to remember that its first duty is neither Brexit, nor GDP, nor full employment but the survival of the state and its citizens.

That duty would appear not to be recognised by a British parliament seemingly intent on colluding with a non-European, non-NATO supplier of guns, pharmaceuticals and security software, in order to assist both parties to remain in power.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Condemning Israeli Occupation and Illegal Settlements Is Not, and Never Has Been, an Anti-Semitic Reference

While the Syrian Arab Army backed by allied forces is conducting a successful counter-terrorism operation along the Euphrates River, Al Qaeda Hayat Tahrir al-Sham continues to strengthen in the south of the province of Idlib. And furthermore, the militants intend to become ‘moderate opposition’.

This is confirmed by the fact that nowadays Hayat Tahrir al-Sham fighters are campaigning to unite all radical formations of the province under its authority.

According to sources of Inside Syria Media Center, several large radical organizations Idlib have already joined Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham.

On August 3, 2017, the representatives of Hizb al-Islami al-Turkistani, the Turkistan Islamic Party in Syria, agreed on temporary cooperation with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in the city of Jisr al-Shughur.

Besides, leaders of Suqour al-Sham also signed an agreement on cooperation with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham at the meeting in the town of Ariha.

According to the Syrian Arab Army’s High Command, most likely, this will be followed by a renaming of the extended terrorist group. According to it, this is necessary for militants to turn their terrorist group in a ‘moderate opposition group’. Such a rebranding will allow Hayat Tahrir al-Sham fighters to participate in the political process in Syria.

It is also likely that if a state decides to support such a group openly, it may not fear accusations of links with terrorists, since assistance will be provided to a new “moderate” organization.

Simultaneously, according to Brigadier General of the Syrian Army Fouvaz Mustafa, militants of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham are preparing for a large-scale offensive in the direction of the city of Hama. In its turn, it is possible that this will make the SAA to redeploy forces, transfer some of the troops from the direction of Deir ez-Zor, and reduce the pressure on surrounded ISIS terrorists.

According to Syrian experts, such altruism of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham seems quite strange, because previously these groups have never cooperated with each other. In this regard, it becomes obvious that both organizations are not independent players, but only puppets in the hands of influential sponsors, whose intervention is nothing more than hopelessness.

In any case, the strengthening of the position of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and their far-reaching plans threaten to become another threat for Syria. Despite the fact that the positions of the terrorists have noticeably weakened, the government forces should not let their guard down. Now they need to do their best to prevent radical groups and their backers from escalation the situation in the country.

Anna Jaunger is a freelance journalist at Inside Syria Media Center.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria Faces New Threat: Al Qaeda Affiliate Hayat Tahir al-Sham Seeks to Unite Radical Terrorist Formations

Obesity is one case that is growing more rapidly worldwide. According to the OECD Health Statistics 2017, the United States has the largest percentage of obesity cases among population aged 15 years and above, led by women. 

Source: OECD (2017), OECD Health Statistics 2017 (Forthcoming in June 2017). www.oecd.org/health/health-data.htm
Note: The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

***

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obesity is Growing Worldwide: Americans Are Overweight, The World’s Fattest People

The “War On Terror”, an outgrowth of the crimes of September 11, 2001[1], was never a war on terror. It has always been a campaign for permanent war and terror. War is terror.

The terrorists in Syria, including al Qaeda[2], are proxies for the West’s dirty war on Syria. They are aided and abetted by illegal sanctions and every tactic used by the West to destroy the country and its institutions. Any action that the West takes against the Syrian Arab Army or the Syrian government aids the terrorists, since the SAA and the Syrian government are the dominant forces fighting the terrorists.

The veil of confusion drops every time the official narratives change. The terrorists who reportedly flew into the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon were, reportedly, al Qaeda[3]. Al Qaeda is the supposed enemy. But the West supports al Qaeda and all the terrorists in Syria, so whereas al Qaeda is one of humanity’s enemies, al Qaeda is the ally of those who control the levers of power. The enemy consists of the neo-con “power elites” who are orchestrating the terror, the globalized war, and the globalized poverty beneath their public lies and deceptions. The enemy consists of publicly-financed warfare states, like the U.S, and increasingly its allies, which endanger and impoverish humanity for the perceived benefit of the elites and corporate profits.

Whereas the public presumably believes that it is somehow benefiting from the carnage and mass murder, it is actually being fleeced. Gillian Kiley reports that

(as) the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approach, the United States has spent or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on the Department of Homeland Security.[4]

Unfortunately, evidence-based reporting is conspicuously absent from totalitarian corporate messaging that blankets Western populations. Otherwise, the increasingly infantilized public might withdraw its tacit consent for the warmongering.

Corporate monopolies, bailed out and entirely dependent on public monies, are increasingly fused to the military industrial complex, and these monopolies are the governing “power elites”. They determine what we see, hear, and believe.

Syria, like its predecessors Libya and Iraq, was largely free of terrorist infestations before U.S.-led NATO and its allies waged their phony so-called “humanitarian” wars of mass destruction – largely for the benefit of corporate monopolies and imperial hegemony.

But all of this is (hopefully) changing. Despite the fact that that the U.S. continues to spray Syrian civilians with weaponized white phosphorous[5] and pretends that Assad is the bad guy, the days of a U.S./neo-con led unipolar world order may be behind us.

Syria and its allies are defeating imperial terrorism, and in doing so they are strengthening the rule of international law, and humanity’s chances for peace.

Syrians in government-secured areas are celebrating. We should all be celebrating with them.

Notes

[1] Mark Taliano,“How To Break the Cycle of Delusions and Crimes.”HuffPost 10/04/2014, (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mark-taliano/government-lies_b_5645378.html) Accessed August 7, 2017 

[2] “State Department: Renamed Al-Qaeda Not A Terrorist Organization – Can Receive CIA Supplies.’ Moon of Alabama, May 15, 2017. (http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/05/state-department-renamed-al-qaeda-not-a-terrorist-organization-can-receive-cia-supplies.html) Accessed August 7, 2017

[3] David Ray Griffin, “Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?” (https://davidraygriffin.com/articles/was-america-attacked-by-muslims-on-911/) Accessed August 7, 2017.

[4] Gillian Kiley, “The Costs of War: US Military Spending on Middle East Wars, Homeland Security Will Reach $4.79 Trillion in 2017.” September 15, 2016, (http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-military-spending-on-middle-east-wars-homeland-security-will-reach-4-79-trillion-in-2017/5545825) Accessed August 7, 2017.

[5] “Syria urges UN to assume responsibility, end int’l coalition’s crimes against Syrian people.”SANA, July 30, 2017 (http://sana.sy/en/?p=110969) Accessed August 7, 2017.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Global Deception: “The War on Terror” is a Campaign for Permanent War and Terror

The latest round of sanctions levelled by the United States government against Russia are predicated on allegations that Moscow interfered in the 2016 US presidential elections. Alleged interference includes leaking e-mails obtained from the US Democrat Party.

However, compared to the open interference the US conducts around the world in the internal political affairs of nations, leaked e-mails is particularly benign.

Across Southeast Asia, entire political parties, including Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy, Anwar Ibrahim’s Bersih street front and Thailand’s Pheu Thai Party and accompanying street movement, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) have attempted and at times succeeded at clawing their way into power primarily because of extensive financial and political support from the United States and various European allies.

In addition to support in the shape of propping up entire political parties, the US funds and directs myriad fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). In Thailand, these include media platform Prachatai, the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT), Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), the New Democracy Movement and Thai Netizen.

Many of these organisations have invested in elaborate efforts to conceal their foreign financial support indicating knowledge among these organisations that they are involved in impropriety.

Many pose as impartial rights advocates, but use their rights advocacy as a facade behind which they pursue politically-motivated agendas. In addition to assisting US-backed political parties into power, they also promote Washington’s regional aspirations including confrontation with and the encirclement of China and the creation of US-funded and directed organisations that run parallel to and eventually supplant local civil society organisations and institutions.

US Allegations vs Documented US Interference 

US sanctions against Russia are still based entirely on allegations yet to be confirmed with anything resembling evidence.

Conversely, US interference abroad is openly documented. Across Asia alone, the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) openly lists organisations and political activities the US is attempting to influence and control in each respective country.

Shawn Friele, Second Secretary (Political) at Canadian Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, walks with US-funded Thai agitator Sirikan “June” Charoensiri of TLHR, in Thailand amid Thailand’s internal political affairs. Friele regularly visits with other agitators and family members involved in a variety of US funded interference across the country. 

In addition to funding, the US and Western allies openly assist many of these organisations in their work on the ground via embassies. The above mentioned TLHR, created with the explicit assistance of the US Embassy in Bangkok the day after the 2014 coup which ousted the US-backed administration, was recently assisted by Canadian embassy staff who openly thanked the US ambassador to Thailand, Glyn Davies for his support in aiding the front.

TLHR regularly offers legal defence exclusively for agitators and subversives attempting to undermine the current political order in Thailand and pave the way for foreign-backed opposition to seize power. While TLHR and fellow recipients of US money and directives claim to advocate human rights impartially, they regularly excuse, ignore or defend abuses carried out by US-backed parties and organisations.

These double standards expose US activity abroad as clear cut political interference, based on US interests, not principles, and conducted openly and expansively, and in a manner the US has accused and condemned Russia of pursuing in regards to America’s own internal politics.

How then is it possible for the US to condemn others of interfering within its own political affairs, but find it acceptable to interfere on a global scale? This monumental, self-evident and growing hypocrisy is a contributing factor to America’s waning influence globally. Its inconsistency between what it finds unacceptable for others to do in America versus what it itself is doing worldwide undermines its political legitimacy just as much as double standards exercised by recipients of US money undermine their credibility in each and every country they operate in.

Furthermore, the US levelling sanctions against Russia opens the door for those targeted by US interference to put in place measures to limit or entirely eliminate fronts operating with US money and for US interests.

Unlike US sanctions against Russia, sanctions enacted by nations targeted by the US via the NED and other networks can easily cite documented evidence provided by the US itself regarding political interference. And with the US attempting to label those deemed sympathetic to Russia as subversives, it would not be a far stretch for nations to label those openly receiving money from the US as subversives.

America’s double standards had a place and time when they were viable. As the world increasingly becomes multipolar, such hypocrisy becomes a liability, not a representation of impunity and strength. In many ways already, this hypocrisy is costing the US legitimacy worldwide and opening the doors for targets of its ambitions to push back using precisely the same tools the US has used for decades. The latest row Washington has deepened with Moscow opens those doors wider still.

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

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Thailand’s “Color Revolution”: US Meddles Abroad, Accuses Others of Meddling at Home.

Saudi Arabia threateningly accused Qatar of “declaring war” on the Kingdom for supposedly calling for the Holy Mosques in Mecca and Medina to be placed under international control.

Qatar denies that it ever issued such a statement, but that didn’t prevent the Saudis from reacting in a very harsh way by framing the idea as a declaration of war. This latest episode is emblematic of the still-simmering tensions between the two sides since they experienced their public falling out earlier this summer, but it also deserves to be analyzed in another respect concerning Saudi Arabia’s reaction to Qatar’s supposed statement. Never mind the fact that Qatar never publicly said anything of the sort, it remains a matter of public record that Iranian officials have regularly called for placing the Holy Mosques in Mecca and Medina under international control, which Saudi Arabia is absolutely against for several reasons.

The first is that the Kingdom derives its international – and one could even argue, domestic – legitimacy from being the caretaker of the two Holy Mosques, which therefore imbues the country with unparalleled soft power in the Muslim international community, or Ummah. Digging deeper into Saudi Arabia’s political history, it can be discovered that the country itself is held together by an alliance between the Saud family and the Wahhabi clerics, one which was first consecrated several hundred years ago but continues to this day due to the victory that both forces achieved in uniting most of the peninsula after the end of World War I.

About that, the modern-day political entity which calls itself Saudi Arabia – or in other words, the part of Arabia under the control of the Saud family – is actually formed from the militant unification of two disparate regions, the mountains Hejaz of the western coast and the desert Najd which occupies the rest. Hejaz was forcibly incorporated into Najd by the Saudi-Wahhabi alliance following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which had previously administered the two Holy Mosques in the name of the Caliph. Now that it’s under the Saudis’ control, it can be argued that the country’s King has always in some respects attempted to tacitly present himself as a successor of sorts to the Ottoman ruler in the strictly symbolic sense owing to his custodianship over the Holy Mosques.

With all of this in mind, it cuts to the core of the Saudi family’s ruling and international legitimacy to question their control over these two sites, which is why they view such statements as existential threats to their polity and therefore equivalent to a “declaration of war”. It’s also among one of the many reasons, aside from pure principle, why Iran repeatedly calls for international control over these territories, whether to ensure that pilgrims are protected and the Hajj isn’t ever politicized, or to contradict the Saudis’ implicit claims to be the leader of the Ummah by virtue of their responsibilities to these sites.

The post presented is the partial transcript of the CONTEXT COUNTDOWN radio program on Sputnik News, aired on Friday Aug 4, 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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mecca and Medina: Why Saudi Arabia Doesn’t Want International Control Over the Two Holy Mosques

Featured image: Ala’a Ziwad at his arraignment in a Haifa court in November 2015. (Source: Rami Shllush)

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

Haifa District Court approved the revocation of Ala’a Ziwad’s citizenship, requested by Islamophobic interior minister Arye Dery – a disgraceful ruling.

In 2015, Ziwad was unjustly charged with four counts of attempted murder and security-related offenses for an alleged car-ramming incident and stabbing of an Israeli soldier.

During his arraignment, he explained what happened was an accidental car collision – what in America is called a fender-bender, a common occurrence, at times resulting in injuries.

When attacked (for being Palestinian), he acted in self-defense, insisting he’s not a terrorist and meant no harm – to no avail.

At the time, Channel 2 news reported him saying:

“They’re trying to turn me into a terrorist, and I’m not one. I didn’t try to murder Jews. I didn’t come to kill Jews.”

His attorney Wisam Araf said he

“claims innocence. He also claims that after he was attacked, he tried to defend himself with the knife, and had no intention of carrying out a terror attack.”

Being Arab in a racist Jewish state, Ziwad never had a chance. He was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

Revoking his citizenship stripped him of any rights, virtually making him a non-person, denying him any chance for possible future justice.

Last month, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (ADALAH) and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) responded to the revocation of his citizenship.

Under Israeli law, this action may be taken in cases of “breach of trust or disloyalty to the state,” giving authorities broad latitude.

Adalah’s Sawsan Zaher and ACRI’s Oded Feller said the following:

“The revocation of citizenship is a drastic step that entails a severe violation of human rights and leaves individuals without the basic rights and protections ensured by citizenship.”

“The authority to revoke citizenship must therefore not be exercised in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner.”

“The penal system, and that alone, is the channel through which society should express its reservations about serious crimes.”

Israel’s Supreme Court rejected a prosecutorial demand to revoke the citizenship of Yigal AmirPrime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s assassin.

It court ruled “society has expressed its social reservation about this brutal murder, but that is no reason to revoke Amir’s citizenship, not because of the killer’s dignity, but because of the dignity of that right” to citizenship.

According to Adalah and ACRI, revocation of Zawid’s citizenship is “arbitrary, discriminatory, and influenced by ulterior considerations.”

“If we were discussing the case of a Jewish individual, no one would consider revoking his (or her) citizenship.”

In March 2016, both organizations appealed on his behalf to Israel’s interior minister – to no avail.

Revocation of citizenship is a serious infringement of fundamental human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954), and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961).

“The exercise of the authority to revoke citizenship, even if not fulfilled, sends a humiliating and degrading message to Palestinian citizens of Israel that their citizenship cannot be taken for granted, and that it is bestowed on them as a privilege but not a right,” Adalah and ACRI stressed.

A Final Comment

In US judicial proceedings, beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof required.

In criminal cases, the high proof standard is especially important because a defendant’s freedom or possible life is at stake.

In Israel and the Occupied Territories, Arab citizens and Palestinians are unjustly treated for not being Jews.

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Condemnation of Israel’s Revocation of an Arab Citizen’s Citizenship

The big New York banks no longer perform the banking function of lending to consumers and businesses. Thanks to government policies that foster increased financial concentration, banking incentives have changed fundamentally. The big banks today are focused on higher risk-return speculation and on trading and fee-based income.  

Banks don’t lend not because, as banks and their lobbyists claim, of new capital requirement rules, but because their ability to lend is foreclosed by the fact that the big banks pay out all or more than all of their net income in dividends and buy-backs of their own stocks in order to drive up executives’ bonuses. The extraordinary payouts of earnings leave the banks’ capital position too weak to support more lending.

Thomas Hoenig, Vice Chairman of the FDIC explained the situation last week to the Senate Banking CommitteeSomething should be done about it, but the financial presstitutes are suppressing the news. 

Pam and Russ Martens tell the story here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Media Cover Up for the Big Banks: High Risk Return Speculation, Fee Based Income

A grave healthcare crisis in Yemen is being compounded by the increasing deployment of United States ground forces inside this war-ravaged and impoverished Middle Eastern state.

Since March 2015, the country has been bombed everyday by Pentagon-coordinated air strikes carried out by the Saudi Arabian led Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

The massive bombing of Yemen over the last 29 months began during the administration of former President Barack Obama. After withdrawing diplomatic personnel in the early months of 2015, the Saudi-GCC Coalition unleashed aerial campaigns which are principally designed to halt the advances of the Ansurallah Movement (Houthis) which controls the capital of Sanaa and other areas of the North and Central regions of the country.

From his earliest days in the White House, President Donald Trump has intensified the war. A deadly commando raid in January resulted in the death of a U.S. Seal Team 6 soldier and scores of Yemeni civilians. At present Pentagon troops are being deployed under the auspices of fighting al-Qaeda which reportedly controls several towns and an important port in the South of the nation.

After the commencement of the bombing campaign in March 2015, the interests of Yemen-based al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have converged with the strategic objectives of the U.S.-allied regime of ousted President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi and its allies. The Ansurallah (Houthis), a Shiite-based movement, is politically supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran therefore providing a rationale for the role of Washington and Riyadh.

Nonetheless, to justify the enhanced troop presence in Yemen, the U.S. is claiming that its main purpose is to fulfill the mandate of successive administrations to wage an unrelenting war on al-Qaeda. It is al-Qaeda in Yemen, yet in Syria, Iraq and Libya, the enemy has been designated as ISIS or ISIL. Notwithstanding the Pentagon’s utilization of these Sunni-based Islamist groups for its own political aims in Libya during the 2011 counter-revolution against the Jamahiriya under Col. Muammar Gaddafi and the ongoing war to topple the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad, both al-Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL can serve dual purposes throughout the Middle East and Africa as both foe and tacit collaborator.

Estimated deaths from the constant bombings and ground fighting over the last two-and-a-half years are in excess of 10,000 killed and approximately 40,000 injured. The targeting of hospitals, clinics, water and power systems, schools and civilian populated areas has created a widespread cholera epidemic afflicting hundreds of thousands.

When Trump visited Saudi Arabia to finalize a $300 billion arms deal with the monarchy several months ago, Iran and Qatar were specifically targeted as adversaries of the foreign policy imperatives of imperialism. Since this visit, other leading members of the Saudi-GCC coalition have put forward demands to Doha calling for the closing of Al-Jazeera television, the halting of cooperation with Tehran and the purported support for terrorism by Qatar. There was no mention of the correlation between the aggressive Pentagon-engineered military campaign of the Saudi-GCC alliance and the cholera epidemic.

Although Yemen is categorized as the least developed state in the region, the country does have oil and natural gas resources. The geographic location of the nation where the southern region of the Arabian Peninsula encompasses offshore straits in the Gulf of Aden which are important in the facilitation of the global trade in petroleum, natural gas and military hardware, makes control of Yemen an important aspect of imperialist hegemony extending from the Persian Gulf to the Horn of Africa.

U.S. Seeks to Seize Control of Strategic Resources in Yemen

Although the Trump administration claims that its main concern in Yemen is the proliferation of al-Qaeda armed units, an article in the New York Times on August 6 suggests otherwise. After acknowledging the continuation of foreign policy objectives toward Yemen extending over from the Obama to the Trump White House, the newspaper maintains that the propping up of the Hadi forces is essential to the broader objectives inside the country.

The NYT report says:

“The current operation began overnight Wednesday (Aug. 2) with Yemeni fighters (Hadi-aligned armed forces) traveling from Hadramawt Province, where they had been receiving training from Emirati advisers, toward oil and gas facilities in northeast Shabwa Province, according to Katherine Zimmerman, a Yemen analyst with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. The Yemeni forces, called the Shabwani Elite, are in the process of securing major cities in the province — such as Azzan, Ataq and Jardan — from Qaeda militants and are also conducting clearing operations in the surrounding areas, officials said.”

This same article continues noting that:

“A local government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters, said the military operation was explicitly designed to secure oil and gas facilities in Shabwa Province. Around the Balhaf liquefied natural gas plant in Shabwa, Khalid Al Adhami, a local army commander responsible for security of the facility, said that Sudanese, Emirati and Yemeni soldiers were protecting it. ‘The plant is secured from Al Qaeda attacks,’ he said.”

Cholera Epidemic Genocidal in Character

A direct by-product of the Pentagon-coordinated war against Yemen is the manifestation of the world largest cholera epidemic ever recorded in history. Specific numbers of those affected vary. However, even conservative estimates from western-based news agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and United Nations relief agencies indicate that hundreds of thousands have come down with the illness.

Nearly 1,900 deaths associated with the outbreak are cited as of July 31 while the capacity of the medical infrastructure to respond to the epidemic is severely hampered due to the bombing and ground attacks on health facilities and water supplies. Children have been particularly impacted by the disease which is an acute diarrheal infection caused by ingestion of food or water contaminated with the bacterium Vibrio cholera.

(http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2017/joint-visit-yemen/en/)

The BBC in a July 10 report on Yemen emphasized:

“The WHO (World Health Organization) said on Saturday (July 8) that 297,438 cases had been recorded, but the agency was still analyzing the latest figures from the Yemeni health ministry on Monday (July 10). The outbreak has affected all but one of Yemen’s 23 provinces. The four most affected provinces – Sanaa, Hudaydah, Hajja and Amran – have reported almost half of the cases. UN agencies say the outbreak is the direct consequence of the civil war, with 14.5 million people cut off from regular access to clean water and sanitation. More than half of health facilities are no longer functioning, with almost 300 having been damaged or destroyed, and some 30,000 local health workers who are key to dealing with the outbreak have not been paid for 10 months.”

U.S. Desire to Maintain Regional Dominance is the Motivation of War Policy

U.S. military presence in Yemen illustrates its significance as a major battleground in Washington’s efforts geared toward regional dominance of the Middle East along with the Horn of Africa. Additional Pentagon troops are being sent to Syria as the full-scale assault on Raqqa, the self-proclaimed caliphate of ISIS/ISIL, is intensifying. Under Obama and now Trump, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), composed of Kurdish armed units led by the Protection Forces (YPG) are set to serve as the ground troops in the removal of the Islamists. What is often overlooked is that Raqqa is Syrian territory and should be returned to the sovereign rule of the government in Damascus.

Mosul was recently retaken by the Iraqi military utilizing U.S. air power and the cooperation of Shiite-allied militias supported by Iran. Casualties and material damage done by ISIS/ISIL have been enormous. The nature of this war emanates from the intervention by Washington in 2003 where hundreds of thousands of Pentagon and allied troops occupied Iraq in order to overthrow the government of President Saddam Hussein.

The war in Syria was begun by the Obama administration in an effort to replace the internationally-recognized state headed by President Bashar al-Assad. Millions have been dislocated within and outside of Syria while clashes continue between government forces and opposition militia backed by the Pentagon, NATO and their surrogates in the region. The Syrian government has requested and received the assistance of Iran, the Russian Federation and Hezbollah of Lebanon.

In the Horn of Africa, the war in Somalia continues amid the increase in U.S. forces in that embattled and humanitarian challenged oil-rich nation. Djibouti, the base for AFRICOM ground and aerial forces on the continent is within close proximity of the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Yemen.

Irrespective of the divisions among the two capitalist-imperialist parties in the U.S., the war machine remains constant. With a renewed focus on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China in Asia, there will undoubtedly be an enhancement of militarist propaganda in order to maintain the trillion-dollar military-security industrial complex in the U.S.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pentagon Escalates Military Presence in Yemen: Genocidal Cholera Epidemic, U.S. Seeks to Seize Control of Yemen’s Strategic Resources

Israel’s War on Palestinian Poetry

August 8th, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

Featured image: Dareen Tatour (Source: Mondoweiss)

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

The key way rogue states maintain power is by controlling the message, including by criminalizing legitimate dissent.

Israeli bloggers and social media users are treated like fifth column threats, required to submit material for screening before posting. Failure is criminalized.

Regime critics and human rights defenders are considered traitors. They risk prosecution and imprisonment for doing the right things.

Arab Israeli poet Dareen Tatour was imprisoned multiple times for criticizing repressive regime policies, including for her poem titled “Resist, My People, Resist Them” in response to Israel’s brutal murder of three Palestinian children.

Her poem “A Poet Behind Bars” was translated into more than 10 languages, in part saying she wrote about Israeli injustice, explaining

“(t)he charge has worn my body, from my toes to the top of my head, for I am a poet in prison, a poet in the land of art.”

“I am accused of words, my pen the instrument. Ink – blood of the heart – bears witness and reads the charges.”

“Listen, my destiny, my life, to what the judge said: A poem stands accused, my poem morphs into a crime. In the land of freedom, the artist’s fate is prison.”

Tatour is one of hundreds of Palestinians arrested and detained for resisting occupation harshness through the power of words, in her case moving poetry.

She’s been illegally detained for nearly two years, first arrested in October 2015, unjustly indicted in November 2016, charged with “incitement to violence” and “support for a terrorist organization” – for her poetry, Facebook and You Tube posts.

She’s been under house arrest until completion of her trial proceedings, monitored by Israeli guards, forced to wear an electronic ankle device and barred from Internet usage.

Her indictment wrongfully alleges her work encourages intifada. It targets her right of free expression, including under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, stating:

“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

Israel flagrantly breaches international law, along with its own Basic and statute laws, notably its efforts to silence dissent.

Freedareendatour.org tells her story and Israel’s attempt to silence her for courageously resisting occupation harshness – along with being Arab, not Jewish.

Along with Facebook and You Tube posts, here’s the poem in translation that got her ruthlessly targeted:

“Resist, My People, Resist Them

In Jerusalem, I dressed my wounds and breathed my sorrows

And carried the soul in my palm

For an Arab Palestine.

I will not succumb to the “peaceful solution,”

Never lower my flags

Until I evict them from my land.

I cast them aside for a coming time.

Resist, my people, resist them.

Resist the settler’s robbery

And follow the caravan of martyrs.

Shred the disgraceful constitution

Which imposed degradation and humiliation

And deterred us from restoring justice.

They burned blameless children;

As for Hadil, they sniped her in public,

Killed her in broad daylight.

Resist, my people, resist them.

Resist the colonialist’s onslaught.

Pay no mind to his agents among us

Who chain us with the peaceful illusion.

Do not fear doubtful tongues;

The truth in your heart is stronger,

As long as you resist in a land

That has lived through raids and victory.

So Ali called from his grave:

Resist, my rebellious people.

Write me as prose on the agarwood;

My remains have you as a response.

Resist, my people, resist them.

Resist, my people, resist them.”

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel’s War on Palestinian Poetry

Israeli illegal settlement activities in Occupied Palestine have skyrocketed in recent months, almost tripling in 2017 compared to the number in the same period last year, according to a newly published report from the Palestinian National Office for the Defense of Land and Resistance of Settlement.

The report reveals the striking extent to which occupation authorities under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have escalated support to Israeli settlements — which are considered illegal under international law and even Israeli law — while allowing the expansion of illicit settlements built on privately-owned Palestinian land, which is considered unconstitutional by the occupation authority’s courts.

In a clear pattern of defiance against international public opinion, Netanyahu has plowed forward with the plunder and pillaging of land belonging to the Palestinian people. On Thursday, Netanyahu bragged of his administration’s support for the illegal activities while laying the foundation stone for a new 1,000-home district in the city-sized illegal settlement Beitar Illit south of Bethlehem, where 50,000 Zionist settlers live.

“No other government has done as much for settlement in the land of Israel as the government which I lead,” Netanyahu said, referring to the biblical term for Palestine. “Our generation has succeeded in achieving what past generations only dreamed about … We have returned to our home land, and have turned it once again into a land of milk and honey.”

The visit was the first major settlement inauguration in eight years — which settlers have credited to U.S. President Donald Trump, whose administration has provided unparalleled support for the Israeli settler-colonial project.

With U.S. President Donald Trump as a friend in the White House, Israel signed off on the construction of 2,500 new illegal settlement homes in the occupied West Bank in January. This came after an earlier announcement approving the construction of another 566 illegal settler homes in East Jerusalem.

The Palestinian report, connected to the Fatah Movement-aligned national office, cited the visit as proof of the Israelis’ disregard for the international community’s condemnation of settlement activity.

In spite of increasing international consensus regarding the illegal nature of Israel’s settlements and the egregious human rights violations undertaken to enforce the occupation, the United States has also remained steadfast in supporting Israel.

Israel receives more than US$3 billion in annual U.S. military support.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Illegal Settlement Activity in Occupied Palestine Triple in First Half of 2017

ISIS has reportedly deployed large reinforcements, including experienced infantry and technicals, from the terrorist group’s strong points in the eastern Salamiyah countryside in order to retake the strategic town of Sukhna from the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies.

According to reports, a notable ISIS force is still shelling government forces from the high ground north of Sukhna.  Meanwhile, a high number of IEDs and a threat of suicide bombing attacks prevent government forces from advancing in the Sukhna countryside.

On Monday, the SAA repelled a few ISIS attacks, but on Tuesday, sporadic clashes continued appearing near the town.

If ISIS is able to deploy enough reinforcements and to re-group before the SAA captures the town and the nearby hills, the terrorists will likely have a chance to take Sukhna back. The situation remains tense. According to pro-government sources, ISIS lost up to 40 members in the clashes for Sukhna.

According to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), 64 ISIS members have been killed in the recent clashes between the terrorist group and government forces: 30 in Sukhna, 18 in southern Raqqah, and 16 in eastern Hama. The SOHR also reported that 14 government forces service members were killed.

East of Salamiyah, the SAA and the National Defense Forces liberated the village of Manoukh and the nearby Manoukh hill. The advance followed the liberation of Marina village southeast of the town of Ithryah. Both advances were part of the wider effort aimed at increasing pressure on ISIS units east of Salamiyah and clearing the key area of Uqayrabat from ISIS terrorists. This also helps to pre-occupy ISIS manpower, complicating any ISIS attempt at launching a counter-attack on Sukhna.

In Deir Ezzor, government forces repelled another ISIS attempt to advance on the army base and killed some 12 ISIS members.

In the city of Raqqah, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) seized Karim district and a large part of Ramelah district. Local sources report that a dozen ISIS members were killed or wounded as a result of airstrikes and artillery shelling.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: ISIS Deploys Large Reinforcements, Attempts Retake Sukhna

The Russian Revolution of 1917 terrified the capitalist world. In my last article based on the first volume of D.F. Fleming’s classic “The Cold War and It’s Origins 1917-1960” I traced the story of the attempt to destroy the world’s first communist revolution.

14 Nations attacked the Soviet Union attempting to carve out territory and crush the revolution. They also launched a massive wave of repression at home.

Then they attempted to isolate the USSR while they built up Hitler’s Germany as a bulwark against Communism. This lead to World War 2 and an alliance between the USSR, Britain and the US.

The Soviet Union managed to almost singlehandedly defeat Nazi Germany. However before World War 2 had even ended “the cold war” had already begun with the British allying with fascists in Greece to crush the Communist lead partisans in late 1944.

And America allying with Japan to crush the Hyuk Resistance in the Philippines. During the war Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin made a deal carving Europe into spheres of influence. Greece was in the British sphere of influence it was key to their control of the mediterranean. Thus the Soviets did nothing to aid their Greek comrades while the British waged a brutal war on the country. In exchange the Soviets were granted most of eastern Europe. This deal was formalized at Yalta in the Crimea during the war in a meeting with Franklin Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. The United States wanted to bring Russia into the war against Japan and the Soviets already controlled eastern Europe which they had liberated from the Nazis.

From Roosevelt to Truman

However Roosevelt died and his new Vice President Truman who had replaced the more pro-soviet Henry Wallace at a rigged convention the year before became president. The day after the Nazis had invaded the Soviet Union back in 1941 Senator Truman had declared “If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible. He quickly abandoned Roosevelt’s efforts to maintain friendly relations with the Soviets. Instead Truman and his hawkish advisers decided to attempt to destroy the Soviet Union which had suffered huge losses during the war with 27 million dead and thousands of factories, villages, farms, hospitals and schools destroyed.

The United States was largely undamaged, had the worlds largest economy and had developed the atomic bomb. They hoped to force the Soviet Union to abandon control of Eastern Europe and to eventually destabilize and destroy the USSR itself. Thus a massive propaganda scare campaign was launched attempting to convince the world that the Soviet Union was out to conquer the world. This propaganda campaign completely turned reality on it’s head. The soviets wanted only to rebuild their country not plunge themselves into another war especially since the United States had the Atomic bomb and they didn’t.

At the same time the Soviets were being falsely branded aggressors they were actually the victims of a covert war waged by the west using Ukrainian SS veterans and other fascists managed by British and American Intel through their German proxy Reinhard Gehlen.

In Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Albania and other countries the west would wage a secret war against the soviets largely unknown to this day.  Another red scare was launched on the home front crushing dissent against this aggressive policy and purging Communists both real and imagined from the government, labor unions academia, and the media. Anyone questioning this propaganda campaign anyone working for peace, or for an end to America’s “Jim Crow” apartheid system, anyone trying to improve the lives of everyday Americans was likely to be labeled a communist and blacklisted. Fascist war criminals and collaborators on the other hand had their records whitewashed and received prominent positions in the government, the churches, the media, corporations. They were hailed as freedom fighters by the media.

The Nuclear Threat against the Soviet Union

The Soviet Union was under constant threat of nuclear attack and were also targeted with covert and psychological warfare. They countered these dangers by tightening their control over Eastern Europe to guard against these destabilization schemes by what would become the CIA and the OPC which later merged.

This tightening of control was portrayed in the media as if it were an invasion the steady march of communism across Europe ignoring the fact that they already controlled these countries as a result of their victories during World War 2. Even today this cold war propaganda is parroted as if it was history. One has to read a book like D.F. Fleming’s to learn the actual story.

At the same time the Soviet Union was frantically working on developing nuclear weapons of it’s own. The west was shocked in 1949 when the USSR finally succeeded in building it’s own nuclear weapon.

Now it was not merely the Soviet Union that faced destruction but potentially the world. America and Britain’s aggressive policies had brought the world to the brink of nuclear war where it remains today. Ironically America was so arrogant that it had refused to share their nuclear secrets with even their close allies Canada and Britain whose help had been invaluable in the creation of the atomic bomb. Britain which was so instrumental in starting the cold war was forced to develop the bomb on it’s own playing catch up to the Russians.

Clement AttleeHarry S. Truman and Joseph Stalin at the Potsdam Conference, 1945. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Truman Doctrine

The Truman Doctrine pledged not only to encircle and destroy the Soviet Bloc but to prevent revolution anywhere in the world. Thus what is commonly called the “Cold War” quickly evolved into what I prefer to call World War 3 a war on the entire third world. For centuries the countries of Western Europe had conquered the world turning the entire planet into colonies and semi-colonies and killing hundreds of millions of people in the process.

Their imperial  rivalries  had lead them into World War 1 and they had been forced to bring in recruits from through out their empires to help them fight. Now in 1945 exhausted after two World Wars and having unleashed nationalist forces around the world their empires were on the verge of collapse. Truman had basically pledged to wage war on the entire planet to prevent this inevitable process from occurring.

Africa and Asian countries had already begun to fight for their independence and the United States was now on the side of colonialism and counter-revolution around the world. The Philippines, China, Korea, Vietnam, Algeria, would be the scene of incredibly bloody and brutal wars aiming to either preserve old empires or bring them into the newer American empire. It would be an empire of bases, an empire of corporations and an empire of US imposed military dictatorships. It would stretch across the world from Latin America long under US domination to Africa and Asia. The US allied with the fascists of Italy, Germany, Japan, plus fascist exiles from places like Croatia, Ukraine, Hungary, and Romania. At the same time the former imperial powers of western Europe like Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, France,  and Britain quickly became little more then pawns of the Americans, terrified that their insane new American masters would embroil them in a Nuclear War.

China

D.F. Fleming begins his second volume with an event equally shocking to the explosion of the Soviet “A-bomb” to the west that occurred that same year of 1949. This was the victory of the Chinese Revolution which meant the liberation of China after more then a century of foreign domination. The empires of Europe the British, the French, the Germans, and Russians along with the Americans and Japanese had all invaded China at will carving out spheres of influence and demanding humiliating concessions. China once the richest and most powerful nation on the earth had become poor and helpless under the brutal imperialists.

Of course the full history of China’s revolution is too complicated to fully explain in a short article although Fleming does a masterful job of trying to condense the story into a single chapter. He traces the origins of the Chinese revolution back to the 1851 Taiping rebellion, through the fall of the Ming dynasty and the declaration of a Chinese republic which was still under foreign domination and which quickly broke down into warlordism. It was World War 1 that was to prove a pivotal event fueling economic growth and modernization in China.

World War 1 lead to the Russian Revolution and many around the world especially in China were inspired by this event. The soviets declared their opposition to Colonialism and Imperialism Lenin and Stalin realized that in the wake of World War 1 the western empires hold on the rest of the world would begin to slip. Faced from hostility from the west they turned to the global south both to make new allies and to cause trouble for their enemies. As a friendly gesture to the Chinese they renounced their Russian empires holdings in China. The Chinese nationalists the KMT formed an alliance with Russia and with the Chinese communist party.

Up until 1927 this alliance was a success the tiny Chinese communist party grew rapidly and increasingly became independent of their soviet advisers.  It is a lesson all successful revolutionaries must learn they cannot simply imitate the last revolution but must adapt what they learn to entirely different conditions. Of course this is what makes one of the most beloved myths of the cold war so absurd Revolutions could not be directed from Moscow because to be successful they had to be locally directed only the Chinese understood China. 

This lesson was brought home in 1927 when the KMT grew frightened of the rise of communist influence. The KMT base of support were the landowners and big Chinese capitalists. The communists were organizing labor unions and undertaking land reforms. Chiang Kai-Shek the head of the KMT who had Ironically trained in the Soviet Union decided to make an alliance with the British, the French and the Americans against both the Chinese communists and the Russians. The Russians had tried to prevent a break and this only contributed to the coming disaster. Chiang’s forces were marching to take Shanghai the people were mobilized by the communists to support his advance with strikes and protests. Chiang deliberately delayed his advance so they could be crushed then when he finally arrived he used his KMT forces in alliance with drug dealing gangsters to massacre the communists.

This was the start of the Chinese civil war. It was also the start of the massive heroin empire the KMT would use to get rich, buy weapons, wage war, and buy American politicians eventually bringing them into alliance with the CIA. It discredited those Chinese communists close to Moscow and led to the rise of Mao Tse Tung who began his long march to escape the KMT. Under the able leadership of Mao Tse-Tung the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) concentrated their efforts on winning control of the countryside.

The Chinese peasants lived under even worse conditions then the Russians. Landlords had total control over their lives and they were virtual slaves kept in ever growing debt. They could not even marry without the landlords permission and their wives and daughters were forced to endure their landlords lusts without complaint. Hunger, disease and ignorance reigned. The Chinese communists brought land reform and the rule of law winning them the love of the people. The KMT on the other hand made themselves hated wherever they seized control with their corruption and cruelty. In addition to this Civil War China was soon to face a new threat as the Japanese set out to conquer China. However the KMT viewed the Communists as the real danger further discrediting themselves in the eyes of the Chinese people. 

China was hugely important to a large sector of Americans. As Europe’s power declined these Americans believed that all of China would soon fall under their control. Many future top level OSS and CIA officers had been recruited out of the families of American missionaries who had served in China. American Gangsters also had close ties to the KMT who supplied America’s heroin. Many west coast businessmen relied on the China trade. There were also media figures like Edward Luce owner of Time and Life Magazines.

These forces would coalesce into the “China Lobby” and overlapped strongly with those Americans allied to the fascists. They strongly backed the KMT which began to receive huge amounts of money and weapons from the US. Claire Chennault would supply the KMT with a private air force the AVG  which would evolve into CAT and later Air America both infamous for their role in heroin smuggling.

This aid would escalate once America was at war with Japan as well after Pearl Harbor on  December 7 1941. However the KMT remained determined to avoid fighting the Japanese and concentrated on trying to destroy the Communists. Their American adviser General Stillwell got so fed up he tried to arm the communists and force reforms on the KMT but instead he was fired. The Communist Guerrillas on the other hand fought constantly to liberate their country. They fought with arms captured from the KMT and the Japanese. The role of these Chinese communists in waging a massive Guerrilla warfare campaign against the Japanese is even more completely ignored by most histories then the Russian Role in winning World War 2. Also forgotten is the massive suffering and murder that imperial Japan unleashed in China killing at least 20 million people.

Most infamous was the Rape of Nanking in which a whole city was systematically raped, looted and slaughtered hundreds of thousands dying in a manner of days. The KMT made a secret deal with the Japanese during the war and many openly joined the Japanese side. The deal was to protect the Japanese war criminals and the Chinese traitors after the war. 

The people of China had a choice between the KMT corrupt, brutal, and treacherous or the communists who promised land reform and who had heroically resisted the Japanese. When the war ended in part due to the Red Army’s crushing defeat of the Japanese in Manchuria America hoped it could by supporting the KMT achieve their dream of gaining control of China. Of course as usual they were completely ignoring the will of the Chinese people who for obvious reasons preferred the communists  and certainly had no desire to become America’s colony under General Chiang Kai-Shek.

Still the US did everything it could to prop up Chiang  and his KMT. They flooded the country with money, but the KMT stole most of it since they were already planning their exile. They flooded the KMT with weapons but the KMT sold them to the guerrillas to make cash. The Americans had 100,000 troops and a huge air force it used to try to help the KMT seize control of communist held areas but the Communists fought on. The American troops began to complain about being stuck in the middle of a Chinese civil war long after World War 2 had ended. When the KMT forces began to collapse in the face of a long series of communist advances the Americans and the KMT were forced to flee the country. Mao was victorious and the American empire and the China Lobby were in a state of rage.

They demanded to know how China could be “lost” and decided it could only be explained by communist treachery within the government. For decades they would foolishly attempt to take back China nearly embroiling the US in a nuclear war on several occasions. In the media it was implied that somehow the Russians had managed to conquer China rather then admit to the painful truth that America had failed to conquer it. Of course even if the U.S. had poured all of it’s resources into trying to hold China it would probably have brought a catastrophic defeat upon itself as the war in Vietnam would later prove given China’s much greater size and population one can imagine how much more disastrous this attempt would have been. For decades they would refuse to recognize China instead claiming that the island of Formosa was the “real China” a former Japanese Colony that the KMT had brutally conquered with a Massacre in 1947 after it’s people rebelled against their corrupt rule. Formosa would become known as Taiwan and the United States is still willing to wage a nuclear war to keep China from taking back it’s island. 

The Korean War

The “loss” of China would lead the next year to a massive escalation of the war in Korea. Most people believe that the Korean War began in 1950 when North Korea invaded South  Korea. This is another example of cold war propaganda becoming enshrined in mainstream history. In reality South Korea (spurred on by the Dulles brothers, General Macarthur and the China Lobby) probably attacked North Korea in 1950 provoking a North Korean counter attack. South Korea had been launching military offensives against North Korea aimed at seizing a foothold and also sending small bands of terrorists to wreak havoc.

Pyongyang in Rubble (1953)

 

More importantly however the Korean War actually began in 1945 when the Americans were permitted to occupy the Southern Half of the country. For a thousand years Korea had been a unified and independent country until it was conquered by Japan and used as a springboard for the invasion of China. Koreans like Kim Il Sung had gone to join the Chinese Guerrillas fighting the Japanese. Others stayed in Korea and fought the Japanese occupiers. Others choose to serve the Japanese fighting in their army and forming a Japanese run police force. However by the time the Americans arrived Korea was unified and liberated.

It was ruled by people’s committee’s combing nationalists and Communists. America decided to crush these people’s committees and put those Koreans who had collaborated with the Japanese in charge. They brought in Syngman Rhee who had lived in exile in the US for 20 years and installed him as a dictator. They cancelled plans to reunify the country. To suppress the people’s committees they unleashed a brutal counterinsurgency war on the South Koreans. Long before 1950 they turned south Korea into a massive war zone as peasants often armed with nothing more then bamboo spears tried to resist this illegal occupation of their country.

Even South Korean troops began to join the rebellion sick of being used to slaughter their own people. Thus the Korean War began long before North Korea counterattacked and Rhee’s unpopularity and the poor morale of the troops explains why the South Korean Army nearly collapsed making a panicked retreat south when the North Koreans entered the war. This effort by the North Koreans  to liberate and reunify their country has absurdly been termed an invasion. The invaders were the Americans.

In North Korea on the other hand the Russians allowed the people’s committees to remain in power and the war hero Kim Il Sung became the leader. He was fiercely independent and the Russians maintained a hands off policy until withdrawing their troops. Contrary to myth the Soviets were caught completely by surprise at the start of the Korean War and did not order “the invasion” as the American press pretended to believe and as historians continue to repeat. They had supplied no extra weapons to the DPRK and were boycotting the UN when the war began over it’s failure to recognize China.

Instead like I.F. Stone before him (who Fleming admired) Fleming  sees the war as a product of a scheme by Rhee,MacArthur, John Foster Dulles, and Chiang Kai-Shek to provoke a war in order to save both Rhee and Chiang’s tottering regime. John Foster Dulles (brother of future CIA director Allen Dulles) who would later become Secretary of State under Eisenhower is the major villain in Fleming’s second volume with his insane brinksmanship nearly leading the world into Nuclear war time and again.

MacArthur like Dulles was a central figure in American fascism. It has since been revealed that if not for the outbreak of the Korean War Chiang would have been toppled by an American backed coup. Rhee had just suffered a humiliating electoral defeat and his people were in open rebellion. By starting the war Rhee brought in 250,000 American troops to his side while Chiang on Formosa was suddenly being protected by the US 7th fleet. Because the Soviets were boycotting the UN the US were able to label North Korea the aggressor and the whole thing was done under UN cover to disguise the imperialist nature of the war in defense of what amounted to an American colony. Most of the troops were Americans along with the British and America’s fascist allies Turkey, Greece, and the Philippines.

The war was one of dramatic reversals first the South Korean forces made a panicked retreat. American troops were transferred in from Japan but they also were soon in a panicked retreat. The North Korean army was tough, disciplined, and highly motivated they pushed the US and Korean forces back towards the southern tip of Korea the “Pusan Perimeter.” However the UN forces were soon flooding into the south and the North Korean advance slowed as their supply lines stretched out. America controlled the sea and the air they were able to bomb the North Koreans at will and bombed the South Koreans for good measure.

They massacred refugees fleeing south since they worried some of them might be communists. The Americans continued their war on the South Koreans throughout the war and in reality it continues to this day. Using their Naval superiority MacArthur staged a landing at the Port of Inchon leveling the city and unleashing Rhees troops and fascist death squads on the survivors. The North Korean army was forced to retreat or risk being cut off. Now the UN forces decided to invade North Korea and reunify the whole country under Rhee’s dictatorship. They advanced steadily but the North Korean forces were actually regrouping far to the North as well as setting up a guerrilla army behind UN lines. MacArthur was deliberately attempting to provoke the Chinese he hoped to expand the war into China. He hoped that backed up by a nuclear attack on China Chiang would be able to retake China. He even went so far as to conceal a Chinese counter attack and lie to Truman personally afterwards claiming he believed China would not enter the war when they already had. 

Image result

Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower (Source: biography.com)

Myth has it that Truman fired Macarthur over his reckless desire to use Nuclear weapons. In reality both Truman and later Eisenhower would both threaten to use Nuclear weapons in the war. Instead Macarthur was fired for insubordination and for plotting with Truman’s political rivals. As the UN forces neared the Chinese border the North Koreans resupplied and rested and the Chinese launched a massive counter attack dividing the UN forces. Many of the forces that were believed to be Chinese at the time were actually North Koreans who had been stationed in China so it should be remembered that this was a joint counter-attack. Now they pushed the UN forces back to the 38th parallel and beyond recapturing the capital Seoul for a second time. It was a humiliating defeat for the American empire and a glorious moment for the North Koreans and the Chinese. It was watched with secret joy all over the third world. However through massive airpower and artillery the UN forces managed to halt their advance. The war ground on in a stalemate for a year and a half. The Americans delayed the end of the war in the most cynical manner possible. They claimed that Korean and Chinese prisoners must be given a choice whether they wished to return. Then they tortured the prisoners into saying they wanted to go to Taiwan or remain in South Korea. Eventually the POWS staged a series of massive rebellions and the Americans sent in tanks and artillery to attack them.

The war was incredibly brutal 3 Million Koreans were killed and the US carpet bombed and Napalmed the entire country as well as employing torture and death squads as is their standard practice. They also used Germ Warfare on both North Korea and China. Half a million North Korean Soldiers died in the war.  1 Million Chinese soldiers died defending North Korea. 2 Million North Korean civilians were killed and 1 million South Korean civilians were killed often at the hands of their own or UN forces.  54,000 American soldiers and 47,000 South Korean soldiers died. Only 686 British troops were killed 3,194 UN allies total. Truman became the most unpopular president until George W. Bush.

Vietnam

At the same time as the Korean war the French with massive US assistance were fighting a loosing war in Indochina what is today Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Britain was waging a more successful but equally brutal war in Malaysia at the same time.  D.F. Fleming has a wonderful chapter on Vietnam which was still a covert CIA war when the book was published. If only people at the time had paid attention to D.F. Fleming the world would have avoided a genocidal bloodbath for the Vietnamese and a humiliating defeat for the American empire. He describes the history of Vietnam and it’s long struggle for independence against first the French, then the Japanese during World War 2 when they were allied to the US and saved many American airmen.

After the war the US would ally with the Japanese and the French against Vietnam attempting to help France regain control over their colony. The arrogant french colonists began the war as french civilians massacred the Vietnamese in an attempt to “put them in their place”. Soon the French army was bombing and shelling the Vietnamese sections of their cities. The Vietnamese who had been prepared to wait patiently for independence and even maintain friendly relations with France afterwards were thus provoked into immediately beginning their war for independence again. They were tough and well organized under the able leadership of Ho Chi Minh.

They would teach the arrogant french a lesson inflicting a humiliating defeat on the French at Dien Bien Phu. The French had set up a massive base there believing it was impossible to move artillery into the surrounding hills. Through sheer determination using bicycles and their own bodies the Vietminh managed to move in artillery and force the base to surrender. The US paid for this whole french war on the people of Vietnam and even offered to use nuclear weapons to help the french at Dien Bien Phu. D.F. Fleming pleads with his readers not to get involved in a war in Vietnam and debunks the insane “ Domino theory” that argued that if Vietnam were allowed to go communist first Asia and then America itself would inevitably follow ignoring the Pacific Ocean and America’s mighty Navy that it still uses to bully the planet. This domino theory also of course ignores the fact that the Vietnamese only wanted to free their country and had no plans to try to invade and conquer Asia and the United States.

The Domino Theory

The Whole Domino Theory was an absurdity believable only to a brainwashed public raised on decades of anti-communist propaganda on the myth of Communist plans for world conquest. Nonetheless the Americans would manage to embroil themselves in Vietnam violating their Agreements made at Geneva in 1954 which called for elections and reunification the US sent in the CIA to set up yet another pro-American fascist dictator Diem who’s forces they trained to torture and massacre his people igniting a revolution that US troops would attempt to crush themselves in 1964.  LBJ sending their military to occupy the country bombing napalming and killing 4 million people, poisoning the land with the chemical weapon agent orange which causes cancer and deformity. They expanded the war into neighboring Laos and Cambodia with disastrous effects. The CIA managed to massively expand the global heroin trade. The US would be defeated in 1975 as South Vietnam collapsed and Vietnam was finally reunified and liberated  after almost 90 years of struggle by the heroic people of Vietnam.

That victory still lay far in the future however when Fleming published his book. Instead let us turn our attention to a completely forgotten war that nearly lead to a Nuclear war. The US had used the entry of China into the Korean war to expand their covert war of revenge for “the loss of China.” The CIA used the KMT to wage a proxy war on China just as they would later use Cuban exiles against Cuba, and like they were already using fascist exiles in Europe. The KMT were airlifted into Burma using CAT the CIA/KMT airline starting another infamous chapter in the CIA’s role in the global drug trade. From Burma they launched unsuccessful attacks into China although the KMT were more interested in terrorizing the Burmese and smuggling Heroin. Ironically Burma would later be forced into alliance with China to eject the KMT one of many examples of CIA meddling backfiring as it would in Laos and other places. The CIA also used the KMT in Taiwan to wage war on China using boats and planes to bomb Chinese coastal cities.

When Eisenhower became president John Foster Dulles Secretary of State, and Allen Dulles CIA director they escalated this covert war encouraging the KMT to seize more Chinese islands like Quemoy and Matsu less then 5 miles from China’s shores. They used these islands to attempt to blockade China and launched more attacks. After the end of the Korean War the US came close to Nuclear War over their right to these tiny stolen islands terrifying even US allies like Britain and France. With typical American arrogance they claimed that the islands were vital to America’s national security and of course completely ignored the right of China to it’s own territory as well as it’s right not to constantly be attacked by land sea and air by commandos, ships, and planes.

Nuclear War

Today America is still ready to plunge the world into a Nuclear War in order to prevent China from regaining Taiwan or controlling it’s own waters. Instead the Chinese are constantly menaced by American ships threatening to start a war over the South China Sea. The Quemoy and Matsu crisis were the Cuban Missile crisis of the 1950’s so it is amazing how all memory of it has been erased since. The “China Lobby” nearly destroyed the world. America repeatedly threatened a nuclear first strike and just like today were dying for a chance to test out their tactical nuclear weapons a scheme the Neo-cons revived as part of their plans for a war on Iran during the Bush II years. A war that could also have escalated into a Nuclear war just like the wars in Ukraine and Syria could today.

It was this constant tension over Nuclear war that began to discredit the US in the eyes of the world. Back then people still remembered the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and only American politicians and Generals were insane enough to hope for a Nuclear War. Of course they were not quite as crazy as was believed at the time because they had greatly exaggerated the size of the Soviet Nuclear forces and because of their U2 flights knew that they could still destroy the Soviet Union.

However this fact was a closely guarded secret when Fleming wrote his book and even Presidential Candidate John F. Kennedy had no way of knowing that the supposed bomber and missile gaps were complete frauds meant to justify massive military spending. This is also why the Military was so enraged about loosing the chance to start a Nuclear War during the Cuban Missile crisis. What they didn’t know was that the Cuban missiles were installed and fully operational and America would have lost some of it’s cities on the east coast in the process. However for the Nuclear war planners a hundred million dead Americans was a small price to pay for the complete destruction of the Cuba, Soviet Union and China which would have killed 1 billion people in a day.

In the Soviet Union meanwhile Krushchev an incompetent opportunist had risen to power. He would send the Soviet Union on the road to ruin before being overthrown. He reintroduced market forces, shifting focus from heavy industry to consumer goods which while popular in the short term would lead to technological backwardness. Gorbachev would complete what Krushchev started but of course that all lay in the distant future as Fleming wrote.

However the Krushchev years would provide a sort of preview of the collapse when the CIA would take advantage of the chaos caused by his infamous “Secret Speech” attacking Stalin to support a more independent Poland on the model of Yugoslavia. They also attempted to launch a fascist counter-revolution in Hungary which Krushchev was forced to crush after provoking the whole thing with his bungling management of the country. After the Quemoy and Matsu crisis Cold War tensions had relaxed as the world rebelled against the insane Dulles policy of brinksmanship. Hungary would heat things back up and the failed Hungarian proto-color revolution would be used to demonize the soviets for years despite the fact that it was far less bloody then the wars in Greece, Korea, Vietnam, and an ever growing list of countries destroyed to “save” them from communism. The fascist character of the Hungarian Counter-Revolution has been intentionally white washed just as it would later be in Ukraine’s fascist Maidan Coup.

These early cold war years would also see the seeds of the wars in Iraq and Syria planted long ago. This time it was the bungling brinksmanship of John Foster Dulles to blame and yet again a nuclear war was nearly provoked. Dulles goal was to bring the entire world into alliance against the communist bloc. As usual he completely ignored what the people of the world wanted. For most of the world the goal was preserving their newly won independence or in  fighting to win it. Thus a non-aligned movement was born at the famous Bandung conference in 1954.

They wanted the right to maintain friendly relations with both sides and included China as a member which enraged the Americans. The CIA tried to assassinate Chou En-Lai the Chinese foreign minister and failed. Instead Chou En-Lai was a huge hit at Bandung and America’s puppets who argued that the NAM (non-aligned movement) should instead focus on “Soviet Imperialism” were completely ignored. They knew full well that it was the so called “free world” France Britain, the Dutch, that had slaughtered and enslaved them not the soviets. The Bandung conference instead condemned Israel to the joy of the Arab world.

Thus by the time of the Suez crisis in 1956 the empire could no longer ignore the forces of national liberation that were sweeping the globe. However for Dulles Neutralism was almost as bad as communism and he continued to attempt to force the world into his anti-communist alliances. In Europe of course there was NATO in Asia SEATO was created. In the middle east their was the Baghdad Pact.

This plan would backfire badly in the middle east where the enemy was seen as Israel a US ally rather then the USSR. By attempting to force Syria and Iraq into becoming American puppets instead Dulles provoked nationalist coups. In Syria this began their alliance with the Soviet Union. Dulles had caused what he hoped to prevent Soviet influence in the middle east. Actually back then the CIA formulated plans for regime change in Syria using the muslim brotherhood. Plans they would try out in the 70’s and 80’s and begin to put into effect again back in 2003 culminating in the 2011 war that continues to this day. Ironically yet again this CIA meddling would produce the opposite result. 

Their goal was to eliminate Syria Russia’s only ally in the region and turning the Mediterranean into a NATO lake.  Instead they provoked a Russian intervention in Syria massively increasing Russian influence in the region. As for Iraq the CIA hired a young Sadam Hussein to attempt to assassinate Iraq’s new nationalist president Qassem beginning the rise to power of their future ally turned enemy. Both these coups were the result of the US invasion of Lebanon to protect their puppet against his own people an invasion that would be repeated in the 1980’s with disastrous consequences.

However events in Syria and Iraq were little noticed at the time. Instead it was the Suez crisis that caught the attention of the world. It was the result of Dulles brinksmanship against the neutralist Nasser. Nasser’s rise to power had actually been secretly backed by the CIA and the Gehlen organization. However tensions began to rise when the US refused to sell him the arms Egypt needed to battle Israel. Then Dulles decided to cancel funding for the Aswan dam project to teach Nasser a lesson for being too independent. With his hatred of neutralism Dulles basically forced Egypt into the soviet camp. Nasser decided to buy weapons from the Soviet Bloc.

To pay for the Aswan dam he decided to nationalize the Suez canal. This enraged Britain, France and Israel. However it electrified the Arab World and Nasser a charismatic speaker became a superstar for defying the imperial powers which had only recently been ejected from the region after slicing it up into it’s current borders. Nasser hoped to unite the entire Arab world. Israel, Britain, and France decided to launch a war on Egypt so Britain could take back the canal and Israel could take the Sinai peninsula.

The Americans pretended to be surprised though of course they knew about it advance. Strangely because of Nasser’s popularity in the Arab world and the forces unleashed at Bandung the US was forced to side with Nasser who was already becoming a soviet ally against their own allies the British, French and Israelis who were forced to withdraw. Although Nasser had faced military disaster he now achieved an enormous political victory becoming more popular then ever. He was so popular that for a time Syria voted to unite with Egypt and they became a single country. It was another disaster for Dulles’ diplomatic brinksmanship as Egypt was soon solidly in the Soviet camp. Plus America’s allies Britain and France were furious about the perceived betrayal for years.

Aside from Krushchev’s disastrous economic policies which would destroy soviet agriculture his other main goal was to achieve peace with the west. This was of course completely impossible for as we have seen the Soviets had always wanted peace and at the end of World War 2 had hoped to remain friendly with their allies. Instead before the World War 2 had even ended Truman launched the Cold War inviting Molotov over and then attempting to bully and insult him into abandoning control of eastern Europe especially Poland.

The Soviet union was soon encircled with American nuclear bomber bases and was embroiled in a huge covert war across eastern Europe with Fascist exiles working for British, French, and German intelligence. Then after Stalin died in 1953 the Soviet Union once again tried to make peace but in the cold war insanity of the time any offer of peace was considered even more dangerous then threats of war. All soviet peace moves were talked about as if they were cynical propaganda moves meant to influence public opinion and get the west to drop it’s guard so they could lunch a sneak attack.

Thus was coined the term “the peace offensive.” Still after 11 years of “Cold War” which had repeatedly brought the world to the brink of war over West Berlin, Korea, Taiwan, Quemoy and Matsu, the Suez Canal, as well as flocks of birds, and suspicious looking clouds. Accidents nearly ended the world many times during this era we would later find out. In any case the world could no longer take the tension and had noticed that the Soviets were always talking of Peace while the Americans were always threatening war.

Krushchev began to become a popular figure worldwide although he would end up driving China into America’s arms by trying to make peace while China was still being occupied and attacked by America and it’s KMT proxies while being excluded from the UN. Mao also foresaw how Krushchev’s reforms would lead to corruption. China supplanted Russia as the chief opponent of imperialism and the chief promoter of Revolution. Thus it is ironic that it was China not the Soviets who would later ally with the US in the 1970’s. Now because of America’s endless bullying China has been forced back into alliance with Russia from a geo-strategic perspective this was America’s greatest blunder of World War 4 (the war that began as soon as the cold war ended) and China is already on the road to once again becoming a revolutionary and anti-imperialist force in the world. Thankfully unlike Russia, China was never foolish enough to actually trust their American allies and so were spared having to suffer a Yeltsin.

But let us return to the end of the 1950’s and the popularity of Krushchev’s calls for peace. America was forced to counter with their own peace offensive and Eisenhower toured the world talking of the dangers of Nuclear war and the possibility of peaceful coexistence.

John Foster Dulles had died and the world hoped that sanity might finally prevail. The only problem of course is that the last thing the Americans actually wanted was peace or arms reductions. They were busy stockpiling nuclear weapons and were still planning a surprise Nuclear attack on the Soviets and the Chinese. Of course Fleming didn’t know about the surprise attack part but he does point out that the US constantly raised their demands whenever the soviets offered concessions. However the peace talks ended in disaster when the CIA intentionally sent a sabotaged and stripped down U2 flight into the Soviet Union which was shot down when it’s engines failed and it dropped out of high altitude. Krushchev was humiliated especially when the US claimed it had a right to violate soviet airspace, supposedly to detect a soviet surprise attack, but in reality to map out targets for their own surprise attack. When Fleming was writing the CIA role was still unknown. In any case the Soviets were forced to threaten to attack any base that launched planes into it’s area sending America’s allies into a panic and making neutralism popular even in Europe. This was the context for Eisenhower’s infamous farewell remarks about the dangers of the military industrial complex which were both prophetic and hypocritical given Eisenhower’s role in the military buildup.

This was the situation in the world when John F. Kennedy was elected. Fleming’s book extends only to the spring of 1960 he was hoping Adlai Stevenson would win. John F. Kennedy was a fierce anti-communist but actually understood third world nationalism. Contrary to myth he did not order the assassination of Patrice Lumumba but was instead heartbroken when he heard the news. He had visited Indochina during the French war and had witnessed first hand what a bad idea it would be to intervene there. On the other hand he was elected in the wake of the 1959 Cuban Revolution which had sent the US into yet another Counter-Revolutionary crusade. what if Castro should inspire revolutions in Latin America long part of America’s empire where people were kept in grinding poverty so American corporations could make massive profits.  Thus JFK continued the covert war on Cuba begun under Eisenhower. He agreed to the disastrous bay of pigs invasion. Then he authorized the CIA to continue the covert war on Cuba. Krushchev decided to send missiles to Cuba to defend the country which had been forced to ally with the Soviets by America’s hostility. The world was brought to the brink of Nuclear War.

All Kennedy’s advisers wanted to attack they had been planning this for years and hoped to wipe out Cuba, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea all at once. During the missile crisis the us attacked a soviet nuclear sub and it was only their unwillingness to retaliate that saved the world from Nuclear war. Krushchev was forced to back down but war was averted.

JFK was forever changed by the experience and finally began to act on Krushchev’s offer of peace. He also made plans to remove the advisers he had sent to Vietnam with his national security memorandum 263. He spoke for the first time since FDR’s era of the Soviets as human beings not monsters bent on world conquest. “our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet.

We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.” he warned. Within months he was dead shot in broad daylight in Dallas Texas by forces within America bent on continuing the cold war. Within days of his death plans were made to escalate the war in Vietnam millions would die. The cold war, the deep state, the military industrial complex were too powerful to be kept in check by even the imperial presidency. America would undergo a decade of resignations, soft coups and assassinations. Even Nixon and Kissinger’s attempts at detente would lead to their downfall as would Jimmy Carter’s attempt to rein in America’s fascist allies. With Ronald Reagan the Cold War would return with full force. Then came the disaster of Gorbachev who thought he could buy America’s friendship by giving them everything they had ever wanted he abandoned eastern Europe he destroyed socialism they overthrew him anyways and put in Yeltsin.

Yet even with their own puppet Yeltsin in power in Russia the US couldn’t resist continuing the cold war. Gorbachev thought he was making peace but the Americans more accurately  saw it as a complete surrender. Throughout the 1990’s they directed a disastrous series of “reforms” which aimed to destroy Russia turning it into a third world country hoping to balkanize it. They funded fascists and separatists throughout Eastern Europe and the former soviet union. They expanded NATO breaking all their false promises. They destroyed Yugoslavia and ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Serbs from their fascist ally Croatia. The Serbs who had lived there for hundreds of years were portrayed as invaders in the media. It was the same trick they would use during the current war in Ukraine portraying the ethnic Russians resisting the fascist coup as a Russian invasion. Which brings us to our own time and cold war 2.0. The Hysteria is so laughable that the President is portrayed as a Russian spy, the entire alternative media most of whom are Americans are portrayed as Russian propagandists and destroying the world is portrayed as the only way to save the world from nonexistent “Russian imperialism”.

The dangers of Nuclear war are completely forgotten and people seem to think that a war with Russia will be another cake walk. This is insane since because of the US plans for star wars and anti-ballistic missile shields the Russians have developed hypersonic nuclear missiles and nuclear torpedoes that can travel thousands of miles underwater and are both unstoppable. Even if Russia was unable to fire back the amount of Radioactive fallout from trying to destroy Russia and China would doom the entire world. Nuclear winter and radiation poisoning would be all the survivors could look forward to. Sadly our only solace is that the empire of chaos has always been insane and yet haven’t destroyed the planet yet.

We must end this current hysteria but of course I am already preaching to the converted. Still we must find some way for the tiny minority of people who actually know what is going on in the world by reading internet sites like this one to wake up the complacent TV watching majority. The majority of the west who only ever half pay attention and seemingly instantly forget events of last month let alone years ago. The world is sleepwalking towards nuclear disaster seemingly completely oblivious. Nearly 60 years ago Fleming wrote his book attempting to avert Nuclear war. Once there were massive marches demanding nuclear disarmament  and Peace the whole world was aware of the dangers. We must revive these efforts to bring the world back from the brink of disaster before it is to late.

Sources

My main source was of course “The Cold War and it’s Origins 1917-1960 Volume 2 1950-1960” By D.F. Fleming which is a masterpiece. It should be immediately brought back into print.

I also read “Korea: The Unknown War” by Jon Halliday & Bruce Cumings which gives a horrifying portrayal of the war in words and pictures. 

I also re-read sections of “The CIA a Forgotten History” by William Blum which was later updated and republished under the title “Killing Hope” a book I’ve mentioned many times and often reread as it was very much my inspiration. In rereading the introduction I was struck by how influential Flemings book was on Blum. Hunt down a copy of this book it is a must read for anyone wanting a history of the empire.

I wrote a trilogy on Vietnam

The Origins of the Wars in Korea and Vietnam (Based on Peter Dale Scott’s The War Conspiracy and I.F. Stone’s classic The Hidden History of the Korean War)

http://anti-imperialist-u.blogspot.com/2015/03/wars-in-korea-and-vietnam.html

The Phoenix Program based on Doug Valentine’s definitive “The Phoenix Program”

http://anti-imperialist-u.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-phoenix-program.html

Genocide in Vietnam based on “The Perfect War” By James William Gibson

http://anti-imperialist-u.blogspot.com/2015/04/genocide-in-vietnam.html

Operation Condor based on J. Patrice McSherry’s excellent “Predatory States”

http://anti-imperialist-u.blogspot.com/2015/04/genocide-in-vietnam.html

Russia from Gorbachev to Putin (on the end of the 1st cold war and the start of the new one)

http://anti-imperialist-u.blogspot.com/2014/06/russia-from-gorbachev-to-putin.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Cold War and Its Origins. History of the Soviet Union. World War II, Colonialism, Independence and Counter-revolution

A resource-rich, socialist-led, multi-ethnic secular state, with an economic system characterized by a high level of public/social ownership and generous provision of welfare, education and social services.

An independent foreign policy with friendship and good commercial ties with Russia, support for Palestine and African and Arab unity – and historical backing for anti-imperialist movements.

Social progress in a number of areas, including women’s emancipation.

The above accurately describes the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic. Three countries in three different continents, which had so much in common.

All three had governments which described themselves as socialist. All three pursued a foreign policy independent of Washington and NATO. And all three were targeted for regime change/destruction by the US and its allies using remarkably similar methods.

The first step of the imperial predators was the imposition of draconian economic sanctions used to cripple their economies, weaken their governments (always referred to as ‘a/the regime’) and create political unrest. From 1992-95, and again in 1998, Yugoslavia was hit by the harshest sanctions ever imposed on a European state. The sanctions even involved an EU ban on the state-owned passenger airliner JAT

Libya was under US sanctions from the 1980s until 2004, and then again in 2011, the year the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa was bombed back to the Stone Age.

Syria has been sanctioned by the US since 2004 with a significant increase in the severity of the measures in 2011 when the regime change op moved into top gear.

Former President of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milošević

The second step was the backing of armed militias/terrorist proxies to destabilise the countries and help overthrow these “regimes”. The strategy was relatively simple. Terrorist attacks and the killing of state officials and soldiers would provoke a military response from ‘the regime, whose leader would then be condemned for ‘killing his own people’ (or in the case of Milosevic, other ethnic groups),  and used to ramp up the case for a ‘humanitarian intervention’ by the US and its allies.

In Yugoslavia, the US-proxy force was the Kosovan Liberation Army, who were given training and logistical support by the West.

In Libya, groups linked to al-Qaeda, like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, were provided assistance, with NATO effectively acting as al-Qaeda’s air force

In Syria, there was massive support for anti-government Islamist fighters, euphemistically labelled ‘moderate rebels.’ It didn’t matter to the ‘regime changers’ that weapons supplied to ‘moderate rebels’ ended up in the hands of groups like ISIS. On the contrary, a declassified secret US intelligence report from 2012 showed that the Western powers welcomed the possible establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria, seeing it as a means of isolating ‘the Syrian regime’.

The third step carried out at the same time as one and two involved the relentless demonisation of the leadership of the target states. This involved the leaders being regularly compared to Hitler, and accused of carrying out or planning genocide and multiple war crimes.

Milosevic – President of Yugoslavia – was labelled a ‘dictator’ even though he was the democratically-elected leader of a country in which over 20 political parties freely operated.

Former Prime Minister of Libya Muammar Gaddafi

Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi was portrayed as an unstable foaming at the mouth lunatic, about to launch a massacre in Benghazi, even though he had governed his country since the end of the Swinging Sixties.

Syria’s Assad did take over in an authoritarian one-party system, but was given zero credit for introducing a new constitution which ended the Ba’ath Party’s monopoly of political power. Instead all the deaths in the Syrian conflict were blamed on him, even those of the thousands of Syrian soldiers killed by Western/GCC-armed and funded ‘rebels’.

The fourth step in the imperial strategy was the deployment of gatekeepers – or ‘Imperial Truth Enforcers’ – to smear or defame anyone who dared to come  to the defence of the target states, or who said that they should be left alone.

The pro-war, finance-capital-friendly, faux-left was at the forefront of the media campaigns against the countries concerned. This was to give the regime change/destruction project a ‘progressive’ veneer, and to persuade or intimidate genuine ’old school’ leftists not to challenge the dominant narrative.

To place them beyond the pale, Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria were all labelled ’fascist,’ even though their leadership was socialist and their economies were run on socialistic lines. Meanwhile, genuine fascists, like anti-government factions in Ukraine (2013-14), received enthusiastic support from NATO.

The fifth step was direct US/NATO-led military intervention against ‘the regime’ triggered by alleged atrocities/planned atrocities of the target state. At this stage, the US works particularly hard to sabotage any peaceful solution to the conflicts they and their regional allies have ignited. At the Rambouillet conference in March 1999, for example, the Yugoslav authorities, who had agreed to an international peace-keeping force in Kosovo, were presented with an ultimatum that they could not possibly accept. Lord Gilbert, a UK defence minister at the time, later admitted

 “the terms put to Milosevic (which included NATO forces having freedom of movement throughout his country) were absolutely intolerable … it was quite deliberate.”

In 2011, the casus belli was that ‘the mad dog’ Gaddafi was about to massacre civilians in Benghazi. We needed a ‘humanitarian intervention’ to stop this, we were repeatedly told. Five years later, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report held that

“the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence.”

In 2013, the reason given for direct military intervention in Syria was an alleged chemical weapons attack by ‘Assad’s forces’ in Ghouta. But this time, the UK Parliament voted against military action and the planned ‘intervention’ was thwarted, much to the great frustration of the war-hungry neocons. They still keep trying though.

President of Syria Bashar al-Assad

The recent claims of The White House, that they had evidence that the Syrian government was planning a chemical weapons attack, and that if such an attack took place it would be blamed on Assad, shows that the Empire hasn’t given up on Stage Five for Syria just yet.

Stage Six of the project involves the US continuing to sabotage moves towards a negotiated peace once the bombing started. This happened during the bombing of Yugoslavia and the NATO assault on Libya. A favoured tactic used to prevent a peaceful resolution is to get the leader of the target state indicted for war crimes. Milosevic was indicted at the height of the bombing in 1999, Gaddafi in 2011.

Stage Seven is ‘Mission Accomplished’. It’s when the target country has been ‘regime-changed’ and either broken up or transformed into a failed state with strategically important areas/resources under US/Western control. Yugoslavia was dismantled and its socially-owned economy privatised. Montenegro, the great prize on the Adriatic, recently joined NATO.

Libya, hailed in the Daily Telegraph as a top cruise ship destination in 2010, is now a lawless playground for jihadists and a place where cruise ships dare not dock. This country, which provided free education and health care for all its citizens under Gaddafi, has recently seen the return of slave markets.

Syria, though thankfully not at Stage Seven, has still been knocked back almost forty years. The UNDP reported:

“Despite having achieved or being well under way to achieving major Millennium Development Goals targets (poverty reduction, primary education, and gender parity in secondary education, decrease in infant mortality rates and increasing access to improved sanitation) as of 2011, it is estimated that after the first four years of crisis Syria has dropped from 113th to 174th out of 187 countries ranked in the Human Development Index.”

Of course, it’s not just three countries which have been wrecked by the Empire of Chaos. There are similarities too with what’s happened to Afghanistan and Iraq. In the late 1970s, the US started to back Islamist rebels to destabilise and topple the left-wing, pro-Moscow government in Kabul.

Afghanistan has been in turmoil ever since, with the US and its allies launching an invasion of the country in 2001 to topple a Taliban ‘regime’ which grew out of the ’rebel’ movement which the US had backed.

Iraq was hit with devastating, genocidal sanctions, which were maintained under US/UK pressure even after it had disarmed. Then it was invaded on the deceitful pretext that its leader, Saddam Hussein, still possessed WMDs.

The truth of what has been happening is too shocking and too terrible ever to be admitted in the Western mainstream media. Namely, that since the demise of the Soviet Union, the US and its allies have been picking off independent, resource-rich, strategically important countries one by one.

The point is not that these countries were perfect and that there wasn’t political repression taking place in some of them at various times, but that they were earmarked for destruction solely for standing in the way of the imperialists. The propagandists for the US-led wars of recent years want us to regard the conflicts as ‘stand alones’ and to regard the ‘problem’ as being the ‘mad dog’ leadership of the countries which were attacked.

But in fact, the aggressions against Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the threatening of Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela are all parts of the same war. Anyone who hasn’t been locked in a wardrobe these past twenty years, or whose salary is not paid directly, or indirectly, by the Empire of Chaos, can surely see now where the ‘problem’ really lies.

The ‘New Hitlers’ – Milosevic, Hussein and Gaddafi – who we were told were the ‘biggest threats’ to world peace, are dead and buried. But guess what? The killing goes on.

The author is a well-known UK pundit who writes frequently on Russia. He is currently running a crowdfunding to sue the Times, one of its writers, Oliver Kamm, and its publisher, Rupert Murdoch, for libel and stalking. If you like this article, please consider supporting this writer. He is one of the best out there on Russia.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Neocons Have Been Destroying Sovereign Nations for 20 Years, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria

Stop Golden Rice! Defend our Farmers‘ Rights! remains the resounding call of Asia farmers‘ network against the impending commercialization of Golden Rice in Asia. Four years after the militant uprooting of Golden Rice, waves of protest mobilizations stir anew in the Philippines and Bangladesh against its commercialization, while debate rages on in Indonesia, India and other Asian countries where Golden Rice is planned for commercial release.

Today, a protest campaign in front of Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) was held by hundreds of farmers and civil society supporters led by the National Women Farmers and Workers Association (NWFA) and Bangladesh Agricultural Farm Labour Federation (BAFLF). A public forum on GMOs and Golden Rice was also held by NWFA and BAFLF few days back last August 4-5 in Gazipur to bring the public issue to the fore.

Nasrin Sultana of NWFA explained that

“Since 2006, we have consistently protested and even formed a barricade in BRRI against Golden Rice. We denounce the government approval of Golden Rice commercialization. The public must be alarmed with the great risks of Golden Rice consumption to food safety and public health. Golden rice commercialization equates to billions worth of annual corporate profit in expanse of consumers’ health and farmers’ seed freedom. This cannot be allowed.”

The Golden Rice debate is marred by conflicts and controversy. After decades of research, the efficacy, safety and viability of Golden Rice remains uncertain and pose grave threat to food safety and consumers’ health. It is within this ground that government of China and academic journal publishers sanctioned and retracted the research work of scientists who engaged in unethical feeding of Golden Rice to children whose families were not informed that they were being fed Golden Rice last 2012. To date, there are no published reports proving that Golden Rice is safe for human consumption. Add to this the recent published study stating that Golden Rice is unfit for commercial cultivation due to poor agronomic performance leading to low yield.

Aliansi Gerakan Reform Agrari (AGRA), a national peasant federation in Indonesia in statement expressed that

 “Indonesia, as with the whole region, is also threatened by the growing corporate control over agriculture and consequent erosion of traditional seed resources. The government promotes GMOs and 80-90% of our soybeans and corn imports are GMOs. The Indonesia National Food Policy proclaimed to boost volume of food production, mainly rice production with the application of genetic engineering of 19 food crops, primarily rice, corn, sorghum, and soybean. Golden Rice will be an eventual real threat to our farmers, making it an imperative for us to campaign and support the Asia wide campaign against Golden Rice commercialization.”

India host two-thirds of the world’s rice varieties. Campaigns in India have gained momentum against genetically engineered rice, including the Save our Rice network, the Folk Rice Movement and the Seed Mothers movement; all working to conserve and salvage thousands of traditional and indigenous seed varieties which would have otherwise been eroded by the onslaught of hybrid technology and conventional chemical inputs in the past decades. Recent news on the establishment of IRRI’s South Asia’s Regional Centre in city of Varanasi in the last quarter of 2017 have raised alarm as it may serve as a pretext to the government’s aggressive move to commercialize genetically engineered rice. The bitter tragedy hundred thousands of farmers succumbing to suicide in the past decade is linked with debt chains acquired from the seed monopoly of Monsanto thru BT Cotton in the cotton belt region remain to haunt the country.

In Philippines, the Golden Rice issue was stirred anew with the renewed application for field trial and direct use last February 2017 despite the absence of public dialogue. To commemorate the historic uprooting and protest action against golden rice last August 8, 2013, hundreds of farmers will gather to hold a public forum in Nueva Ecija in Central Luzon, the rice granary of the country where Philippine Rice Research Insitute (PhilRICE) Golden Rice experimental fields are located. A civil society roundtable discussion on August 10 and a public dialogue between government and civil society will also be on August 11 within the national capital to re-echo public opposition against Golden Rice.

“Golden Rice is a greedy scientific enterprise of IRRI and corporations masked as humanitarian aid. It deviates from the real solution to malnutrition which is to fight poverty, uphold genuine agrarian reform and promote diverse nutritious, natural and easily accessible food sources. Its ultimate interest is to secure top profit arena and monopoly control of global food system since billions rely, produce and consume rice. The looming Golden Rice commercialization anchored on neoliberal market will flood the region with massive and unregulated trade of GM rice. This spells doom to our country where the quantitative restriction on rice importation will soon be lifted. Golden rice is a death reaper to our local local rice sector as traditional rice varieties will be vulnerable to GMO contamination. Stop Golden Rice! is a call to defend life and freedom against this oppressive claws of corporate control,” stated Cristino Panerio, National Coordinator of the Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG), a local farmer-scientist movement in the forefront of campaigns against golden rice commercialization in the past decade.

Since its inception in 2001, Syngenta (currently merged with ChemChina), Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation among others have poured millions of funds thru the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the research and promotion of Golden Rice, a genetically engineered rice touted to address Vitamin A deficiency. But, strong and consistent peoples’ protests in the past decades impeded its planned commercialization particularly in Bangladesh, Philippines and India.

In August 8, 2013, more than 400 farmers led the historic uprooting of Golden Rice experimental fields at Pili, Camarines Sur to signal strong opposition to Golden rice trials and commercialization. Corporate proponents thru their media mouthpieces, such as Mark Lynas and Patrick Moore, vilified the farmers’ direct action. The peasant movement in the Philippines, however, reiterated their dissent against Golden Rice as a legitimate conviction to defend rights against corporate control of agriculture thru GMOs.

An Asia Farmers’ Conference against Golden Rice was subsequently held in 2014 with more than 70 farmers, people’s organizations from the region echoing their stand against Golden Rice. The campaigns proved successful as it triggered broader public attention, institutional debate and exposed the deceitful corporate claims on the Golden Rice issue in the national and international arena – ultimately leading to postponement of its commercialization.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Asia Farmers’ Network Resounds Strong Call to Stop Golden Rice

Improved U.S. Medicare for All Is the Solution

August 8th, 2017 by Margaret Flowers

On August 2, 2017, The Nation published an article by Joshua Holland, “Medicare for All isn’t the Solution for Universal Health Care,” chastising Improved Medicare for All supporters because, in his view, the single payer movement has “failed to grapple with the difficulties of transitioning to a single-payer system.” The article, which doesn’t quote anyone involved in the movement for Improved Medicare for All, begs a response because it shows what liberals opposed to single payer believe. Holland dredges up the same arguments used to keep single payer off the table during the creation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). He even dusted off a few that were used to try to stop Medicare from coming into existence in the 1960s. And then he attempts to distract single payer supporters away from supporting Improved Medicare for All and settling for something less, as was done successfully in 2009.

The first error that Holland makes is confusing the term “Medicare for All” as meaning that advocates would simply take the current Medicare system, with both traditional and ‘Advantage’ plans, and expand that. This is why it is important to use the phrase “Improved Medicare for All.” As outlined in HR 676: The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, the new system would be based on the current Medicare system, which is already national, but it would be a single public plan that is comprehensive in coverage and does not have out-of-pocket costs or caps. It would ban investor-owned facilities and ban private insurers from selling policies that duplicate what the system covers. A single system is the simplest for patients and health professionals because there is one transparent set of rules.

Most people who purchase health insurance have no idea which plan is best for them because nobody can anticipate what their healthcare needs will be in the future. A study of the Massachusetts health exchange plans done by the Center for American Progress showed that some plans were best for patients with cancer and other plans were best for people with heart disease or diabetes, but that isn’t something that can be advertised up front. Even if it were, people can’t predict if they will be diagnosed with cancer, heart disease or diabetes in the future. HR 676: The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act solves this problem by creating a single public plan designed to cover whatever our healthcare needs will be.

A second error that Holland makes is saying that HR 676 calls for the new system to start within a single year. The bill will take effect “on the first day of the first year that begins more than [emphasis added] 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.” This means that if HR 676 were to be signed by the President in July of 2018, then it would take effect in January of 2020. Holland raises the concern that we can’t move the whole country into the new Improved Medicare for All system that quickly. In fact, HR 676 has transition periods for the Veteran’s Administration, the Indian Health Service, displaced workers and buying out for-profit health providers.

When Medicare was enacted in 1965, more than 50% of seniors were uninsured and the rest had some form of health insurance. Without computers and without a national health system in place, all 19 million seniors were enrolled in the first year (almost twice as many as were enrolled in the ACA in the first four years). At present, the United States has Medicare infrastructure in place and all practicing health professionals have a National Provider Identifier issued to them by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). When the new Improved Medicare for All system takes effect, enrollment will be very simple because there is only one plan that is universal and paid for up front though taxes. All health professionals will be in it. Every person could be sent a card, much as CMS does now for people who are turning 65. For those who do not receive a card, HR 676 has a solution – when they present for care at a health facility, they are assumed to be in the system, are treated first and then are enrolled in the system afterwards.

Next, Holland brings up the same arguments used to prevent universal health care attempts in the past. He states that people don’t want to give up what they have. This is called ‘loss aversion.’ It is a task of the single payer movement to build the public support for Improved Medicare for All necessary to overcome any potential loss aversion. Public figures and elected officials can play a role in building support as well.

Holland raises concerns that employers and seniors won’t want to give up their private plans, but that is based on his mistaken belief that Improved Medicare for All will be the same as current Medicare. The reality is that people will be less worried about giving up what they have if they know that it will be replaced with something better and that they will no longer fear losing their doctor as they will all be in the new system. Improved Medicare for All will provide more comprehensive benefits, no out-of-pocket costs and an unrestricted network of health professionals from which to choose. Employers will no longer be burdened with the high costs of health insurance. People with pre-existing health conditions will no longer worry about losing coverage or having to pay more. Unions and employers can offer supplemental plans for extras not covered by the new system, as is done in countries like France, if they choose to do so.

Holland also raises the concern that people will lose their doctor because they will opt out of the system due to low reimbursements. We are already losing doctors because of the current system. Physician burnout was listed as the second biggest concern by the Surgeon General last year. Under Improved Medicare for All, all health professionals will be in the system. There won’t be any place to opt out to. And why would they want to? Health professionals will save tens of thousands of dollars each year on billing and won’t have to worry about whether a patient has insurance or not. They can see anyone who calls for an appointment. And they will have a system with which to negotiate fair reimbursement. Private health insurance doesn’t negotiate with physicians and hospitals. Each year they make an offer and providers can either basically take it or leave it. Doctors in single payer systems that spend much less per capita than the United States are paid well, so the US can certainly afford to reimburse doctors adequately.

Every transformative change has suffered from loss aversion, but that hasn’t stopped them. When Medicare was enacted, it was called socialized medicine, a government intrusion that would take away people’s choices and freedom and become an opening to government control over our lives. The scare tactics didn’t work and Medicare is one of the most popular parts of our current healthcare system. Desegregation, women’s rights, workers’ rights and more were great changes that were successful and we are a better society for them. Why is the right to health care any different?

Finally, Holland dives into the myth that we can’t afford Improved Medicare for All because it will be too expensive. My first response when I hear this is that the same excuse wasn’t made when we spent $16 trillion to bail out the banks in 2008 and is never made when we invade another country, so why is it raised when it comes to one of the most basic necessities a society can have? The United States has the highest wealth and the highest wealth inequality of industrialized nations. The new “Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index” recommends social spending on education, health and other basic social protections as its top priority. Congress can appropriate the funds to do this. This should be a top priority in the United States as well.

The reality is that the United States is already spending the most on health care per person each year because the market has failed to control costs. That is exactly why we need a single payer system like National Improved Medicare for All. It is the only way to simplify the bloated bureaucracy of the current healthcare system, which would save around $500 billion each year, and to control the costs of medical procedures, medical devices and pharmaceuticals by having a single system that can negotiate fair prices. In addition to the bureaucracy created by a multi-payer system, the US subsidized the insurance industry with more than $300 billion last year. A system based on health, rather than profits for investors, can identify and prioritize our greatest health needs and work to address them.

For example, the US is failing when it comes to care for people with chronic diseases. There are numerous reasons why this is occurring – lack of access to consistent care, inability to afford medications, insufficient time for health education when patients see a health professional, cheap and highly processed food, environmental pollutants and more. An actual health system could take meaningful action to address these issues, and keep people healthier. Think about it: people with high blood pressure or diabetes in the US may not be able to see the doctor regularly or stay on their medicines due to cost, but when they suffer a stroke or kidney failure, and need long term care or dialysis, then they can receive disability benefits and Medicare. How much better and less expensive would it be for everyone to prevent strokes and kidney failure in the first place?

Just as many ‘progressive’ groups did during the health reform process that resulted in the ACA, Holland works to convince us that we don’t need a single payer system, and that we can work with the current system. Once again, Jacob Hacker, a leading advocate for the ACA and single payer opponent, is invoked and we are told that we can add a Medicare buy-in or another form of a public option. We are told that other countries use private insurance, so why can’t we? The Democrats, beholden to the medical industrial complex, want us to believe these false non-solutions that protect the insurance industry. It feels like 2009 all over again.

Rather than go through all of the reasons why these approaches will fail, I urge you to read articles on that topic posted on HealthOverProfit.org (Click here for a list of them). Instead, I refer to a saying used by my now-deceased mentor Dr. Quentin Young: “You can’t cross an abyss in two jumps.” The only way we can get to a universal single payer healthcare system in the United States is by creating a universal single payer healthcare system in the United States. Anything less than that will fail because it will not achieve the savings on administration and prices needed to cover everyone and it will not compete with the powerful private insurance industry.

Throughout time, every great social movement has been told that it was asking for too much. Advocates for worker’s rights, women’s rights, civil rights, etc., were labelled as unreasonable radicals wishing for some pie-in-the-sky change that can’t be achieved. Holland is doing the same to the single payer movement. Don’t fall for it. We have the resources in the US to have one of the top healthcare systems in the world. We have health policy experts who have helped to design excellent systems for other countries. Single payer is a proven solution, unlike the plans being proposed by the Democratic leadership.

One thing that Holland and I do agree on is that there is more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak. We could have an excellent national debate about which type of single payer healthcare system we support – a fully socialized system like the Veteran’s Health Administration, a national health service, or a socialized payer with multiple types of providers as in the Expanded and Improved Medicare for all Act. At the basis of our discussion must be the principles that every person in the US deserves high quality health care without financial barriers.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Improved U.S. Medicare for All Is the Solution

L’un des résultats les plus importants de la présidence de Trump est qu’elle révèle des forces complexes  et concurrentes ainsi que les relations dans lesquelles celles-ci sont engagées pour le maintien et l’expansion du pouvoir mondial étasunien («  l’Empire »).

Les références classiques à « l’Empire » ne précisent pas les relations et les conflits entre les institutions engagées dans la projection des différents aspects du pouvoir politique américain. Dans cet essai, nous décrirons les divisions actuelles du pouvoir, les intérêts et les objectifs de ces configurations d’influence concurrentes.

L’avènement d’un Empire : des forces s’équilibrant mutuellement

« L’empire » est un concept hautement trompeur dans la mesure où il laisse entendre que l’on parle d’un ensemble homogène et cohérent d’institutions poursuivant des intérêts similaires. « L’empire » est un mot général simpliste qui couvre un vaste champ ou s’opposent les institutions, les personnalités et les centres de pouvoir ; certains alliés, d’autres dans une opposition croissante.

Alors qu’« empire » peut décrire la notion générale selon laquelle tous ces centres de pouvoir poursuivent un objectif général commun, celui de dominer et d’exploiter des pays ciblés, des régions, des marchés, des ressources physiques et humaines, sa dynamique (le moment et l’orientation de l’action) est déterminée par des forces qui se compensent l’une et l’autre.

Dans la conjoncture actuelle, ces forces ne s’équilibrent plus du tout : une configuration tente d’usurper le pouvoir en destituant une autre. Jusqu’à maintenant, la configuration de pouvoir usurpatrice n’a recouru qu’à des attaques judiciaires, médiatiques et procédurales-législatives pour modifier la dynamique politique. Cependant, sous la surface, l’objectif est de renverser un ennemi en place et d’imposer une puissance concurrente.

Qui dirige « l’Empire » ?

Ces derniers temps, les hauts fonctionnaires dirigent les empires. Ils peuvent être des premiers ministres, des présidents, des autocrates, des dictateurs, des généraux ou une combinaison de ceux-ci. Les dirigeants impériaux en grande partie « légifèrent et exécutent » des politiques stratégiques et tactiques. Dans une crise, les responsables exécutifs peuvent faire l’objet d’une mise en examen par les législateurs ou des juges opposants, ce qui entraîne une mise en accusation (un coup d’État en douceur). Normalement, l’exécutif centralise et concentre le pouvoir, même s’il peut consulter, diverger ou même tromper les principaux législateurs et fonctionnaires de la justice. À aucun moment ou dans aucun lieu les électeurs ne jouent un rôle important.

Le pouvoir exécutif est exercé par l’intermédiaire de ministères ou de secrétariats spécialisés – Trésor, Affaires étrangères (Secrétaire d’État), Intérieur et les différents services de sécurité. Dans la plupart des cas, il existe une concurrence plus ou moins forte entre ces organisations supérieures, pour les budgets, la politique et l’accès aux chefs de direction et aux principaux décideurs.

En période de crise, lorsque le pouvoir exécutif est remis en cause, cette hiérarchie verticale s’effondre. La question se pose alors de savoir qui dictera et gouvernera la politique impériale.

Avec l’accession de Donald Trump à la présidence des États-Unis, le gouvernement impérial est devenu un terrain ouvertement contesté, combattu par d’inflexibles aspirants au pouvoir qui cherchent à renverser le régime démocratiquement élu.

Alors qu’ordinairement les présidents gouvernent, aujourd’hui, la structure entière de l’État est menacée par des centres de pouvoir concurrents. En ce moment, tous ceux qui cherchent le pouvoir sont en guerre les uns contre les autres pour imposer leur domination sur l’empire.

En premier lieu, le si stratégique centre de pouvoir chargé de la sécurité n’est plus sous le contrôle présidentiel : il fonctionne en coordination avec les centres de pouvoir du Congrès, des médias et des centres de pouvoir extra-gouvernementaux comme les oligarques (entreprises, hommes d’affaires, fabricants d’armes, sionistes et lobbys).

Des groupes de fonctionnaires enquêtent sur l’exécutif, fuitant librement des rapports gênants aux médias, faussant, grossissant ou montant de toutes pièces des incidents. Ils poursuivent, à la vue du public, l’objectif évident d’un changement de régime.

Le FBI, la Sécurité intérieure, la CIA et d’autres configurations de pouvoir agissent comme des alliés cruciaux de ceux qui veulent ce coup d’État et tentent d’empêcher le président de contrôler l’empire. Sans aucun doute, de nombreuses factions au sein des bureaux régionaux regardent nerveusement, en attendant de voir si le président sera vaincu par ces centres de pouvoir opposés ou s’il survivra et purgera les administrateurs actuels.

Le Pentagone héberge des éléments favorables au pouvoir présidentiel mais aussi des anti-présidentiels : certains généraux actifs sont alignés avec les moteurs principaux poussant au changement de régime tandis que d’autres s’opposent à ce mouvement. Ces deux forces en lutte influencent et dictent les politiques militaires impériales.

Les défenseurs les plus visibles et les plus agressifs du changement de régime se trouvent dans l’aile militariste du Parti démocrate. Ils sont intégrés au Congrès et alliés avec des policiers, à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur de Washington.

Au niveau institutionnel, les conspirateurs du coup d’État ont lancé une série d’« enquêtes » pour générer une propagande médiatique et préparer l’opinion publique à favoriser, ou au moins à accepter, un « changement de régime »extraordinaire.

La coalition formée par la partie démocrate du Congrès et les médias utilise des révélations, y compris des ragots de peu de valeur pour la sécurité du pays, fuitées par l’agence de sécurité nationale, mais qui s’avèrent très pertinentes pour renverser le régime actuel.

L’autorité impériale présidentielle est divisée en fragments d’influence, répartis entre le législatif, le Pentagone et les organes de sécurité.

Le pouvoir présidentiel dépend du cabinet dans sa lutte implacable pour le pouvoir impérial, polarisant l’ensemble du système politique.

Le président contre-attaque

Le régime Trump a de nombreux ennemis stratégiques et peu de puissants partisans. Ses conseillers sont souvent attaqués : certains ont été évincés, d’autres sont soumis à enquête et font l’objet de convocations pour des auditions hystériques de genre McCarthyiste ; enfin certains peuvent être fidèles mais sont incompétents et dépassés. Ses membres du Cabinet ont tenté de suivre l’ordre du jour indiqué par le Président, dont l’abrogation de la désastreuse « Affordable Care Act » (Loi sur les soins abordables) d’Obama et le relâchement des systèmes de réglementation fédéraux, mais avec peu de succès, même si ce programme est pourtant soutenu par les banquiers de Wall Street et Big Pharma.

Les prétentions napoléoniennes du président ont été systématiquement minées par un dénigrement acharné des médias et par l’absence d’un soutien populaire marqué, après les élections.

Le président manque d’une base de soutien médiatique et doit recourir à Internet et aux messages personnels pour s’adresser au public, tweets qui sont immédiatement attaqués par les médias.

Les principaux alliés soutenant le Président devraient se trouver parmi le Parti républicain, qui forme la majorité au Congrès et au Sénat. Ces législateurs n’agissent pas comme un bloc uniforme, car des ultra-militaristes se joignent aux démocrates pour chercher à le renverser. D’un point de vue stratégique, tous les signes indiquent l’affaiblissement de l’autorité présidentielle, même si sa ténacité de bulldog lui permet de conserver le contrôle formel de la politique étrangère. Mais ses déclarations de politique étrangère sont filtrées par des médias unanimement hostiles, qui ont réussi à définir les alliés et les adversaires, ainsi que par les échecs de certaines de ses décisions.

L’épreuve de force de septembre

Le sujet du grand test sur qui détient le pouvoir sera l’augmentation du plafond de la dette publique et la continuité du financement de l’ensemble du gouvernement fédéral. Sans accord, il y aura un arrêt massif du fonctionnement gouvernemental – une sorte de « grève générale » qui paralysera les principaux programmes nationaux et étrangers – y compris le financement de l’assurance-maladie, le versement des pensions de sécurité sociale et les salaires de millions de fonctionnaires et de militaires.

Les forces pour le changement de régime (les putschistes) ont décidé de faire leur maximum pour assurer la capitulation programmée du régime Trump ou sa destitution.

L’élite présidentielle pourra choisir de statuer par décret – en fonction de la crise économique qui en résultera. Ils peuvent capitaliser sur un effondrement de Wall Street et invoquer une menace imminente à la sécurité nationale sur nos frontières nationales et nos bases à l’étranger pour déclarer une urgence militaire. Sans soutien des services de renseignement, le succès d’un tel scénario est douteux.

Les deux parties s’accuseront mutuellement de cette situation catastrophique. Les mesures temporaires d’urgence du Trésor ne sauveront pas la situation. Les médias vont entrer dans le mode hystérique, allant de la critique politique jusqu’à demander ouvertement un changement de régime. Le régime présidentiel pourrait prendre de mesures dictatoriales pour « sauver le pays ».

Les modérés du Congrès exigeront une solution temporaire : un flux de dépenses fédérales décidées d’une semaine à l’autre.

De toutes façons, les putschistes et les « bonapartistes » bloqueront tout « compromis pourri ».

L’armée sera mobilisée avec l’ensemble de l’appareil judiciaire et sécuritaire pour tenter de contrôler la situation.

L’organisation de la société civile fera appel aux configurations de pouvoir émergentes pour défendre ses intérêts. Les employés publics et privés iront manifester avec les retraités et les enseignants qui se retrouvent sans financement. Les lobbyistes, ceux des intérêts du pétrole et du gaz, jusqu’aux défenseurs d’Israël, exigeront chacun un traitement prioritaire.

Les centres de pouvoir vont bander leurs muscles, et les organes législatif, judiciaire et exécutif vont trembler sur leurs bases.

Du coté positif, le chaos interne et les divisions institutionnelles soulageront la menace croissante de guerres à l’étranger, pour un moment. Le monde poussera un soupir de soulagement. Pas tellement le monde des marchés boursiers : le dollar et les spéculateurs vont plonger. Le conflit et les indécisions sur qui régit l’empire permettra aux pouvoirs régionaux de poser leurs revendications sur les régions contestées. L’UE, le Japon, l’Arabie saoudite et Israël vont affronter la Russie, l’Iran et la Chine. Personne n’attendra les États-Unis pour décider quel centre de pouvoir va se prononcer.

James Petras

Article original en anglais :

Imperial Power Centers: Divisions, Indecisions and Civil War, publié le 24 juillet 2017

Traduit par Wayan, relu par Catherine pour le Saker Francophone.

Photo de présentation : One World of Nations

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on Les centres du pouvoir impérial. Divisions, indécisions et guerre civile.

A dramatic shift in electoral politics is currently disrupting leading capitalist democracies, challenging the ideological hegemony and legitimacy of the global neoliberalism of late capitalism.

In the U.S., Bernie Sanders, a self-declared democratic socialist, almost won the Democratic Party’s nomination for President. At the outset of the primaries, the nomination was widely viewed as a slam-dunk for Hillary Clinton. Some polls since the election report that Sanders may well have defeated Donald Trump.

In the UK, the Labour Party, under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, came close to winning the election, despite the conviction of the right wing of his own party, which repeatedly tried to oust him, and the mass media, that Corbyn would lead the party to its worst defeat in history. Corbyn, a militant socialist, ran on the most left-wing platform put forward by the Labour Party since 1945.

In France, Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise (rough translation: Rebellious France) missed winning a place in the run-off in the Presidential election by a few percentage points. Mélenchon was painted by the world media and the world establishment as dangerously far left.

Such events lead to an obvious question for Canadians: whatever became of the CCF’s dream?

The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) was founded in 1932 in Calgary, uniting various working class labour and socialist parties with populist farm organizations. In 1933, the CCF met in Regina and adopted the Regina Manifesto, concluding with a solemn pledge:

“No CCF Government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full programme of socialized planning which will lead to the establishment in Canada of the Co-operative Commonwealth.”

Co-operative Commonwealth

In 1934 the Saskatchewan Farmer-Labour Party/CCF became the Official Opposition under the leadership of George Williams. Williams served as Leader of the Opposition from 1934-1941, when he went overseas to fight fascism. Williams initiated a planning process involving the legislative caucus and key party members to prepare for power – the plan was to move quickly on the realization of socialism. Upon victory under the leadership of Tommy Douglas, the plan was largely implemented from 1944 to 1948. It was a significant step in the eradication of capitalism in Saskatchewan, involving an ambitious program of public ownership through Crown corporations, aggressive government support for the establishment of co-operatives in all economic areas, the first steps in the construction of a universal publicly funded system of social and health security, and unshackling the urban working class through unapologetically pro-labour trade union laws.

The economic cornerstone of this new socialist provincial economy was the public ownership of natural resources and their development. This was supplemented by publicly owned industrial plants to process selected resources into finished products. The CCF dream now had legs, and became a beacon of hope all across Canada.

So what became of this dream?

The short answer is the CCF’s parliamentary leadership killed it off and buried it, abandoning the visionary fight for a socialist society, where all could live in dignity and security. Instead, the leaders focused on winning elections through moderation and compromise, thus securing their careers as professional politicians seeking the ultimate prize – parliamentary power.

In 1948 Douglas led the CCF to another majority government, 31 seats of 52 with 48 per cent. The party’s 5 per cent fall in popular vote (in 1944 the CCF won 47 seats with 53 per cent), resulted in a loss of 16 seats. Douglas, the senior bureaucrats, and the cabinet panicked, convinced that a sharp right turn was necessary to retain power. The public ownership of natural resources and their development, the party’s foundational, and most controversial, socialist economic policy was abandoned. The left of the party lost its most effective champions – George Williams died in 1945 and Joe Phelps, the Minister of Natural Resources and Industrial Development, was defeated. Phelps had led the drive in public ownership from 1944 to 1948. The party establishment blocked efforts to find a seat for Phelps in a by-election, ensuring Phelps was kept out of the caucus and the cabinet.

The right turn was successfully executed. The CCF made peace with capitalism, inviting capital to lead in the development of natural resources. The publicly owned industrial plants were gradually abandoned and closed. The dream of the eradication of capitalism and building a socialist economy was unceremoniously buried.

Meanwhile, on the federal scene, M. J. Coldwell, a long time ideological opponent of Williams’ leadership in Saskatchewan, had replaced J. S. Wordsworth as national CCF leader. His primary focus in internal party politics was to ferret out and expel suspected communists, and to abandon the Regina Manifesto, which he described as a “millstone around the neck of the party.” Coldwell was finally successful in 1956 when the Winnipeg Declaration replaced the Regina Manifesto. The reborn, more right-wing and moderate CCF embraced a mixed economy and incremental steps in building the welfare state. There was no more talk of the eradication of capitalism. As far as the official party apparatus was concerned the old CCF dream was buried.

But it was a long and torturous road – the vision of socialism is hard to kill. There was resistance from the rank and file all along the way. The main problem for the leadership was that the right turn was a dismal failure, but each new leader continued the rightward march until the CCF’s successor, the New Democratic Party (NDP, founded in 1961), finally embraced neoliberalism, the latest and most savage stage of capitalism.

The NDP

This complete capitulation to capitalism finally tantalized the party under Jack Layton. The years of compromise and ideological cleansing appeared to pay off. Over four elections from 2004 to 2011 Layton led the federal NDP to significant gains in seats culminating in 2011 when the party swept Quebec, becoming the Official Opposition, one election away from power. Layton’s death in August 2011 and his replacement by Tom Mulcair set the stage for the lunge for power. In the best tradition of past party leaders, Mulcair pushed through the final compromise – rescinding the party’s commitment to apply “democratic socialist principles to government,” carefully hidden in the constitution.

The last vestige of the party’s socialist roots thus expunged, Mulcair transformed the NDP into a non-ideological government in waiting, able to provide prudent neoliberal economic leadership. In 2015 Mulcair’s NDP ran on a bold neoliberal platform: balanced budgets; debt reduction; no new taxes on the rich; and the slow realization of increased program spending over years of balanced budgets. Justin Trudeau and the Liberals pounced, campaigned from the left promising immediate deficit spending on infrastructure, job creation, and greatly enhanced program spending. Mulcair’s NDP finished third, behind the Liberals and the Tories. The party promptly drove him from office in April 2016.

NDP leadership debate

This brings us to today, where the NDP’s rank-and-file membership, and its electoral base, the loyal 15 to 20 per cent, remain considerably to the left of the parliamentary leadership. No candidate in the current leadership race has provided an engaging vision for the future. In fact, the race has been greeted with yawns not only among the public, but within the party.

The dream therefore lingers on, bursting onto the historical stage at key political conjunctures. The Waffle Manifesto emerged from the new activism of the 1960s and galvanized the party in an effort to make a turn to socialism. It was defeated in 1969. In 2001 the New Politics Initiative advocated disbanding the NDP and building a more clearly socialist party with organic links with progressive social movements. Though briefly widely influential, it was defeated at the 2001 convention and disbanded in 2004. More recently, as a result of the increasingly urgent politics of the climate change crisis, and of the suffering resulting from global neoliberalism, the Leap Manifesto again galvanized the party. Its fate has yet to be determined, but the party establishment is firmly opposed. No candidate in the leadership race has tied his or her star to the manifesto.

Can the dream be resurrected for these times and move enough people to build a new vehicle for its realization? The first dream came out of the nightmares of the Great Depression and World War II, horrific disasters resulting from crises of capitalism. The dream this time must face the fact that the present stage of capitalism promises a series of worsening natural and social disasters, putting the social and natural worlds as we know them at risk – the biggest nightmare of all.

J. F. Conway teaches sociology at the University of Regina.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada and Socialism: Whatever Became of the CCF’s Dream?

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

The so-called international coalition in Syria against ISIS supports the scourge it pretends to oppose.

It’s largely a US operation, begun in September 2014, with minimal help from so-called coalition partners, mainly Britain and France, others mostly in name only.

It has nothing to do with combating terrorism, everything to do with wanting Assad ousted, Syria transformed into a US vassal state.

Washington seeks another imperial trophy, aiding Israel eliminate a regional rival, wanting Iran isolated before targeting its sovereignty the same way.

This is how US imperialism works, diabolically seeking unchallenged global dominance by eliminating all sovereign independent governments, replacing them with subservient pro-Western ones, run by installed puppets beholden to Washington.

Trillions of US tax dollars are spent to achieve this objective, most Americans none the wiser about the deplorable way they’re governed – by a bipartisan criminal class pursuing a diabolical agenda.

Syria remains in the eye of the storm. Washington wants war, not peace. Daily terror-bombing continues taking a devastating toll – destroying vital infrastructure, massacring civilians, media scoundrels ignoring horrendous high crimes of war and against humanity.

Throughout six-and-a-half years of war, letters by Syria’s Foreign Ministry to the UN secretary general and Security Council president, calling for world body action to stop the carnage, accomplished nothing. Washington blocks whatever challenges its agenda.

On August 6, another appeal was made. Syria’s ministry “renew(ed) its call to immediately dissolve that coalition which was established outside the framework of the UN and without requesting permission from the Syrian government.”

It highlighted the “continued and systematic massacres committed by the illegitimate US-led international coalition against the Syrian civilians,” according to the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA).

It explained residential neighborhoods are targeted and destroyed. Raqqa’s National Hospital was terror-bombed, white phosphorous munitions used, able to burn flesh to the bone on contact.

US warplanes are terror-bombing Raqqa, Hasaka, Aleppo, Deir Ezzor and elsewhere in Syria, SANA explained – Nuremberg-level crimes committed against its people.

US terror-bombing is responsible for massacring thousands of defenseless civilians, victims of its imperial ruthlessness.

Months of peace talks in Geneva and Astana achieved no breakthroughs toward ending years of war.

On Saturday, Russian lower house State Duma Deputy Speaker Irina Yarovaya blasted US terror-bombing of Raqqa, including the destruction of its main hospital, saying:

“It is time to conduct post-flight analysis both in literal and figurative meanings and work out whether it was either total incompetence and criminal negligence or a disguised intention to destroy those who are not terrorists.”

“(H)ow long will the (US-led) coalition help terrorists to bomb and destroy Syria? There is too much deceit about errors behind which there are crimes.”

Raqqa-based Syrian Arab Red Crescent deputy director Dina al-Assad accused US-led coalition warplanes of destroying the city’s main hospital, using conventional munitions and banned white phosphorous. Over 100,000 patients depended on it.

A “scorched earth” campaign is being waged on the city, she stressed, targeting residential areas, schools, mosques, bakeries, its sugar factory, government buildings and vital infrastructure.

Iran’s Supreme Council chairman Ali Shamkhani accused Washington of committing “genocide” in Raqqa, indiscriminately massacring civilians.

“Instead of fighting terrorist elements, Western countries and the US take suspicious measures in line with strengthening terrorism and worsening insecurity in the region,” he stressed.

Russian upper house Federation Council member Alexei Pushkov tweeted:

“Baselessly accusing Damascus of using chemical weapons, the US themselves use phosphorus ammunition prohibited by international conventions. And this is proved.”

Since March 2011, Washington has been systematically raping and destroying Syria. Conflict resolution remains unattainable because dark forces in America want war, not peace.

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Continued and Systematic (US) Massacre” of Civilians in Syria

Recently the U.S. congress legislated sanctions against the Russian Federation over alleged, but completely unproven, interference in the U.S. presidential elections. The vote was nearly unanimous.

President Trump signed these sanctions into law. This was a huge and stupid mistake. He should have vetoed them, even as a veto would likely be overturned. With his signing of the law Trump gave up the ability to stay on somewhat neutral grounds towards Russia. This for no gain to him at all.

Sanctions by Congress are quasi eternal. The 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment restricted trade with the then “Communist block”. It was supposed to press for Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union to Israel. But even after the Soviet Union broke down in the early 1990s, after the “communist block” had disappeared and long after any limits on emigrations had been lifted, the law and its economic sanctions stayed in place. It was only lifted in 2012 and only to be immediately replaced by the ludicrous Magnitsky act which immediately established a new set of sanctions against the Russian Federation and its interests.

The new additional sanctions, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Magnitsky act, were shaped by domestic U.S. policy issues. There is nothing Russia could have done to avoid them and there is nothing it can do to have them lifted.

The new U.S. sanctions are not only directed against Russia but against any company and nation that cooperates with Russia over energy. This a little disguised attempt to press European countries into buying expensive U.S. liquefied natural gas instead of cheap Russian gas delivered by pipelines. The immediate target is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany which passes through the Baltic Sea to avoid potential conflict points in east Europe. The sanctions are a threat to an independent German energy policy. (Additional partners in the pipeline are Austria, France and the Netherlands.) Consequently 35% of Germans name the U.S. as a “major threat to the country”. Russia is seen as such by only 33%. This view is consistent with the global perception.

Medvedev with Vladimir Putin (Source: Kremlin.ru / Wikimedia Commons)

These sanctions will shape U.S.-Russian relation for the next 30 plus years. On August 2 the Russian Prime Minister Medvedev pointed to the weakness of President Trump as the main reason for these sanctions:

The US President’s signing of the package of new sanctions against Russia will have a few consequences. First, it ends hopes for improving our relations with the new US administration. Second, it is a declaration of a full-fledged economic war on Russia. Third, the Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way. This changes the power balance in US political circles.What does it mean for them? The US establishment fully outwitted Trump; the President is not happy about the new sanctions, yet he could not but sign the bill. The issue of new sanctions came about, primarily, as another way to knock Trump down a peg. New steps are to come, and they will ultimately aim to remove him from power. A non-systemic player has to be removed. Meanwhile, the interests of the US business community are all but ignored, with politics chosen over a pragmatic approach. Anti-Russian hysteria has become a key part of both US foreign policy (which has occurred many times) and domestic policy (which is a novelty).

Remember that Medvedev as Russian leader was, for a long time, the “hope” of the U.S. establishment. He was perceived as more amenable than the Russian President Putin. Medvedev may well become president again. But no U.S. media except the New York Post took notice of his statement. That in itself is astonishing and frightening. Can no one in the U.S. see where this will lead to? Medvedev predicts:

The sanctions regime has been codified and will remain in effect for decades unless a miracle happens. […] [R]elations between Russia and the United States are going to be extremely tense regardless of Congress’ makeup and regardless of who is president. Lengthy arguments in international bodies and courts are ahead, as well as rising international tensions and refusal to settle major international issues.

Economically and politically Russia can and will cope with these sanctions, says Medvedev. But can the U.S.?

The supreme global role of the U.S. depends on preventing a Euro-Asian alliance between, mainly, Russia and China. In his latest “grand chessboard” piece Toward a Global Realignment the U.S. strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski – ruthless, amoral and capable – asserts:

[I]t behooves the United States to fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and then wider global stability, and thus in containing the least predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach. Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be China.

The U.S. foreign policy establishment has declared war on Russia. The confrontational position towards China, which was en vogue under Obama, has noticeably changed. The Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama “pivot to Asia” was cancelled. The anti-Chinese Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement has been called off. Military provocations of China in the South Chinese Sea have been reduced and replaced by continuous provocations against Russia in eastern Europe. These steps follow the strategy Brzezinski laid out.

Russia has historically proven to be resourceful in its policies. It is extremely resistant to pressure. With the U.S. in a less hostile position against China, the behemoth will relentlessly press its own advantage. Russia will soon be one of China’s main sources of fossil energy and other commodities. There is no major reason for China and Russia to disagree with each other. Under these circumstances the hoped for Russian-Chinese split will not happen. Core European countries will resist pressures that endanger their economies.

The Brzezinski strategy is clouded by a personal hate against Russia. (He is descendant of minor noble Galician-Polish family.) It is flawed as it enables China to establish its primacy. Even under Brzezinski’s framework a Russian-European-U.S. alliance against Chinese pursuit of hegemony would have been the more logical way to go.

Hillary Clinton’s strategy to blame Russia for her lack of likability and her failure in the election now results in a major failure of U.S. grand strategy. An organized White House policy could have prevented that but there is no such thing (yet) under Trump.

I fail to see how the current strategy, now enshrined by congressional sanctions, could ever end up in an overall advantage for the United States.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Sanctions Against Russia – A Failure of U.S. Strategy

Delivering Art in the Empire

August 7th, 2017 by Hiroyuki Hamada

A couple of weeks ago, I drove a 15′ truck all day to Maryland. I delivered four of my sculptures and two paintings for an exhibition that opens in September at the University of Maryland gallery.

I graduated from their studio program in 1995. This is probably the first time I went back there since then.

I thought I might recognize the way around as I got closer to the art department building, but I didn’t. The school has drastically expanded to bury the familiar buildings and scenery. The curator of the show explained to me that the school had to expand to survive financially. He added that, of course, it can’t keep expanding forever.

Everything went smoothly. Unloading was easy. We returned the truck. The curator and I had a nice chat. He dropped me off at a hotel in the middle of Washington DC so that I’d have the next morning to look around, and then take an Amtrak back to New York. I felt welcomed, and I felt happy and excited about the upcoming show.

Next morning, I stepped out of the hotel into the steamy hot summer of Washington DC. I decided to check out the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden.

The third floor exhibition was titled Masterworks from the Hirshhorn Collection. I was transfixed by two of Francis Bacon‘s paintings called Study for a Portrait of Van Gogh. The vibrant colors–reminiscent of Van Gogh’s work–that I associate with Van Gogh’s warm yet desperate attempt to capture the fragile profoundness of natural beauty immediately shifted to convey Van Gogh’s tormented soul as I recognized a disfigured facial expression brushed by Bacon.

Study for a Portrait of Van Gogh at the Hirshhorn Museum

I feel a special kinship to Van Gogh. His relentless passion for his work, his clumsiness and his earnest yearning for humanity gave him his life as an artist but I feel that it might have also contributed to his early passing. I admire his purity and honesty. I thought that Bacon’s interpretation was spot on.

I also enjoyed pieces by Dubuffet, Giacometti, Calder and so on.

However, my psyche, transported to the realm of the mystery of life by those works, was abruptly brought back to a harsh reality of our time.

The third floor had a large painting exhibit that was inspired by President Obama‘s statement,

“No matter what happens, the sun will rise in the morning.”

Nicolas Party working on the new mural “sunrise, sunset,” at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden (Photo by Cathy Carver)

My heart sunk into bitterness. For those thousands of people who were turned into bits and pieces of flesh and bones by President Obama’s predator drones, there were no more mornings. The hardship and death being faced by peoples in seven countries that were bombed under his command would probably elicit devastating rage and sadness on hearing such words.

Moreover, anyone who closely observed President Obama’s initiatives to corporatize, colonize and militarize while curtailing legal protections and human rights would recognize the obvious problem of whitewashing the undemocratic trajectory, which continues to expand under the new administration. Danny Haiphong, author, activist, has written an extensive 10 part series on the topic (1).

President Obama fully employed his ability as a constitutional scholar and his flawless Presidential brand (cultivated by the corporate media) in herding his supporters into the framework of what Martin Luther King Jr. described as “the greatest purveyor of violence.” He’s done it with slogans that evoke the very legacies of Martin Luther King Jr.–the true revolutionary giant.

There is no way around it. The context of the art work inspired by Obama’s words — a major American institution — legitimizes the whitewashing of what he did as President.

On the same floor, there was a piece by a Cuban artist. On one side of the large room, you see a huge window framing a grand view of the governmental buildings of Washington DC sprawling outside representing “democracy”, “justice” and “freedom”. Across from that, you have a wall with five black rectangles varying in sizes. According to the artist, the sizes of the blackness represent the amount of ink used by representative writings of Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong and Muammar Gaddafi. His statement explains that their texts were accepted as revolutionary at the time, but they all ended up serving “undemocratic” “regimes”.

Again, for those who studied the historical trajectory of our species, the agenda of the work is obvious. The work is intended to glorify the western establishment while demonizing any trajectories that were meant to be alternatives to the western capitalist hegemony.

But let’s get back to the piece.

The largest black rectangle looming over the viewers represents Adolf Hitler’s writing. No one in their right mind would advocate the National Socialist government of Hitler’s Germany. However, it is well known that the Nazi regime was largely supported by US corporate power. For example even during WW2, the Nazi war machine relied on the US industry in manufacturing its weapons (2). In addition, the US establishment collaborated with Nazi war criminals and sympathizers after the war. Renowned investigative journalist Keith Harmon Snow has detailed major points in his work (3).

The support and collaboration with Nazis by the US establishment allow us to observe the hidden dynamics of the capitalist momentum to destroy the true enemy–the revolutionary force of the Soviet Union. In a heated Facebook discussion on the topic recently, Phil Rockstroh, poet, lyricist, philosopher, summarized the lesser known historical narrative as follows:

“The Red Army won the war against fascism in Europe as the US hung back and allowed the Soviets and Germans to bleed each other dry. Then the OSS, in the form of Alan Dulles, contrived to save as many Nazi officials as possible to serve as operatives in their coming Cold War against the Soviets. Moreover, a large percent of the US corporate/financial, and industrial elite were Nazi sympathisers who hated communism and admired Nazism, from its racist/anti-semite belief system to his hyper-authoritian ideology e.g., from Prescott Bush to Henry Ford.” (4)

Human rights activist Winston Weeks went on to say:

“I’ve come to the conclusion that that the Dulles brothers originally planned for Hitler to attack the Soviet Union. There was a lot of rather covert funding for Hitler from American industrialists like Henry Ford, the Bush family and other prominent American figures as well. The plan went bad when Hitler attacked England. It’s a complex story but the bottom line is that there were droves of powerful capitalists in the USA and England who loved Hitler and saw Germany as an attack dog that could be trained and manipulated to destroy the Soviet Union.” (5)

The single obvious aim of the western war economy, backed by 900 US military bases, 17 spy agencies, covert and overt military aggression, proxy wars, economic war by the western financial network as well as propaganda projects led by the western funded “NGOs” and media giants and so on, has been the destruction of anything that gets in the way of western financial/military hegemony–most notably, anything socialist or communist. As a result, the colonial wars initiated by the trajectory have killed 20 to 30 million people across the globe (6).

But again, back to the art in question. I would like to very briefly talk about Russia, Cuba, Libya and China, which are reduced into black rectangles on a wall along with Nazi Germany.

First, the piece adds a subtle yet crucial credence to generations of the US covert and overt military as well as economic interventions to subjugate Russia and its former incarnation, Soviet Union, under the US hegemony, accompanied by a ruthless war propaganda campaign against it. This lesser known aspect of an ongoing history is crucial in understanding the current global political climate as well as collective future of our species. Sara Flounders, prominent anti-war activist, author, recently wrote an eye opening, must-read article on the topic (7).

This, of course, echoes relentless US attacks against Cuba as well. One can demonize Cuba however one desires, but many Cubans haven’t forgotten the US invasions and over 600 assassination attempts against Fidel Castro, while they have endured the deadly economic sanctions and embargo designed to strangle their lives.

The US support for the ruthlessly oppressive, racist Batista regime clearly contrasts with the US destabilizing policy against the socialist trajectory taken by the revolutionary government.

Cuba’s efforts in standing with the oppressed globally, however, have been generously praised by such a humanitarian giant as Nelson Mandela, as well as Malcolm X (8). In an article titled Fidel Castro: Undaunted Revolutionary, Jeff Mackler notes:

“While Cuba’s example permeated the consciousness of the youth and revolutionary fighters around the world, U.S. imperialism employed the most monstrous methods of destruction to defeat it, including using biological warfare to wipe out Cuba’s banana crops and to kill an estimated 100,000 pigs, not to mention bombing Cuban hotels and shooting down a commercial aircraft that killed Cuba’s Olympic fencing team and many other passengers.” (8)

I certainly can’t subscribe to a view that systematically demonizes Cuba while glorifying the US government. Here is what legendary activist William Blum has to say about Cuba:

“No “free press”? Apart from the question of how free Western media is (see the preceding essays), if that’s to be the standard, what would happen if Cuba announced that from now on anyone in the country could own any kind of media? How long would it be before CIA money – secret and unlimited CIA money financing all kinds of fronts in Cuba – would own or control almost all the media worth owning or controlling?

Is it “free elections” that Cuba lacks? They regularly have elections at municipal, regional and national levels. They do not have direct election of the president, but neither do Germany or the United Kingdom and many other countries. The Cuban president is chosen by the parliament, The National Assembly of People’s Power. Money plays virtually no role in these elections; neither does party politics, including the Communist Party, since all candidates run as individuals. Again, what is the standard by which Cuban elections are to be judged? Is it that they don’t have private corporations to pour in a billion dollars? Most Americans, if they gave it any thought, might find it difficult to even imagine what a free and democratic election, without great concentrations of corporate money, would look like, or how it would operate. Would Ralph Nader finally be able to get on all 50 state ballots, take part in national television debates, and be able to match the two monopoly parties in media advertising? If that were the case, I think he’d probably win; which is why it’s not the case.

Or perhaps what Cuba lacks is our marvelous “electoral college” system, where the presidential candidate with the most votes is not necessarily the winner. Did we need the latest example of this travesty of democracy to convince us to finally get rid of it? If we really think this system is a good example of democracy why don’t we use it for local and state elections as well?

Is Cuba a dictatorship because it arrests dissidents? Many thousands of anti-war and other protesters have been arrested in the United States in recent years, as in every period in American history. During the Occupy Movement of five years ago more than 7,000 people were arrested, many beaten by police and mistreated while in custody. And remember: The United States is to the Cuban government like al Qaeda is to Washington, only much more powerful and much closer; virtually without exception, Cuban dissidents have been financed by and aided in other ways by the United States.

Would Washington ignore a group of Americans receiving funds from al Qaeda and engaging in repeated meetings with known members of that organization? In recent years the United States has arrested a great many people in the US and abroad solely on the basis of alleged ties to al Qaeda, with a lot less evidence to go by than Cuba has had with its dissidents’ ties to the United States. Virtually all of Cuba’s “political prisoners” are such dissidents. While others may call Cuba’s security policies dictatorship, I call it self-defense.”(9)

Gaddafi’s Libya was met with a ruthless bombing campaign by NATO forces under the false pretext of a fictitious impending “humanitarian catastrophe”, said to be orchestrated by Gaddafi, while the country was flooded by the western backed Al-Qaeda affiliated forces (10). The subsequent assassination of Gaddafi by the west backed terrorist force was welcomed by then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton with laughter. That was the fate of the most humanely advanced nation on the African continent, with free healthcare and education (11).

Perhaps, the demonization of Mao Zedong and subsequent development of Chinese socialist trajectory can be comparable to the propaganda narratives repeatedly flooding out of the western media against Russia. The confrontational trajectory has been culminating as the US has shifted its military focus to the pacific to encircle the Chinese economic presence, which ironically is emerging out of the socialist trajectory of the Chinese government.

Anyway, here is an impressive compilation of resources titled The ‘DEBUNKING ANTI-COMMUNISM” MASTERPOST. The extensive list of resources can help us understand the scope and depth of the western propaganda efforts against socialist attempts across the globe (12).

So, to me, this piece, which contrasts the monumental buildings of the US capital representing “democracy” with various socialist initiatives termed as “regimes” piled together with Nazi Germany is state propaganda in a classic sense. How can “an art work” that is so blatantly and shamelessly subservient to an authoritative framework of violence even be taken seriously by anyone who respects freedom and humanity?

There was one piece I really wanted to see at the museum, which was Ron Mueck‘s Big Man.

I loved the piece.

Ron Mueck’s Big Man at the Hirshhorn Museum

The Big Man was big but he was not overpowering. Just enough to say that it was big. In fact, the big white man sat at a corner in a fetal position, totally naked and with a defiant expression on his face.

I imagined that this was our species collectively being depicted as a big white naked emperor cornered into a grave predicament by his own existential contradiction–the inherent dichotomy of capitalist paradox that it can only serve humanity by sacrificing humanity itself.

As we face the impending risk of nightmarish nuclear wars and climate change, our predicament is as obvious as the illegitimacy of the system imposing its framework of corporatism, colonialism and militarism on peoples as colonial wars, police violence, mass incarceration, austerity measures, elimination of legal protection and human rights violations. And the ones who are domesticated in the gated communities of privilege and exceptionalism are deprived of their humanity to feel the pain of “others” and their essential capacity to explore what it is to live as humans.

Well, OK, I might be a minority in seeing the piece that way. But to me, a good work is open and it connects us to a bigger framework of humanity and the mystery of life. It does not herd us into a smaller framework of ideologies, religious doctrines, nationalism and so on.

Much of the second floor was dedicated to Ai Weiwei. One of his main pieces consists of portraits of political prisoners from various countries made out of Lego pieces, spreading on floors in a few large rooms. There were a total of 176 faces on them.

Ai Weiwei’s “Trace” features 176 portraits made from a combined 1.2 million Lego bricks. (Photo by Cathy Carver)

We see some famous American prisoners among them, such as Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning or Martin Luther King Jr.

But wait, what about the numerous American Indian activists, black radical activists, anti-war activists and others who have been detained and assassinated by the US government? I mean the list is staggeringly enormous (13).

Besides, the US currently incarcerates more blacks than the apartheid South Africa. It has grown to be a giant mass incarcerations state, which certainly includes many political prisoners.

And what about those countless people who have been kidnapped to numerous black sites and Guantanamo and tortured and killed by the US government? Some of them must have been Americans. Even if not, Guantanamo has detained over 700 prisoners. The majority of them have been released without charges. Over 50 of them are still detained there. Many US backed nations detain political prisoners who defy the US economic/military hegemony. Nelson Mandela, who was captured with the help of the CIA, was one such figure. I mean, what about those Iraqi boys who were sodomized by the US soldiers at Abu Ghraib in front of their mothers(14)?

And we see those randomly selected 176 faces and 38 of them are from China and 6 are from the US? 6?

One of the things which motivated me to write about my visit to the museum was Ai Weiwei’s ardent support for Liu Xiaobo. The exhibit included a full length Ai Weiwei documentary. In it, Weiwei expresses his unconditional support for Liu’s activism. The documentary, however, presented an oddly one dimensional version of Xiaobo focused on his support for “human rights”, “freedom of speech”, “democracy” and so on.

Liu Xiaobo featured in TIME

The very next day, I heard the news of Liu Xiaobo’s passing. What a coincidence, I thought. And to my surprise, and to my embarrassment for being ignorant, my journalist friends along with my Chinese activists friends revealed the real nature of Liu Xiaobo’s “human rights activism”. Xiaobo was a US funded right-winger who supported the US in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq War and passionately defended George Bush in invading Iraq.

One of the articles cited by my friend says:

“Liu’s admirers seldom discuss at length their hero’s other major views. Among other things, he supported the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. He backed the Vietnam and Korean wars even long after they ended, in a 2001 essay. Despite the immeasurable human-rights abuses of those conflicts, Liu stated in his “Lessons from the Cold War” that “the free world led by the US fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights.” He insisted: “The major wars that the US became involved in are all ethically defensible.” Liu Xiaobo also admired Israel’s positions in the Middle East’s, saying the Palestinians were “often the provocateurs.””(15)

Here is another article on the topic (16), and here (17).

Our cultural environment is shaped by social institutions, media, political institutions, academic institutions, corporate NGOs, entertainment, arts and so on, which force us to embrace narratives of the moneyed interests. John Steppling, a prominent playwright, thinker and philosopher, describes that such a tendency results in a fictitious “backdrop” behind us, which in turn shapes the narratives of our social discourse, while creating willing agents for the establishment. From his recent writing:

“If one *reads* only backdrop, and not a world, how much easier it is to ignore real worlds. Yemen, a massive war crime taking place in real time is ignored. It is not even backdrop, for the backdrop is one manufactured by media — one that also shapes the subject position of those doing the ignoring. And one aspect of this is to shape dissent — a faux dissent in which a *new* left, branded and capitalized, in their guise as reasonable and adult, make sure to police real dissent more ruthlessly than even conservatives or liberals. This is the left that makes sure to denigrate Chavez and Maduro, to label Syria a *regime* and laugh at those crazy North Koreans. For this is proof that they have a seat at the table of reality.”(18)

It’s been over a couple of decades since I left the DC area. For the bulk of the time, I was like a soldier whose sole mission was the exploration of visual expression. I literary woke up with art and went to bed with art.

But at some point, perhaps, my skill in finding connections among visual elements, in finding a profound perspective, started to show me a wider reality beyond the framework of commodification, consumption, hierarchy of financial power and capitalism.

I am an artist who believes that the power of art can connect us to a larger framework of humanity spreading beyond the corporatism, colonialism and militarism of the empire. I believe art can capture the rare moment of our consciousness, seamlessly merging with the eternity of time and space as a part of the universe itself. For me, museums that house the epiphany of humanistic expressions are sanctuaries of our consciousness; they are that of shrines and churches for the believers; they are that of sacred grounds for those who seek humanity in our connections to nature and earth. Art can give us humility to be human, as well as courage to be human.

The unfortunate attempts to replace our sanctuary of consciousness with a subserviency to the neo-feudal hierarchy of money and violence must be renounced in the strongest terms.

Hiroyuki Hamada is an artist. He has exhibited throughout the United States and in Europe and is represented by Bookstein Projects. He has been awarded various residencies including those at the Provincetown Fine Arts Work Center, the Edward F. Albee Foundation/William Flanagan Memorial Creative Person’s Center, the Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture, and the MacDowell Colony. In 1998 Hamada was the recipient of a Pollock Krasner Foundation grant, and in 2009 and 2016 he was awarded a New York Foundation for the Arts Fellowship. He lives and works in New York.

Notes

(1) https://www.blackagendareport.com/obama_legacy_part10_counter-insurgency

(2) http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_nastybiz.html

(3) http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2007/09/post-1#_Fogwatch

(4) https://www.facebook.com/hiroyuki.hamada/posts/10155364028489454?comment_id=10155364874389454&reply_comment_id=10155365590439454&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D

(5) https://www.facebook.com/hiroyuki.hamada/posts/10155364028489454?comment_id=10155365323599454&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D

(6) https://www.sott.net/article/273517-Study-US-regime-has-killed-20-30-million-people-since-World-War-Two

(7) http://www.workers.org/2017/07/12/russia-a-target-not-a-superpower/#.WW-npIXn0ov

(8) https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/03/fidel-castro-undaunted-revolutionary/

(9) https://williamblum.org/aer/read/147

(10) http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-22/british-parliament-confirms-libya-war-was-based-lies-%E2%80%A6-turned-nation-%E2%80%9Cshit-show%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%A6-s

(11) http://web.archive.org/web/20141007040654/http://lookingglass.blog.co.uk/2013/02/26/africa-the-story-they-re-not-telling-you-15569066/

(12) https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/wiki/debunk

(13) http://afgj.org/politicalprisonersusa

(14) http://www.mintpressnews.com/classified-evidence-us-soldiers-raped-boys-in-front-of-their-mothers/200160/

(15) http://www.greanvillepost.com/2017/07/17/liu-xiaobo-the-wests-model-chinese/

(16) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/15/nobel-winner-liu-xiaobo-chinese-dissident

(17) http://www.workers.org/2017/07/17/why-u-s-media-mourn-death-of-liu-xiaobo/

(18) http://john-steppling.com/2017/07/the-past-is-not-safe/

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Delivering Art in the Empire

The Beckoning of Nuclear War

August 7th, 2017 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The admirable and honorable truth-teller John Pilger warns us that nuclear war is closer than we think.

The 1957 book, On The Beach, introduced awareness that war in the nuclear age is terminable for life on earth. This realization explains President John F. Kennedy’s rejection of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff’s recommendation to launch a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union. Today as evidenced by the behavior of the US government, its European vassal states, and neoconservative pundits, this realization no longer informs US policy.

Pilger speaks of the lobotomy performed on each generation that removes facts from history. Pilger himself is a victim when he chooses to stress that Ronald Reagan defended the Vietnam war instead of emphasizing that Reagan worked with Gorbachev to reduce the threat of nuclear war. The lobotomy that has been performed on the Western world has destroyed knowledge that the US and Russia were on peaceful terms prior to the Soviet collapse.

These peaceful terms lasted a short time, only through the administration of President George H.W. Bush. With the advent of the Clinton regime, all peaceful agreements that were made have been consistently broken by Washington for 24 years throughout the two-term presidencies of three regimes, and now Congress is set on destroying what remains of the work of 20th century US administrations to remove the specter of nuclear armageddon. The defense authorization bill currently before Congress overturns the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. This treaty eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons and signaled the end of the Cold War.

John Pilger tells us of the certain consequences of the renewed nuclear arms race.

Featured image is from johnpilger.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Beckoning of Nuclear War

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)

*     *     *

US Has Budgeted $49 Million for Venezuelan Right-Wing Since 2009

By Telesur, August 07, 2017

Since at least 2009 the U.S. Department of State has budgeted at least US$49 million in total to support right-wing opposition forces in Venezuela who are now in their seventh week of violent protests to oust democratically-elected President Nicolas Maduro.

The Road to Understanding Syria Goes Through Iraq

By Louis Yako, August 07, 2017

Today’s reality is a violently amplified and more intense version of the former pan-Arabism, which one would think was over. It wasn’t over. It was only passed on from some actors to others to implement this new project called “the new Iraq” or “the new Middle East” imposed and facilitated by the American invasion.

Why China and Russia Agreed to Tough New Sanctions on North Korea

By Stephen Lendman, August 07, 2017

Beijing and Russia oppose its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. They want these issues handled diplomatically – most of all non-militarily, the main reason they went along with sanctions to preserve a measure of stability on the Korean peninsula.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: From a Sunday to a Monday in August, the Sixth Day

By Dr. T. P. Wilkinson, August 07, 2017

This 6th of August is Sunday, a day of rest. But in 1945, 6th of August was a Monday– the first working day for the harvesters of death watching with cocktails from their plantation houses on the Potomac and the Hudson…

Is History “Bunk”? “Big Business and Hitler”

By Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, August 07, 2017

The kind of history that we have just described, the type of history that covers up the historical truth about fascism in general and Nazism in particular, the kind of history that finds favour with the media because it finds favour with big business, the kind of history that even Henry Ford would have liked because it does say a word about his anti-Semitism and his cordial and profitable collaboration with Nazi Germany, that kind of history is indeed nothing other than “bunk.”

Has the White House Been Transformed Into a Cozy Nest for Lame Ducks?

By Jean Périer, August 07, 2017

If President Trump cannot pursue an independent foreign policy, what is the point for foreign leaders to hold meetings with him since he’s incapable to change anything anyway? A lame duck indeed.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Road to Understanding Syria Goes Through Iraq

It seems that just yesterday the whole world was discussing a US president that would be forever remembered as a lame duck leader – Barack Obama. Most people still remember that Obama earned this nickname due to his utter inability to complete any large-scale project both in his domestic and foreign policies.

Some may argue that it’s too early to say anything about Donald Trump’s ability to stay true to his word since he was inaugurated just at the beginning of this year. However, the gap between the speeches of the American president, plagued by a handful of internal contradictions, and the steps that the increasingly powerful Congress is making gets more obvious by the day.

Under these circumstances, one cannot resist the urge to wonder – is Donald Trump really in control of America?

Today, if we look at the decision-making process that shapes the American foreign policy, we may notice that the ideas proposed by the sitting US president do not affect them anymore. Quite unexpectedly, in sharp contradiction with all the existing traditions, Congress is now calling the shots. Has it really managed to run away with the majority of presidential powers?

It’s been noted that the unprecedented new sanctions bill that Congress sent to President Donald Trump has been dubbed as a “congressional review” of sanctions. The bill is effectively handcuffing the president in his exercise of sanctions by creating an elaborate mechanism that would prevent him from reviewing any existing sanctions regime. It’s safe to say that Congress has put Trump on a very short leash.

As a result of this ballsy move on the part of American legislators, Donald Trump just like all of his successors will not be able to affect the sanctions introduced, enjoying less flexibility on the international stage. In short, American lawmakers along with those people who stand behind them have effectively created a new breed of US Presidents, making all of them “lame ducks” by cutting their wings.

In early July, The Wall Street Journal conducted a large-scale study of the mood within the US State Department, polling a total of 35,000 employees. It turned out that the overwhelming majority of its employees are outraged by the actions of the sitting US president since they believe that he does not know a thing about foreign policy matters and how they work.

We’ve been hearing a handful of remarks about Trump and his presidential performance too, while some of them being rather insulting. For example, a CNN producer Jimmy Carr has called Trump a “clown” that is not cut out for the job, noting that the CNN thinks that he’s mad.

It’s been noted that Trump could have reshaped American politics. But when it came down to actual actions, it turned out that he had no serious ideas or policies, nor even the desire to search for them. He just wanted to be president, meeting world leaders, having Oval Office, riding the Air Force One, while delegating the decision making process to a handful of his subordinates.

But the worst mistake he has made so far was the idea to put his signature under the ill-fated sanctions act, since after that point onward he would be unable to somehow improved his public image. He has not just surrendered his powers to Congress but has also claimed that foreign players played a role in his presidential victory, since the act states this explicitly.

However, if President Trump cannot pursue an independent foreign policy, what is the point for foreign leaders to hold meetings with him since he’s incapable to change anything anyway? A lame duck indeed.

Jean Périer is an independent researcher and analyst and a renowned expert on the Near and Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook“. 

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Has the White House Been Transformed Into a Cozy Nest for Lame Ducks?

Have you seen the little film online by BBC Click showing an academic team at Bristol Robotics Laboratory who are looking to use facial recognition to improve train travel by the year 2020?

The intention behind the project we are told is by using facial biometrics instead of train tickets or Oyster cards it will put an end to the annoying queues which build up when people try and enter or exit the barriers.

What a jolly good idea! Or is it? Well frankly no it’s not, using facial recognition to enable people to travel is not quite as simple or as benign as the film implies.

Your facial biometric is completely unique to you. It is a critical part of your identity. As Lyndon Smith of the Bristol Robotics Laboratory says enthusiastically and frankly creepily at the end of the film

“the face is the key to getting everything you want to do in the modern world.”

Permitting private companies therefore to hold a biometric of your face purely so you can travel seems not just an excessive requirement but one fraught with privacy and security problem.

From a security point of view if the database holding all these unique facial biometrics were to be hacked, misused or lost in anyway, all the people stored on it would become instantly vulnerable to identity theft, as after all your facial biometric is the equivalent of your fingerprint or DNA and imagine the impact on you if either of those were stolen or misused.

And don’t be reassured by promises that such databases will be hashed and encrypted, we all know what the Government thinks about that, with the threat of weakening or scrapping encryption regularly mooted by the Home Office and Prime Minister there is no guarantee of security for us there either.

From a privacy point of view, let’s be clear, as soon as these companies have access to your facial biometric for train and tube travel you can guarantee their database would be shared and used by the British Transport Police for policing and safety purposes at train stations.

This would inevitably mean your facial biometric would be included in CCTV facial recognition systems used for policing across the country, enabling your face to be picked out of a crowd anytime and anywhere a facial recognition system was deployed.

This is not pie in the sky, Leicestershire Police used facial recognition on people at Download Festival in 2015, the Met Police used it at Notting Hill Carnival last year and South Wales Police deployed it at the Champions League Final in Cardiff in June.

That lovely little plan to reduce queues of people at train stations all of a sudden will become a surveillance capability monitoring everyone who has had to hand over their face simply in order to be permitted to travel.

But what of those who are visitors to the UK, those tourists who use the tube for a few days on their holiday to London, or those of us who are drivers but occasionally take a train, how are they going to pass through the gates? Will we all have to have our facial biometrics created simply in order to travel? Will this process be the start of another call for identity cards?

The work being done by the team at Bristol with the support of Cubic the company behind the Oyster cards, a company who are also involved in global defence and mission solutions, ought to sound alarm bells.

We are already the most watched nation on earth thanks to our CCTV, adding our faces to systems purely to travel is a privacy and security infringement none of us should be enthused by.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Facial Biometrics Instead of Train Tickets? Don’t Even Go There

On Aug. 3, President Trump told millions of Twitter followers to “thank Congress” for the fact that “our relationship with Russia is at an all-time & very dangerous low.” The immediate impetus for his remark was congressional passage of new economic sanctions against Russia, but Trump might just as well have pointed to moves by the body to jeopardize a landmark arms control treaty negotiated in 1987 by President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was remarkable for prohibiting an entire class of existing weapons, with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Ratified by the Senate in 1988, following one of the darkest periods of the Cold War, it led to the destruction of 2,700 missiles, both nuclear and conventional, over a period of about three years.

The treaty also opened the door to on-site inspections and other verification measures that made possible the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in 1991, under President George H.W. Bush. Greg Thielmann, a former top State Department intelligence official who advised on the INF treaty negotiations, has called its success “unprecedented” and “one of the world’s most dramatic achievements in curbing the nuclear arms race.”

President Reagan meeting with Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev at the Soviet Mission during the Geneva Summit in Switzerland, Nov.20, 1985. (Photo from Reagan presidential library)

Putting those great accomplishments at risk, the proposed new National Defense Authorization Act, which passed the House in July, authorizes the development of a new land-based missile banned by the INF treaty. A companion Senate bill, which will be considered after the August recess, would fund initial Pentagon development of a similarly prohibited missile.

In each case, the real target of the new missiles proposed by congressional hawks like Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas isn’t any particular Russian military capability, but the spirit of cooperation and shared interests that made arms control possible in the years from Nixon to Obama.

Objections to Risk

“The INF Treaty is fundamental to European security,” declared a team of distinguished U.S., German, and Russian nuclear arms experts in April. “If the treaty unravels, it will open the door to an arms race in ground-launched intermediate-range missiles, which will diminish security in both Europe and Asia . . . and undermine the entire regime of nuclear arms control between the United States and Russia.”

The missile-rattling by members of Congress is rooted in Washington’s concern that Russia recently began to deploy an upgraded version of an existing ground-launched cruise missile, dubbed the SSC-8, with a prohibited range beyond 500 kilometers. Russia denies any violation of the treaty, but the U.S. responding to a possible violation by blowing up the entire treaty would be an act of strategic folly.

Tom Collina, an arms control expert with the Ploughshares Fund, told me that he and other independent analysts can’t assess the evidence because it’s so highly classified. But he was impressed by the fact that key members of the Obama administration vouched for it:

“These were people I know supported arms control with Russia, and finding this [breach] was very inconvenient. The last thing they wanted was to have to tell the U.S. Senate that Russia is cheating.”

Gen. James Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee during its consideration of his nomination to President Trump’s Secretary of Defense,

“If Russia is permitted to violate the treaty with impunity, such actions could erode the foundations of all current and future arms control agreements and initiatives.”

But the U.S. response doesn’t have to be hasty or extreme. U.S. defense planners aren’t losing any sleep over the limited Russian deployment of its questionable missiles.

“Given the location of the specific missile and the deployment, they don’t gain any advantage in Europe,” said Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Senate hearings last month.

Evidence and Inspections

A reasonable approach advocated by many experts is to start by confronting the Russians with more specific evidence of their alleged violation. At a press briefing in June, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said his government was ready for an “honest but specific dialogue” and had “no intention to break the treaty.”

Sergey V. Lavrov, Russia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, addresses the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 23, 2016. (UN Photo)

The Russians may be using their cruise missile deployment as leverage to force discussion of their own complaint that NATO’s missile-interceptor systems in Eastern Europe have potential offensive uses. Russian military experts claim the launchers used in those systems can house intermediate-range cruise missiles prohibited by the INF treaty.

Russian military leaders have expressed public concerns about the threat of a surprise attack on their command and control centers from such stealthy and precision-targeted missiles. The short flight times of those missiles to Moscow could facilitate the “decapitation” of Russia’s political and military leadership.

Russia’s fears may be misplaced or overblown, but they are fanned by the blatant dishonesty of NATO’s claims that its interceptors are merely designed to defend against ballistic missiles from Iran. Iran has no missiles capable of striking most of Europe. Nor does it have a nuclear weapons program, as confirmed by regular international inspections and the State Department’s own certification.

Moscow’s claims, like Washington’s concerns over Russia’s recent missile deployments, should be amenable to inspection and resolution by panels of technical experts, say nuclear arms experts. The INF treaty created a Special Verification Commission (SVC) to address just such issues.

“U.S. willingness to allow Russian access to deployed [missile interceptor] launchers and Russian willingness to accept on-site monitoring of SSC-8 [cruise missile] launchers at test sites and challenge inspections at suspect deployment sites could lead to a breakthrough in the current compliance stalemate,” writes Thielmann.

Political Obstacles

The technical challenges are real, but Thielmann and other experts suggest the political challenges are even greater. Many congressional hawks evidently don’t want a cooperative resolution of the issue. Although President Trump has sought to work with President Putin, he has also expressed contempt for arms control. (“Let it be an arms race,” Trump told an interviewer in December. “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”)

Last but not least, the Pentagon is pushing for a trillion-dollar nuclear “modernization” program and a new generation of smaller nuclear warheads it deems suitable for “warfighting.” Russia, of course, is not standing still, either.

Jon Wolfsthal, the top White House arms control expert under President Obama, reminds us that in today’s poisonous political atmosphere,

“The danger(s) of an accidental or unintended conflict . . . are as high as they have been since the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

Given the immense stakes for all humanity, Trump should invoke the spirit of Ronald Reagan to quell moves by congressional conservatives to derail the INF treaty. Their misguided attempts to grab a temporary lead in the nuclear arms race, instead of pursuing a mutual end to that race altogether, will only put U.S. security more at risk.

Jonathan Marshall is a regular contributor to Consortiumnews.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Endangering a Landmark Nuclear Treaty with Russia. Jeopardizing Global Security

Is History “Bunk”? “Big Business and Hitler”

August 7th, 2017 by Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels

“History is bunk” is what Henry Ford proclaimed one day. What he meant by that is that he did not bother to read history books, and that he found studying and writing history a waste of time. And he undoubtedly also felt that history was dangerous because it may enable the public to find out how huge fortunes, like his own, are amassed: all too often by trickery, fraud, crime and war. It is for the same reason that Ford arranged for masses of his firm’s documents to be shredded, so that they disappeared into the infamous “memory hole” mentioned by Orwell in 1984.

Ford would certainly not have liked the type of history featured in this book. And one may assume that the great majority of owners, shareholders and managers of American, German and other corporations and banks whose role was critically examined here would not be fond of this type of history. That is why they do not encourage people to study history or even to spend much time reading history books — and why they would certainly not want people to read critical books like this one, studies in which the links between big business and fascism are brought to light. At the same time, they do their best to recommend other books to the reading public, books in which the rise of Hitler and the function of fascism are explained in an entirely different fashion, in which the collaboration of German and American corporations and banks with the Nazis is not mentioned at all or, if this happens to be impossible, is interpreted benevolently and ultimately whitewashed. How do they manage to do this?

In the Western world, there is freedom of speech, and everybody is entitled to speak her or his mind. However, in this respect some people are freer than others; these are those who have enough money to arrange for their views to be written down (by themselves or by others), published as articles and books, and widely diffused. (In return for payment, Facebook can likewise arrange for your views to reach a wide audience.) Most of us do not have the kind of money needed to do this, but the ladies and gentlemen of big business certainly do. The rich speak with a louder voice. As the saying goes: “Money talks.” Industrialists and bankers have the money needed to cause books to be written on themes such as the life of the enterprise’s founder, the growth of the company, and its role during the war. This kind of work is performed by carefully selected authors, on whose understanding and sympathy the corporations and banks can count; and these authors know what is expected of them in return for a generous honorarium.

In such books, potentially disagreeable topics are therefore not normally raised; such opuses may be qualified as “antiseptic.” In the official — or “authorized” — histories of US corporations, for example, there is hardly ever any talk at all about the role of their subsidiaries in Germany in the 1930s and during the war. When such themes come to the attention of the public in one way or another — for example, because the lawsuits brought in the 1990s against some American corporations by former slave labourers — specialized historians are hired to function as advocates. They explain that the German branch plants of the firms involved had been forced by the Nazis to manufacture war materiel and to employ slaves, that by the time of Pearl Harbor, at the latest, the head offices in the United States had lost all control over their subsidiaries and had no clue what was going on there.

As an example, one can cite the antiseptic studies produced by Simon Reich and Henry Ashby Turner on behalf of Ford and General Motors, respectively. A similar task has been accomplished in Germany by other well-paid court historians of the corporations and banks, on behalf of firms such as Volkswagen, Krupp, Allianz, Daimler-Benz, Deutsche Bank, Degussa, Dresdner Bank, Flick and Bertelsmann. An American historian has written that in most cases these kinds of studies amount to a mere “whitewash.”

It is not a coincidence that such authors find it easy to have their work adopted by a big and prestigious publishing house. The overwhelming majority of American and German publishers are gigantic enterprises and are therefore bona fide members of big business, or are owned by holdings of which corporations and banks own most shares. The manuscripts of critical studies — critical, that is, of big business — are virtually always turned down by these publishers. Conversely, books in which delicate topics, such as corporate collusion with fascists, are carefully avoided or benevolently explained, do find favour with big publishers and are prominently displayed for weeks on end in the windows of the big bookshops that often are subsidiaries or associates of big publishers and/or their corporate owners. Critical studies are generally hard, if not impossible, to find in the big bookstores.

“Never heard of this book,” says the friendly clerk, kindly adding to this intrinsically negative comment that “it can be ordered for you.” In the United States, it often happens that publishers must pay the big bookstores to have their books displayed prominently, in the window or on the table featuring new publications. The major publishing houses linked to big business, which publish uncritical works by the tens of thousands, have enough money to make these payments; small publishers, on the other hand, that publish critical studies in limited runs, cannot afford to pay for this privilege.

Rupert Murdoch (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

It is also hardly coincidental that antiseptic studies such as those of Simon Reich and Henry Ashby Turner attract the attention of the media and are generally presented and discussed most favourably in reviews published in newspapers and magazines. Not only in the United States, but also in Germany and virtually everywhere else in the Western world, the bulk of these periodicals are owned by some corporation or some media mogul like Rupert Murdoch; and when they are not, they are certainly financially dependent on revenues generated by advertising, which flow mostly from large enterprises such as automobile manufacturers and Coca-Cola. A periodical may keep, but also lose, the business of these advertisers on account of the books it chooses to review and how they are evaluated. Is it surprising that antiseptic opuses benefit from favourable reviews and are often praised to the sky, while critical studies tend to be mercilessly cut down (although, in keeping with the adage that negative publicity is better than no publicity at all, they are mostly simply ignored)? Our media are supposedly independent, and they are undoubtedly totally independent from the general public, but they are unquestionably very much dependent on big business, and this dependence jeopardizes their objectivity.

Much the same can be said about television. The majority of stations are owned by corporations, or depend on the advertising largesse, and therefore goodwill, of corporations for their survival. Stepping on corporate toes is therefore strictly verboten. In the war documentaries that are frequently aired on TV, the role of US firms as suppliers of weaponry to Nazi Germany is never mentioned. Authors of critical studies, in which such unpleasant historical realities are brought up, never make an appearance on the traditionally small, but now increasingly large, screen. In contrast, authors of antiseptic studies are implored to come to the studio to present their work to the viewers, to join panels of mostly like-minded experts in discussions of historical problems, and thus to acquire fame and achieve best-seller status. Moreover, only corporations (and some rich individuals) can afford the luxury of paying for expensive TV commercials. They frequently exploit this advantage to offer the spectators some historical knowledge, carefully selected and “massaged” historical knowledge, naturally. In 2004, for example, on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy — generally, though wrongly, depicted as the great turning point of the Second World War — American TV spectators were bombarded with commercials paid by General Motors, in which attention was drawn to the firm’s role as purveyor of war materiel to the Allies. That General Motors simultaneously supplied the Nazis with all sorts of equipment was of course not mentioned at all. In the United States it is thus generally known that General Motors functioned as an “arsenal of democracy,” while virtually no one is aware that the corporation also functioned as an “arsenal of Nazi dictatorship.” Indeed, money talks.

In the academic world, things are no different. Especially in the United States, but also elsewhere, universities have become increasingly financially dependent on the largesse of corporations, on the financial patronage of big business. In many prestigious American institutions of higher learning, facilities such as libraries and football stadiums are financed entirely or partly by corporations, and so are professorships, including prestigious history chairs. Can it be expected that such universities could ever install personalities into those chairs who are not known to be friendly, or at least understanding, with regard to big business? Can it be expected that the learned academics who are privileged to occupy these chairs might one day squeeze out of their pens studies that are genuinely critical with respect to the role of US (or German) big business in the Third Reich? From other history professors, whose position is not directly financed by some corporation, it is likewise more realistic to expect self-censorship than genuine objectivity, since the university in its entirety is all too often financially dependent on the goodwill of one or more big enterprises. As an example, one may cite the case of a famous American specialist in the history of the Third Reich who, some years ago, published a book of more than one thousand pages on the Second World War without mentioning General Motors and Opel, or Ford and its Ford-Werke, even once. This is perfectly understandable if one realizes that this professor enjoyed a fine career at a major university in Michigan, where the financial fortunes of such institutions have traditionally depended at least partly on the largesse of the big automobile manufacturers based in Detroit, Dearborn and other cities of that state. Money talks, but it also imposes silence.

There is much truth in Karl Marx’s famous aphorism that capitalists, the owners of the means of economic production, also control the means of intellectual production. Today’s owners and managers of the American and international corporations, successors to those who collaborated with Nazi Germany, do indeed dispose of intellectual means at all levels — from simple newspaper articles, through popular television documentaries, to learned studies — that allow them to dissimulate or to rationalize this collaboration and to keep the public from paying much attention, or attaching much importance, to the relatively few historians who critically investigate this corporate collaboration.

Adolf Hitler

Each individual enterprise — in the United States, in Germany and elsewhere — has of course done everything in its power to obfuscate its very own collusion with the Nazi regime. But big business has also collectively sought to hide the fact that, in all Western countries, corporations and banks supported fascist movements, and that in Germany and elsewhere they helped to bring fascist dictators to power, collaborated closely with the Nazis and other fascist regimes, and profited handsomely from the armament programs, crimes and wars of these regimes — and primarily the Hitler regime. It is in the interest of big business to obfuscate the true nature of Nazism and the other forms of fascism, to prevent the public from realizing that fascism was a manifestation of capitalism, quite capable of making a comeback some day. In this respect, too, it proved useful to construct antiseptic history in order to pre-empt critical history.

Here is a short, and far from complete, overview of the main types of antiseptic history of Nazism.

First, there is what has been called the “gangster theory” of Nazism and of fascism in general. According to this “theory,” all fascists, but above all Hitler, were gangsters of a sort, that is, detestable personalities who suddenly descended, from a socioeconomic vacuum, onto the stage of history in order to tragically but mysteriously grab power in Germany, gratuitously commit all sorts of terrible crimes, and unleash a world war so they could rule the entire world. They represented “evil.” Fortunately, they were opposed, and finally defeated, by the unified forces of “good” led by — who else? — Uncle Sam. In other words: Nazism was the handiwork of arch-evil individuals, specifically Hitler, a modern-day Attila the Hun, assisted by a coterie of other equally villainous individuals, such as Goebbels, Göring, Himmler and the rest. In this scenario, clearly, all other Germans stand innocent — including the powerful industrialists and bankers who, in reality, contributed to bringing Hitler to power.

The book that first described things in this fashion and which, for this reason, turned out to be hugely successful, was the Hitler biography written by Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, first published in London in 1952. This opus inspired countless other “psycho-biographies” and “psycho-historical” studies of the other presumably psychotic, paranoid and otherwise deranged personalities who allegedly fathered fascism. According to this historiographic approach, fascism had absolutely nothing to do with social problems and economic systems. The 1970s were the golden age of the psycho-history of Nazism and fascism. However, to the question of how it had been possible, in a country as highly civilized as Germany, for a psychopathic monster such as Hitler to come to power, this type of historiography was never able to produce an answer.

Portrait photo of Georg Ludwig von Trapp in his naval uniform

Portrait photo of Georg Ludwig von Trapp in his naval uniform (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Another genre of history had the advantage that it did provide a clear answer to this question, an answer that violated the historical truth but was music to the ears of the industrialists and bankers who were keen to obfuscate their — or their predecessors’ — connections with Hitler and the other fascists: “little” or “ordinary” Germans had brought Hitler — himself a “little” German and a “socialist,” to boot — to power by massively joining his movement and voting for him. All the misery brought on by Nazism was thus the fault of the people itself, a German people that had viewed Hitler as a natural leader, of the “socialism” in which ordinary Germans had stupidly believed, and even of democracy, because it was allegedly via universal suffrage (and proportional representation) that Hitler had come to power. This historically very incorrect scenario was — and continues to be — actively promoted because it conveniently implies that Germany’s elite, the industrialists and bankers as well as aristocratic landowners and others, did not join Hitler’s party, at least not in significant numbers, and did not vote for it. Not only articles, books and TV programs have reflected this view, but even Hollywood productions such as the universally praised and hugely successful 1960s blockbuster The Sound of Music have done so. In this film, the male hero, Baron von Trapp, and his aristocratic friends do not hide their disdain for the vulgar Nazis; conversely, Nazism is shown to appeal to their plebeian compatriots in an Austria that has just been annexed by Nazi Germany. As we have seen, the historical reality was diametrically opposed to this script.

Even today, many, if not most, residents of the United States and elsewhere in the Western world believe that Hitler was elected by a majority of the German people. A fairly recent version of this false view of Nazism is that of the German journalist Götz Aly who, in a book entitled ‘Hitlers Volksstaat: Raub, Rassenkrieg und nationaler Sozialismus’ (Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, New York, Metropolitan Books, 2007), claims that the Third Reich truly coddled the “little” Germans. It is hardly surprising that Aly’s book received a lot of attention and praise in the German media — and above all in the flagship periodical of Germany’s big business, the magazine Der Spiegel. (Neither is it surprising that its English edition appeared soon after in New York.)

The other side of the coin of the theory that Germany’s ordinary people brought Hitler to power, and profited from his policies, is the notion that Germany’s patricians, including industrialist and bankers, did not help Hitler to come to power, did not collaborate with his regime or did so only when coerced, did not profit from whatever collaboration they were forced into, and opposed Hitler’s war and his crimes. Books, documentaries and films that present things in this light count on the benevolent attention of the media, magazines and television stations.

Henry Ashby Turner was offered a chair at Harvard and was widely hailed as the supreme authority in the field of industry and fascism because had managed, despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, to find Germany’s capitalists not guilty of the charge that they had supported Hitler and helped him to come to power. And the movie Schindler’s List was universally praised to the sky because it suggested that the collaboration of a German industrialist with the SS was an exceptional phenomenon — which it was not — and that it yielded positive results in the form of hundreds of saved lives — while in reality the collaboration of German industrialists with the Nazis cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. A more recent Hollywood production, Valkyrie, was also predestined to achieve great success, because the film suggested that high-ranking Wehrmacht officers — like industrialists and bankers, pillars of the German establishment — were opposed to Hitler. In reality, these men only turned against Hitler when, after the defeat at Stalingrad, it was suddenly obvious that he might drag them with him into his ruin. By eliminating Hitler, they actually hoped to save some of the gains Hitler had pocketed on behalf of Germany, preferably in the form of territory in Eastern Europe, and possibly in some sort of anti-Soviet military alliance with the Western Allies.

Yet another historical approach that can count on a benevolent reception from the media is the theory that all Germans enthusiastically supported Hitler during his rise to power, in his crimes, and in his war, simply because they were all incurable anti-Semites like Hitler himself. This theory, proposed in 1996 by Daniel Goldhagen in a book entitled Hitler’s Willing Executioners, was not only intrinsically racist, but also hopelessly untenable. It was racist, first of all, because, as David North has emphasized in an excellent review of this book, Goldhagen “repl[ies] to the Nazi specter of der ewige Jude, the eternal Jew, as the relentless enemy of the German people [with] the specter of der ewige Deutsche, the eternal German, the relentless and unchanging enemy of the Jewish people.” It is very well known that countless Germans, first of all the social democrats and the communists, abhorred and fought Nazism from the start. And we know that even numerous Germans who did support Hitler, for example Schacht, were not anti-Semites. The authoritative historian of the Holocaust, Raul Hilberg, has come to the conclusion that Goldhagen is “totally wrong about everything, totally wrong, exceptionally wrong.” However, the advantage of Goldhagen’s theory, at least from the viewpoint of big business, not only German but also American big business, is that it diverts attention from the role of Germany’s industrialists and bankers in Hitler’s ascent, from their collaboration with his regime, and from their contributions to his war and his crimes. Indeed, if all Germans were guilty, no specific group — or no specific class — of Germans, was guiltier than another, and industrialists and bankers were therefore no more guilty than Bavarian farmers or Baltic fishermen. Thus, we can explain the success of Goldhagen’s book, which is devoid of any real merits and which, according to some authoritative academics, should not even been approved as a doctoral dissertation, which is what it was in its embryonic stage. It also explains why Goldhagen was even called upon by Harvard University to dispense his erroneous views of Nazism there as history professor.

Henry Ford may not have been entirely wrong when he proclaimed history to be “bunk.” The kind of history that we have just described, the type of history that covers up the historical truth about fascism in general and Nazism in particular, the kind of history that finds favour with the media because it finds favour with big business, the kind of history that even Henry Ford would have liked because it does say a word about his anti-Semitism and his cordial and profitable collaboration with Nazi Germany, that kind of history is indeed nothing other than “bunk.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is History “Bunk”? “Big Business and Hitler”

On the Anniversary of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

August 7th, 2017 by H. Patricia Hynes

August 6 and August 9 mark the dropping of atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an act that launched the perilous era of nuclear weapons and nuclear power. After the first atomic blast, which killed 100,000 residents of Hiroshima immediately, the grievous radiation sickness of survivors was not anticipated, nor was it believed when reported. Without any reconsideration, the United States dropped a second bomb – this one plutonium – on Nagasaki, killing 70,000 citizens outright.

The American military censored all documentation and photo images of the two bombs’ unparalleled human devastation, sheltering Americans from the horrors of what our government perpetrated on Japanese civilians: women, men, and children instantly reduced to ash. Likewise, the post-war U.S. occupying authority forbade Japanese citizens, under penalty of law, to own pictures of the atomic bomb destruction of both cities.

American military leaders from all branches of the armed forces, among them Generals Eisenhower, Arnold, Marshall and MacArthur; and Admirals Leahy, Nimitz, and Halsey strongly dissented from the decision to use the bombs – some prior to August 1945, some in retrospect – for both military and moral reasons. Japan was already defeated and in peace negotiations with the Soviet Union; surrender was imminent. Moreover, the Soviet Union was willing to enter the war against Japan, if necessary. Bombing dense human settlements was barbarous and would shock world opinion; and a demonstration bombing away from residential areas (also suggested by many atomic bomb scientists) could be used instead to force immediate surrender. The top military commanders concurred that the decision to use the atomic bomb was political, not military.

Dropping the atomic bombs in World War II launched an arms race in nuclear weapons, now spread to nine countries, with the ever-present specter of their use or their theft by terrorists. In the May 2012 Vienna meeting on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the nuclear-armed countries explicitly stated their intention to maintain a nuclear arsenal for security. The same month, NATO countries convening in Chicago pronounced,

“Nuclear weapons are…essential…for defense and dissuasion.”

And yet, paradoxically, the threat of nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran brings some nuclear-armed countries, namely the U.S. and Israel, to the brink of war – as if the existential threat is not the weapons themselves but the hands they are in.

Stepping away from aggressive power politics of nuclear nations to the real security needs of their citizens, the June 2013 U.S. Conference of Mayors, including Mayor William Martin of Greenfield, unanimously adopted a resolution calling for U.S. leadership in eliminating nuclear weapons globally and for redirecting excessive military spending to the needs of cities and towns. The mayors’ statement contrasts the cuts to Section 8 housing vouchers, Head Start, federal grants to cities and towns, food stamps and delayed infrastructure projects with the $682 billion military budget in 2012 and the Administration’s request for a 23 percent increase for nuclear weapons research, manufacture and maintenance over the next 5 years.

They cited President Obama’s 2009 speech in Prague declaring that,

“as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act…to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

Indeed, the mayors implored the Administration to reduce nuclear weapons and military spending and to redirect those monies to create jobs, retrain displaced workers, invest in new technologies for a sustainable energy future, and restore and maintain vital public services.

More than 30 mayors sponsored this resolution for a nuclear weapons-free world; and 197 U.S. mayors are members of Mayors for Peace, the leading international organization with 5600 member cities in 156 countries devoted to protecting cities from the scourge of war and mass destruction.  As their citizens’ first responders, we honor their public commitment to a genuinely secure world.

Pat Hynes is a retired Professor of Environmental Health from Boston University School of Public Health. She directs the Traprock Center for Peace and Justice in western Massachusetts. Pat Hynes directs the Traprock Center for Peace and Justice in Western Massachusetts and is a member of Nuclear Free Future of Western Massachusetts.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on On the Anniversary of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The genesis of the world, the myth of creation speaks of seven days.1 Six days of divine labour whereon the seventh the lord of the universe rested. No one, not even the angelic general staff of the combined heavenly hosts, could fathom what led the Creator to engage in this feat.2 But tradition has established that man — here the gendered reference is intended — as being created in the image of the Creator — aka “God” — should also rest on the seventh day. Depending on the sect into which one was born and bred, this may be called Saturday or Sunday (in English).

In any event this Sunday in 2017, the day of rest, is the 6th of August. So in anticipation of these hours of restfulness– perhaps I will drive to the beach — I wondered what other things had happened on 6th August, it was certainly not always a Sunday given the way calendars work. My research produced the following results, by no means all-inclusive:

In 1777, a band of white terrorists in Britain’s North American colony of New York was suppressed in what was later called the Battle of Oriskany. These terrorists called themselves an army and claimed the right to overthrow the duly constituted government of the territories they inhabited. These terrorists were eventually able to obtain assistance from governments hostile to Great Britain, allowing them to impose their rule on the rest of the population, a vast number (in some parts the majority) of whom were held by them as slaves.

In 1813, Simón Bolivar, considered to be the great liberator of the South America from Spanish rule, a close friend of Haitian independence, and the inspiration of the popular Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, took Caracas from the Spanish and proclaimed the Second Venezuelan Republic.

In 1824, Bolivar and de Sucre defeat the Spanish forces at Junín in central Peru.

In 1825, Bolivar becomes President of the independent state of Bolivia.

In 1901, the US regime robs the Kiowa tribe of indigenous Americans of their land — which had been reduced to a reservation — so that whites could found the state of Oklahoma and continue their campaign of genocide against the indigenous into the 20th century.

In 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war against Russia and Serbia declared war against Germany.

And in 1945, the United States of America became the first (and to date only) country in the world to commit mass murder with atomic bombs: proudly obliterating the Japanese (non-white) city of Hiroshima and murdering thereby up to 200,000 people instantaneously. (Since all traces of life were vaporised in the immediate range of the blast it is impossible to say how many people actually died then. Deaths due to radiation poisoning since are not counted here.) The US regime would annihilate the population of a second city, Nagasaki, shortly thereafter, on August 9th.

Hiroshima after the US atomic bombing (August 6, 1945)

The atomic murder technology, developed by a corps of scientists and soldiers, several of whom were immigrant fascists from Europe, predating the recruitment for the US missile delivery program3, satisfied a principal, unstated policy objective of the emerging global empire. This policy was later formally articulated in a series of US National Security Council documents promulgated secretly between 1947 and the second campaign of mass murder by the regime in June 1950.4 Namely, how does a tiny minority of rich white folks, ruling a continent of immigrants, Latin Americans and ex-slaves keep control over more than 60% of the world’s resources — without having to rely on poorly educated, badly trained and equipped soldiers of questionable reliability.

Nagasaki after US bombing (August 9, 1945)

If there should be any doubt as to the underlying facts, it should be recalled that US military forces were scarcely able to defeat an exhausted German Wehrmacht as late as 1944.5 Had the Soviet Union not destroyed most of the Nazi fighting capacity in Eastern Europe, it is very doubtful that the famous “D-Day” would have been more than a disaster.

US Forces were defeated in Korea but only after their non-stop aerial bombardment had levelled everything north of the 38th parallel and killed at least 3 million Koreans by the time of the ceasefire in July 1953.

US Forces were defeated in Vietnam but also only after aerial bombing, Phoenix assassinations, and other terror measures killed some 3 million Vietnamese.

If one is to believe that US Forces are deployed to fight a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the unannounced combat theatres, then there is no indication to date that “mission accomplished” means more than public manipulation of the executive genitals by the serving POTUS.6

Pubescent Sexual Fantasy: G W Bush, “Mission Accomplished”.

Hence the standing policy of the US regime since 1945, since that 6th of August when the Enola Gay — an aircraft so beloved that it has a special exhibition space in the country’s premier historical museum — dropped its lethal load, has been to prepare for the great hordes of non-whites at the gates, with fast, fantastic fatality.

This 6th of August is Sunday, a day of rest. But in 1945, 6th of August was a Monday– the first working day for the harvesters of death watching with cocktails from their plantation houses on the Potomac and the Hudson…

Dr T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa (Maisonneuve Press, 2003). Read other articles by T.P..

Notes

1. Genesis, the first book of that grand forgery and “America’s favourite theatrical prop” (George Carlin), called the Bible 

2. Mark Twain explains the “Creation” in a more sober manner in his Letters to the Earth (1909). 

3. Numerous programmes were managed by the OSS/CIA to save Nazis for various projects in the post-war system being constructed by the US, among other things to counter the unexpected survival of the Soviet Union as an independent country. Project Paperclip is the most well known. The US missile programme was headed by Werner von Braun, who had been rescued from his slave-labour driven missile factories in Northern Germany to help the US build rockets capable of firing atomic warheads on the Soviet Union. But there were already fascists like the Hungarian Edward Teller in the US managing the atomic bomb project before 1945. 

4. Generally known as the Korean War: the US first invaded Korea in 1945 after the Japanese surrender, ostensibly to organise the withdrawal of Japanese forces and in fact because the US regime feared that the Soviet Union would otherwise prevent the US from maintaining a foothold on the Asian mainland. The second invasion of the Korean peninsula was launched by the US under colour of authorisation by the newly founded and US-dominated United Nations organization. The war this triggered has not ended. Two years of vicious attacks – mainly on the Northern half of the peninsula, but also counter-insurgency terror against the Korea population in the southern half—waged by the US regime were interrupted by a ceasefire agreed in 1953. Since then the US has threatened the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea with a huge contingent of conventional forces and atomic weapons stationed in the US puppet state Republic of Korea, south of the 38th parallel. To this date much of the white population in Europe and the US believe the US regime’s fairy-tale about Korea and amplify the regime’s violent hostility to the PDRK, unaware or indifferent to the extent which US policy is aimed at destroying the country and any form of Korean independence. 

5. The so-called Battle of the Bulge (in German the Ardennen Schlacht) was fought from 16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945. A thoroughly exhausted Wehrmacht launched an assault that cost US Forces at least 100,000 casualties, some 19,000 dead– more than any other operation during the war. A critical examination of US military capacity even today would undoubtedly show that the only — often marginal — advantage the US regime has is continental isolation of its industrial capacity and unmatched ability to waste materiel and ammunition. Hence it has been necessary to conceal, ignore or trivialise the fact that the Soviet Union actually defeated the Axis in WWII. MacArthur and the rest of the Pacific high command were only interested in conquering territory and recovering colonies like the Philippines. As soon as possible the US regime actively integrated the military cadre of both Japan and Germany, especially to train what would become the regime’s equivalent of the Waffen SS — US Army Special Forces and its Gestapo equivalent- the Phoenix Program (now part of the regime’s Homeland Security apparatus). 

6. The news cycle is designed to cultivate amnesia. These days virtually everyone is obsessed with the current POTUS–  so permit a minor recollection. Mr G W Bush celebrated what was sold as the success in the US invasion of Iraq by stepping out of a US Navy fighter aircraft aboard an aircraft carrier, wrapped in a flight suit, and clutching his gonads proclaiming, “mission accomplished”. This was probably one of the most public demonstrations of what George Carlin aptly called the “bigger dick” foreign policy.

All images in this article are from the author.

This article was first published by Dissident Voice

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: From a Sunday to a Monday in August, the Sixth Day

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

On Saturday, Security Council members imposed sanctions on North Korea for the seventh time since its first 2006 nuclear test.

New ones aim to deprive Pyongyang of around one-third of its export revenues, cutting them by about $1 billion.

They ban DPRK exports of coal, iron, iron ore, lead, lead ore, and seafood. They prohibit all new joint ventures, ban new investments in current ones, and prohibit sending more workers abroad for jobs.

They tighten restrictions on technology to prevent Pyongyang from acquiring military related items. North Korean vessels caught violating SC resolutions will be banned from entering foreign ports.

Imposing sanctions is one thing, enforcing them another. North Korea is adept at exploiting loopholes in restrictions and minimizing them other ways.

Most important, China wants Pyongyang’s economy kept from imploding. It accounts for around 90% of its exports. It’s the DPRK’s key ally.

Beijing and Russia oppose its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. They want these issues handled diplomatically – most of all non-militarily, the main reason they went along with sanctions to preserve a measure of stability on the Korean peninsula.

China’s UN envoy Liu Jieyi explained new sanctions aim to prevent chaos and conflict on the Korean peninsula, why his government supported them.

According to Liu, unanimously passed SC Res. 2371 has three components:

1. New sanctions against Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

2. No intention to harm DPRK activities not prohibited by the resolution – including economic activities and cooperation, food and economic assistance.

3. A call for resuming six-party diplomacy, a commitment to resolving contentious issues peacefully and taking steps to deescalate Korean peninsula tensions.

On July 4, following the DPRK’s ballistic missile test, China and Russia issued a joint statement. It called for denuclearizing the Korean peninsula and suspending Pyongyang’s ballistic missile tests in return for peaceful negotiations and suspension of provocative joint US/South Korean war games the DPRK believes are prelude for an attack on its country.

China and Russia seek an “integrated,” realistic and feasible resolution to Korean peninsula issues. They want provocative US THAAD missile systems in South Korea withdrawn, undermining regional strategic balance and threatening their national security.

Increased US regional militarization is polar opposite what’s needed to resolve contentious issues.

“We hope the parties concerned will immediately take effective action to prevent the situation from further escalating, create conditions for the resumption of talks and exert efforts to bring back at an early date the nuclear issue of the peninsula to the right track of seeking a peaceful solution through dialogue and consultation,” Liu stressed.

Russia’s UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya said the following:

“Progress toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula will be difficult so long as North Korea perceives a direct threat to its own security for that is how the North Koreans view the military buildup in the region.”

“Another destabilizing factor in the region is the scaling up in Korea of the THAAD – the US anti-missile defense elements.”

“We have repeatedly noted that…this also undermines the overall military balance in the region and calls into question the security of neighboring states.”

Attacking North Korea militarily would be catastrophic for the region, Nebenzya warned. It would risk US confrontation with Russia and China.

On the one hand, Trump welcomed Sino/Russian cooperation on North Korea. At the same time, he reportedly intends using US Trade Act (1974) authorization to impose selective tariffs and/or import duties on Chinese steel and other products – risking a possible trade war, assuring losers, not winners.

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why China and Russia Agreed to Tough New Sanctions on North Korea

Part II of a two part interview

Zoom in Korea asked Kim Jong-hoon–an independent member of the South Korean National Assembly and Standing Representative of the New People’s Party (tentative name)–to discuss the impetus behind the formation of a new progressive party in South Korea, as well as the role of South Korean progressives vis a vis the liberal Moon Jae-in administration and the intensifying war threats on the Korean peninsula. The following is Part 2 of the interview:

ZoominKorea: How will the New People’s Party (tentative name) coordinate/delegate its resources between electoral/parliamentary politics and mass movement-building?

Kim: The New People’s Party (tentative name) will be a party that connects the picket line and the public square with the halls of the National Assembly. Even when 1.7 million citizens raised their candles to call for systemic reforms and the elimination of corruption, not one piece of reform legislation passed in the National Assembly. Workers literally put their lives on the line to fight for their livelihoods, but it takes forever to fix the system through the legislative process to meet their needs. The New People’s Party (tentative name) aims to put an end to this.

We envision a new type of political practice — one where the voices of the picket lines come together in the public square, and the indignant spirit of the public square floods the halls of the National Assembly, i.e. a politics based on the strength of people power.

ZoominKorea: You have stressed the importance of working class people participating in direct democracy. Why is this important and what does that look like?

Kim: “Building a society that respects workers” has become a popular slogan, but the lives of workers and ordinary people have not changed qualitatively. The existing political parties spout charming pledges during campaign seasons, but we can’t sit around and wait for them to make good on their promises. That’s because they are not, by nature, parties that will serve the interests of workers and farmers. And that’s why we propose direct participation in politics in which workers, farmers, and the urban poor themselves can forge a path for a better future.

Workers, farmers, and the urban poor have the power to create a better society when they come together, so we propose to combine our strengths for political power. We are also working to introduce measures that enable direct political participation, such as people’s referendums and citizens assemblies.

ZoominKorea: What will be the party’s relationship to organized labor? How will the party forge a “strategic alliance” with labor?

Kim: Strategic alliance means the party and organized labor work together based on a shared plan that will mutually strengthen the capacity of both the party and the union. In the past, the party’s practice was to go to the union and say, “Please help us in the next election,” or “Please join our party,” or “Please pay your dues.” We need to do away with this ‘politics by proxy’ and stop turning to unions solely for cash and headcounts. Our party will work side by side with organized labor, especially in times of hardship, to strengthen the capacity of unions

In the past, mass organizations were expected to pledge exclusive support to the party. We aim to create a party that provides exclusive support to mass organizations. If we can build mutual trust and strengthen our organizations in this way, that will become the source power for the party, i.e. our collective political power. Our goal is to hear people say, “Thanks to the party, the labor movement is stronger.” In our party, there are many capable organizers and people who have devoted themselves to serving the people for decades. If we all demonstrate our abilities to the fullest, I’m sure we can create a strategic and mutually-beneficial alliance between the party and organized labor.

ZoominKorea: What will be the party’s relationship with other progressive parties?

Kim: The New People’s Party (tentative name) aims to achieve victory for the people through the grand unity of all progressive forces. The preparatory committee regards serving the interests of the people as its highest guiding principle, and its formation is the first step toward creating a bigger and stronger unified force with all political forces that seek to unite. To this end, we have proposed the formation of a grand unified party with the People’s United Party, as well as the Justice Party and the Labor Party. Unfortunately, the newly-elected leadership of the Justice Party has said although it will work with the new progressive party around specific policy initiatives, it will not consider unifying with other parties in a grand alliance. We will work together with all forces that agree on the need for the grand unity of all progressive forces to launch the new progressive party before the end of September.

ZoominKorea: Reactionary forces were quick to respond to the formation of the new party by characterizing it as a revival of the outlawed Unified Progressive Party. How will the new party defend against political repression/reactionary attacks?

Kim: Progressives in South Korea are perhaps fated to be condemned as ‘pro-North’ or as ‘communist sympathizers.’ That’s because of the continued presence of the reactionary forces that parasitically thrive off of the system of national division. They only talk of ‘national security.’ No matter how outstanding our politics and practice, we will always be branded and attacked as ‘pro-North’ forces as long as we fail to resolve the division of the Korean peninsula. That’s why we will concentrate our forces to resolve the problem of national division, which is fundamental to the major problems of our society. Eradicating the deep-rooted ills that stem from national division is critical to the class struggle in South Korea and efforts to improve the lives of workers and ordinary people.

ZoominKorea: How do you foresee the party supporting the struggle against the THAAD deployment?

Kim: The THAAD deployment issue boils down to a question of how we will create a peace system on the Korean peninsula. Conducting a proper environmental impact assessment and calculating the economic costs China’s retaliation are important, but they are not the fundamental issue. If the Moon Jae-in government participates in U.S. sanctions against North Korea and maintains South Korea’s subservience to the United States, it cannot ultimately reverse the THAAD deployment. The Moon administration needs to have faith in the people, correctly assess the changing geo-political conditions on the Korean peninsula, and work to create a new order in Northeast Asia.

By standing resolutely in solidarity with the Seongju residents for the past year, we have gained their trust. The Seongju/Gimcheon residents and the Won Buddhists have emerged strong as the main driving force in this fight. The South Korean people who raised their candles to oust Park Geun-hye demand peace on the Korean peninsula and oppose the THAAD deployment. We will continue to fight alongside the people to make sure the candles that burned for Park’s impeachment will reignite as flames for sovereignty.

ZoominKorea: What role does this new progressive party play in the movement for peace and reunification moving forward?

Kim: The Trump administration has abandoned Obama’s ‘strategic patience’ and has introduced a new North Korea policy called ‘maximum press and engagement.’ This is apparently a strategy to use through threats and pressure to coerce North Korea to negotiate for denuclearization — which is not much different from the policy of the previous administration.

In order to resolve the U.S.-North Korea crisis, one must first recognize North Korea as a partner for dialogue. It’s contradictory to say it wants to talk with North Korea while at the same time pursuing a policy of hostility. Genuine talks to normalize U.S.-North Korea relations will only be possible through a simultaneous freeze of the U.S.-South Korean war games and the North Korean nuclear and missiles tests.

In terms of North-South relations, the interests of the Korean people should be the primary determinant, and we need to restore trust and prepare for unification. The Moon administration needs to make the practical choice and the resolute decision to pave the way for national unity and co-prosperity. The New People’s Party (tentative name) will devote our resources to realizing a Peace Treaty on the Korean peninsula and self-reliant reunification.

ZoominKorea: The Trump administration has said it wants to renegotiate the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA). As a member of the Trade, Industry and Energy Committee of the National Assembly, what is your view of the FTA and the proposal for renegotiation?

Kim: The standard for assessing the Korea-U.S. FTA needs to be whether or not it helped the country to improve the lives of ordinary people and overcome class polarization. What beneficial impact the Korea-U.S. FTA has had on the lives of people is a big question mark. But the South Korean government is not producing an accurate assessment of the impact of the FTA.

As a standing committee member of the Trade, Industry and Energy Committee of the National Assembly, I have repeatedly requested the government conduct an accurate impact assessment of the Korea-U.S. FTA. The government points to the increase in trade and surplus in the trade balance, as well as the U.S.’ eagerness to renegotiate, to paint the Korea-U.S. FTA as a successful agreement, but this is a very shallow assessment.

During his election campaign, Trump pledged to scrap or renegotiate free trade agreements. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has already been scrapped, and the United States wants to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is in this context that Trump is talking about re-negotiating the Korea-U.S. FTA. South Korea needs to respond assertively and confidently to the U.S. proposal for renegotiation. As a matter of priority, we need to abolish toxic provisions, such as the investor-state dispute (ISD) clause. Most importantly, we need to begin at once the project of meticulously examining the impact of the Korea-U.S. FTA on the lives of ordinary people. If the findings reveal that the Korea-US FTA does not help the lives of ordinary people and only exacerbates class polarization, we need to be bold and be willing to reconsider the FTA in its entirety. We must not regard the Korea-U.S. FTA as an object of idol worship.

This article was originally published by Zoom in Korea.

Featured image is from Zoom in Korea.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on South Korea’s New Progressive ‘Candlelight Revolution’ Party

The Road to Understanding Syria Goes Through Iraq

August 7th, 2017 by Louis Yako

It should not be a secret to any independent and conscientious thinker, writer, or journalist that what has been happening in Syria since 2011 is nothing but complex and dirty attempts by multiple regional and global powers to “Iraqize” Syria by other means. But, alas, we have very few writers and journalists not on the payroll of the empire or the oppressive powers in today’s world. With few exceptions, most accounts and narratives I hear from and read by the so-called “journalists” and “experts” about Middle East affairs remind me of Upton Sinclair’s immortal words in his work, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked, where he writes “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it.”

What has been happening in Syria is nothing but an attempt to destroy the Syrian people, institutions, and society in order to restructure them in the image of the imperial, neocolonial players involved in this dirty war. The imperial and neocolonial force in our world today is concentrated in the hands of the few minority who have the American and most of the European political, economic, military, and media machine at their fingertips. In this sense, it is crucial to understand that what is happening around the world as a result of the Euro-American foreign policies is beyond the control of most American and European people at this point. Most Americans and Europeans are as unfree and suffocated as the Iraqi and the Syrian people in stopping this war machine that has caused irreparable damages to all parties affected. The only difference here is that the politically powerless and suffocated Americans and Europeans are not forced to live in refugee camps, which gives many the illusion of “privilege” and “democracy”, and therefore slows down any serious action to do something about what is going on. Yet most of the American people are crushed daily by the oppressive American economic system, working under slavery-like conditions, just to make it one day at a time, while the war machine is grinding millions of lives in different countries around the world, and under different pretexts. After living more than a decade in America now, I have come to accept that most of my fellow American citizens are as powerless as I am in influencing the American foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. Even more discouraging is that, by pointing out this reality, one is immediately labeled as “un-American”, “anti-American”, or other misleading adjectives and accusations to silence any voices seeking to change this bleak reality. This needs to be challenged by all of us, if we really want better lives and healthier societies.

Today I would like to share with you a “thick description” of how I saw and what I saw in Iraq when I returned to it after one decade in exile in 2015 to conduct a year-long anthropological research for my doctorate degree. I want to paint for you an image of what has become of Iraq, after more than a decade of its invasion, to hopefully give you some important clues as to why the Syrian war has been happening since 2011, and what kind of Syria do the involved neocolonial and imperial players want to create once they finish destroying Syria as we knew. I argue that the road to understanding the future of Syria goes through what has been happening in Iraq. It is the same game, with many of the same players involved. What is happening today has happened yesterday and will happen tomorrow also, unless we take serious steps to stop it.

*

After one decade in exile, I returned to Iraq seeking a better understanding of what happened, how it happened, and why it happened. I returned this time as a trained cultural anthropologist to conduct fieldwork on a population that has always had a significant impact on my life and memory—Iraq’s academics. After two previous research in the UK and Jordan (2013-2014), I decided to spend one academic year in Iraq because I knew that the internally displaced academics trapped inside; those who weren’t “successful” or “fortunate” enough to escape wars and violence through the bottleneck, had so much to say about Iraq. After all, I am a child of wars, sanctions, and political upheavals. I know what it means to be trapped inside and what it means to slip through the bottleneck, without ever truly recovering from the wounds inflicted upon us inside the bottle. I opened my eyes in this world in the 1980s, with the then ongoing Iran-Iraq war. I witnessed much violence and destruction. I saw countless dead bodies during the First Gulf War. The thirteen years of the UN sanctions robbed me of the most beautiful childhood and teenage years. The 2003 invasion of Iraq just barely allowed me to safely finish my undergraduate studies at the University of Baghdad, before I had to eventually leave the country into exile in 2005 to escape death and violence. Because of all these experiences that could take multiple books to fill, I knew that my interlocutors, especially those academics trapped inside, whose lives are strongly tied to and shaped by political upheavals and power relations, had so much to say about the story of Iraq. Before the end of my first week in Iraq in 2015, my personal observations and experiences already started to paint a picture about the story this story was going tell. What I experienced from the moment I was at the airport in Sweden heading to Iraq in September 2015, until the end of the first week in Iraq proved to me that the personal is political and anthropological.

After a long journey with wars, moving, and exile, life has grounded me like coffee beans. My mother used to say that “coffee beans have less value as whole beans.” They must be painfully grounded to become this delicious, stimulating, and awakening drink called “coffee”. After ten years in exile, here I was in Stockholm in September 2015 packing my bag to go back to Iraq. I couldn’t believe it was going to happen in less than 24 hours. I was anxious that entire day. I couldn’t sleep or do anything. I went out roaming. I greeted a stranger and had a short conversation. He turned out to be an Armenian in his twenties, thirsty for warm human connection after many lonely, long, and cold Scandinavian winters. He was delighted to meet an Assyrian Christian from Iraq. He invited me for a meal at a nearby Middle Eastern restaurant followed by a walk. It was an ideal way to spend those few hours before heading to the airport. I spoke little. He spent most of the time talking about how much he hated Turkey and the Turks; and how racist the Swedes are towards immigrants no matter how much they like to sugarcoat this fact and claim otherwise.

Towards the end of the evening, the Armenian stranger who was no longer a stranger, asked what I thought about “home” and “exile”, because he had been struggling with these ideas for years in Sweden. I told him that life has taught me that it is possible that things, ideas, concepts, and feelings can have the opposite meaning of what one might see at the surface. It was possible that people can be the opposite of what they claim to be. It was possible that “home” could signify “exile” or the other way around. Laughter may be tears in disguise. Revolutions may be yet other oppressive powers taking the carpet from under the feet of the current oppressive powers. Going to the top of the mountain may not really mean “going up”. It can in fact be a harsh form of falling; just as fame, cheers, and camera flashes have ultimately led to the demise of countless insecure and lonely souls on this planet. In brief, it was possible that everything we are told and taught is the opposite of what we think, or it might be outright false. I told him that I go through life remembering my mom’s oldest advice that “succeeding in an unjust world is the first sign of failure, because it means you’re cooperating with injustice.” I told him that I carry like a talisman around my neck André Gide’s words: “Fish die belly upward, and rise to the surface. It’s their way of falling.”

My new Armenian acquaintance took an interest in these reflections and asked that we should stay in touch. He walked with me to the door of the apartment building, we said goodbye like two old friends, and he vanished in the crowd as though the whole encounter was nothing but an escaping dream. I thought my year of research wrestling with home, exile, and displacement as some of the most political and politicized concepts of our time had already started in Stockholm.

*

The day was September 11, 2015. The place was Arlanda Airport in Stockholm. The time was an early hour in the morning. I was waiting in a line to check in my luggage into the flight that was going to land me in Erbil, Iraq. After an entire decade, here I was going back to see how the many people, places, and things I left behind had continued their lives (and deaths) in my absence. I reminded myself that just as I was changing in exile, so were all the people and things I left behind in Iraq. I reminded myself that it was going to be an encounter between two changed and constantly changing parties. I had to be prepared that some (or many) images of what Iraq used to be in my head may no longer exist.

The check-in line was long. I started looking at the faces of the people waiting, their looks, their clothes, and their luggage. The guy behind me had his headphones on with a traditional Turkman folklore song from Kirkuk blasting. I could hear the song oozing out of his headphones. It was a song that many of our Turkmen neighbors and friends in Kirkuk used to play at weddings. My ears immediately recognized the words: “beyaz gül kırmızı gül güller arasından gelir…” [White rose, red rose, she comes through roses]. I didn’t particularly like the song as a child, but I did at that moment because it was much more than a song. Time had transformed it into fossilized moments and faces of distant people, places, and moments that I may never see again, except in my daydreams. In front of me in the line there were two Kurdish families. They seemed to have just met at the airport. They were speaking in two different Kurdish dialects (Kurmanci and Sorani). These two groups usually don’t like each other, particularly since the intra-Kurdish struggle in the 1990s. But, I thought to myself, in exile people have no choice. They simply learn how absurd their differences at “home” were compared to what they endure in foreign lands. They learn how to love the remotest things, scents, and traces that remind them of a lost home and a lost life. The husbands were talking about how convenient it was to have a direct flight from Stockholm to Erbil, but they complained that the flight was too early. The wives were discussing the “right” age for children to start articulating their first words. Further down in line I saw a few guys joking and laughing loudly in a Baghdadi Arabic dialect. They were making sarcastic remarks without taking notice of anyone around them. I already felt like I was in a small version of the Iraq I knew and missed so much, though I knew this might not be the case when I arrive. Perhaps, the Iraq I knew is now more accessible in exile than it is possible at home.

Most passengers in the check-in line were Iraqis. Many were Kurds. Some were Arabs. I spotted a few Christian families. I heard two ladies speaking in my mother tongue, Aramaic, with a golden cross hanging around the neck of one of them. I overheard one talking about how a relative, a refugee in Lebanon, had just been accepted to immigrate to Australia. These conversations are hardly foreign to my ears. Before I left Iraq, many people were either talking about leaving or celebrating how some of their friends or relatives had left, hoping they would be next. Most people want to leave without even knowing whether they will ever “arrive” somewhere.

Ironically–or perhaps not–all the passengers had foreign passports in their hands, including myself. I spotted Swedish, Danish, German, and other EU passports. This, too, was hardly surprising to me. The effects of wars and everything that has happened to Iraq and the Iraqi people over the last few decades made the only way an Iraqi could be treated with dignity in Iraq and elsewhere is if they hold foreign—namely Western—passports. A “good” or a “fortunate” Iraqi can almost be defined as someone who holds a western passport. The Iraqi passport is paralyzing. Like its holders, it is a “suspect” in every airport, every checkpoint, and every point of entry. As an Iraqi, one is not welcome anywhere. One is almost questioned to death before allowed entrance to any country. However, one is always welcome to exit any place or port with no questions asked. Every authority and every official thinks they have the right to interrogate an Iraqi without a second thought. Iraqis know well that holding that useless document called an “Iraqi passport” is a curse at this point in history. But, of course, this is hardly the only such case. Most passport holders who come from nations whose people count as “the wretched of the earth” experience different forms of discrimination and exclusion. Some experiences are more severe than others. It is all about power, or lack thereof. Your passport has a power. It is not just a document that helps you pass, it can become a sign of humiliation preventing you from passing. Many Iraqis I know joke about the very words on the inside cover of Iraqi passports stating: “all competent authorities are requested to accord bearer of this passport protection to allow him/her all possible assistance in case of need.” Every place an Iraqi goes to, the opposite of this statement is what happens. These words are just one more example of how things can have the exact opposite meaning of their appearance as with “home” and “exile”, “peace” and “war”, “honesty” and “dishonesty”, and countless other words in different languages. I thought to myself how irritated I have become about my first language, my second language, my third language, and all the languages I speak. Words increasingly don’t mean what they are supposed to mean in all these languages. Languages are increasingly becoming tools for disguising ideas rather than disclosing them. It suddenly crossed my mind that perhaps one day I will be forced to put every single word I write in quotation marks. Nothing means what it is supposed to mean. I dreamt of a day and a world in which everyone means what they say and say what they mean.

When my turn came, the blonde, cordial, female Swedish employee checking passports and handing boarding passes looked at my American passport and asked “I see that you were born in Iraq. Do you have an Iraqi passport?” “No. It is expired,” I answered. She went on, “you know people over there are not crazy about American passports. Let me see your Iraqi passport, even if it’s expired.” She took a quick look, checked in my bag, and directed me to the designated gate. I couldn’t help thinking: why should she care? I am going to Iraq not coming from it. She would care more if the process was reversed, because it is more important to keep Sweden safe than Iraq. What if my passport was fake? What if I was a “terrorist”? It doesn’t matter. Perhaps it is better for “terrorists” to exit Europe than enter and cause problems. Is this why many of them are now in Syria?  Moreover, her words were far from accurate. I know many American and Western expats living in Iraq and they love it there. I wondered whether she was fed too much propaganda about Iraq and the region.

*

I arrived in Erbil shortly after 10:30 am. After greeting the friendly Kurd female officer at the passport control in Kurdish, she stamped my passport and here I was officially in Iraq. As I was walking to the baggage claim area in the small and clean airport, I remembered that I had no one from my family or relatives to meet me. My immediate family members had all left Iraq over the last ten years because of the war. My relatives who are left there, from both parents’ sides, are not in that city and I hadn’t announced to most of them that I was coming. I wanted to land in the airport for real before I could surely tell anyone that I was in Iraq.

The only person who was waiting for me in the airport was my American brother-in-law. I wondered what the Swede who checked my passport at Arlanda would have thought about that. My American brother-in-law is a lovely and helpful guy. He came to Iraq after 2003, fell in love with the country, and decided that he would rather live in Erbil than in the U.S. He feels “freer” in Erbil, he often says. He is not alone in this feeling. Many expats I know love “third world” countries. Many don’t mind settling and getting married in them while the locals in these countries are escaping from all directions. The reason is simple: they are treated better than the local citizens in these “third world” countries and even better than the treatment they would receive in their “industrialized” countries in the “developed” world. Again, it is all about power. Who has it and where. Despite my gratitude that he had come to pick me up, I still found this ironic and painful. An American is the only one at the airport to pick me up at what was once my beloved country. It felt as though that complex line between “home” and “exile” was being challenged from the moment I returned to Iraq. I decided, however, that it wasn’t helpful to dwell on this thought. I decided not to let anything spoil my first intimate moments of embracing Iraq’s skies, lands, trees, roses, buildings, streets, faces, scents, and everyone and everything that has been living and growing in my imagination during the past decade in exile.

 

I spent the first couple of days in Erbil, mostly with my brother-in-law and some of his foreign expat friends who gave me some tips about life there. They shared things they knew better than me because they had been there and I hadn’t. I soon learned about the new malls, the best hotels, the residential buildings where many expats and rich locals live in places with names like the “English village”, the “Italian village”, the “Lebanese village”, and so on. I thought about how in every “third world” country that gets “liberated” from its dictators, the first things that go up are luxurious hotels and residential areas for Western expats and “experts”, along with gated communities from which to administer the newly formed governments in places like Baghdad’s Green Zone. The expats in Erbil also told me about things as simple as where to get a local sim card for my phone, where to get the best haircut, and the costs of basic foods.

I felt alienated on my first night. It was a feeling identical to how I felt on my first night in America ten years ago. I was lonely, thrown into a strange land. I went out that evening in the majority Christian district of Ankawa in the outskirts of Erbil to buy a sim card. It was a hot September evening. As I greeted the seller at the random shop I entered, he paused, stared at me, and asked: “Are you Louis?”  “Yes I am. Wait, don’t tell me who you are. I think I also recognize your face, but I have to add ten years of change to it.” I recognized him. He was one of our old neighbors in Kirkuk. They had to move to Erbil as security deteriorated after 2003. That was a comforting first connection. It made me feel I am less a stranger than I thought. I am still remembered. I still exist. But that wasn’t enough. I wanted more closeness than an old neighbor to feel at home again. I immediately activated my sim card and called my aunt in Duhok, two and half hours north of Erbil. She could sense how sad my tone was on the phone and said, “I will be waiting for you tomorrow…” I went to the bus and taxi station in Erbil the next day to get a taxi and headed to Duhok, the place where I spent the early years of my childhood. A beautiful small city sandwiched between two mountains.

At around 1:30 pm, in the shared taxi heading to Duhok, the passengers were all friendly Kurds. I greeted the driver and the passengers in Kurdish and then started looking out the window to check out the scenery. I heard the two guys next to me saying: “thank God there are no Arab passengers in the taxi. Arab passengers always cause delays at the checkpoints.” As the taxi moved, I started checking out all the new buildings and neat streets in Erbil. It was clear from the old and the new infrastructure that whereas some people have gotten better off, others had gotten worse off, or simply stayed as they were. Infrastructure reveals so much about a place and its culture, politics, and people. The disparities between the poor and the rich neighborhoods in Erbil, in a sense, show that “time” wasn’t ticking at the same pace for everyone. Time wasn’t moving favorably for everyone. Even time is like power in that it moves some people forward, some backward, and some to the sides and the margins. Time also buries some people under the ground. I noticed many unfinished construction and apartment buildings. It looked as though there was an “economic boom” that was abruptly halted by unexpected circumstances made certain parts of the city look like dilapidated ghost towns. As we were exiting Erbil, at every traffic light we stopped, there were poor Syrian or Yazidi women and children begging drivers to buy gum, tissues, and other simple items. Some of these women of different ages ranging from 11 to 30 were so beautiful that it wouldn’t be surprising if they were forced to sell other things to get their meals for the day.

Over time, I discovered that many of the women living in tents and dilapidated and deserted buildings have been selling their bodies to make living. In Erbil’s well-known Christian district of Ankawa, I discovered by talking with taxi drivers, that many beauty salons have been turned into places where buyers (men) park their cars and wait to pick up internally displaced women who escaped ISIS-occupied parts of Iraq and Syria.

*

The driver taking us to Duhok was talking to the front seat passenger about how bad the economy was, there were no salaries for public sector employees, and so on. I understood that the bad economy had suddenly crippled the Iraqi Kurdistan region. Consequently, public sector employees (most people) were only getting salaries every few months due to deep divisions between Kurdistan and Baghdad. I heard some passengers talking about hopefully resolving oil problems with Baghdad soon so that things could improve. Baghdad has been withholding Kurdistan’s 17% share of oil revenues, because the latter has been drilling, extracting, and selling oil through “illegal” contracts with foreign companies without Baghdad’s permission. The Iraqi officials in Baghdad, the passengers explained, told the Kurds that if they want to get their share, they must share what they’re selling from their region with the central government. The refusal of the Kurd officials to abide by this and the fact that many of Kurdistan’s oil searches had been less promising than originally anticipated caused a serious economic problem in the region. This was the main topic the passengers discussed most of the trip.

View on Duhok with the Duhok Dam in the background

View on Duhok with the Duhok Dam in the background (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

As the taxi continued driving, I kept looking out the window checking out the many villages and small towns we passed through, as we left Erbil behind. Not much has changed in these villages and little towns, except one could see more “fancy” houses in the villagers’ standards. It was an indication that some individuals have been making a lot of money to renovate or build all these new houses. They looked expensive but also indicated a recently acquired financial capital. I noticed how many spaces that used to be beautiful and green agricultural lands on the way had turned into depressing, ugly, half-finished cement buildings. Furthermore, there was a clear disparity between how extravagant many individual houses looked versus the poor state of  public services like sewage and streets, that were still exactly the same in most places since the Ba‘ath era. During its 35 years in power, the Ba‘ath regime had made serious efforts to modernize Iraq’s infrastructure in cities and villages. The road from Erbil to Duhok was the same since the Saddam years. It was narrow, dangerous, and filled with pit holes that have only worsened over the years. I saw a clear pattern of how most wealth was being used for individual rather than communal interests. These images reminded me of the anthropological literature we studied on “development”. Development looked so much like destruction.

My thoughts were interrupted when we stopped at a checkpoint—there were so many of them—and the officer asked everyone to present their IDs. I presented the only valid ID I had on me, my American passport. As soon as he looked at it, he asked me to get out of the car. He said to the officer next to him in Kurdish, “We need to check this to make sure it’s not a forged passport.” The checkpoint looked like a kiosk that barely had a wood cover on the top to protect them from Iraq’s unforgiving summer sun. I wondered with what they were going to check the “validity” of the passport when they didn’t seem to have any equipment or machines in place. I decided to just talk to them. I spoke in Kurdish and told the officer that I am from the region and I was just back after ten years in America, which is why I don’t have a valid local ID. My IDs had expired. As soon as I spoke in Kurdish and he heard my name, his tone changed 180 degrees, “Welcome home, my dear brother!” I went back inside the taxi and it drove away.

I told the driver the same brief story of why I had no valid local IDs and that I am a local of the region, so this helped for the rest of the trip. He did the talking on my behalf at the other checkpoints and everything went smoothly. I could only imagine how an Arab would feel and be treated when going through all these checkpoints where one could pass just by simply speaking Kurdish or be stranded even if they had valid IDs, but didn’t speak the language. In many ways, the language, the sect, and the ethnicity are the IDs in post-U.S. occupation Iraq–the “new Iraq”. In fact, at many checkpoints, I observed, that they wouldn’t even ask for an ID. The first thing they would do is to profile the person based on their face and language. If it became clear that they didn’t speak the language, they would be stranded and interrogated. I noticed over time that some displaced Arabs had learned what one might call “basic checkpoint Kurdish”. But even that was no guarantee for “passing”. The officers could recognize faces. Arabs or Arab-looking people were to be interrogated and even humiliated. Further, sometimes they would linger with the conversation and by the second or the third question, the Arab’s “checkpoint Kurdish” would become inadequate to carry on a conversation, and therefore create serious difficulties for them. Humans can become sophisticated over time to navigate power and its hurdles, but so does power. It is a two-way street. There is no break. One must keep reinventing themselves in this harsh world of power relations to survive.

My impressions from the first days and before even reaching Duhok was that the “new Iraq” was operating on ethnicity and sect; on language as a metonym for power and disempowerment; and on residency cards as a prerequisite for existence for those not from the northern region, especially Arabs. What all these elements have in common is their resemblance to the pan-Arabist project. In fact, today’s reality is a violently amplified and more intense version of the former pan-Arabism, which one would think was over. It wasn’t over. It was only passed on from some actors to others to implement this new project called “the new Iraq” or “the new Middle East” imposed and facilitated by the American invasion. There was a deep anti-Arab sentiment to the extent that it is a blessing not to be an Arab then and there.

Little did I know that these first observations and encounters from the early days were going to be central for understanding the lives of the internally displaced Iraqis in the region. Little did I know that exile and internal displacement for the interlocutors of my research project were first and foremost an expression of shifting power relations, which had turned them overnight from vital actors in the Iraqi society before 2003 into exiled, internally displaced, disempowered people whose lives are now tied to temporary contracts, residency cards, and living in a permanent state of fear and precariousness in what is supposed to be their own country. My first week in Iraq made it clear that the losses incurred by all Iraqi people are significant and ongoing. Therefore, it is only through tracing these losses from home to exile that we can understand the deeper meaning of these stories. Tracing back the story to “home” is to trace back the story of loss for these people to its early beginnings. The bleak reality of Iraq as a “home” suddenly reminded of the last part of a beautiful and sad poem titled “The Fortune Teller” by the great Syrian poet, Nizar Qabani, in which the fortune teller, speaking about the beloved woman of the man whose cup she is reading says:

You will seek her everywhere, my son

You will ask the waves of the sea about her

You will ask the shores of the seas

You will travel the oceans

And your tears will flow like a river

And at the close of your life

You will find that since your beloved

Has no land, no home, no address

You have been pursuing only a trace of smoke

How difficult it is, my son

To love a woman

Who has neither land, nor home..

Louis Yako is an independent Iraqi-American writer, poet, cultural anthropologist, journalist, and researcher.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Road to Understanding Syria Goes Through Iraq

Netanyahu in the Dock? Bribery, Fraud and Breach of Trust

August 7th, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

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

He’s been investigated for over a year for alleged bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, including for accepting about $1.1 million from accused French fraudster Arnaud Mimran in 2009.

His chief of staff and close confident for years, Ari Harow, signed an agreement to turn state’s witness against him. As the saying goes, he knows where the bodies are buried.

A gag order in place until September 17 prevents information about the case from coming out.

On Thursday, a statement from Netanyahu’s office denied wrongdoing, “reject(ing) the unfounded claims made against the prime minister. The campaign to change the government is underway, but it is destined to fail, for a simple reason: there won’t be anything because there was nothing.”

The same day, Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit said “we’re making progress.” The prosecution is “working with police” on getting Harow to turn state’s witness.

He’s suspected of bribery, fraud, breach of trust, and money laundering. A US-born Jew, he emigrated to Israel with his family in 1985.

He was first linked to financial irregularities in the so-called Bibi Tours scandal years earlier – involving double-billing and luxury travel financed by foreign businessmen and groups, without appropriate accounting and approval.

He and others involved were never charged with wrongdoing. He may be sentenced to six months of community service and fined $193,000 on breach of trust charges in exchange for testifying against his former boss.

Image result

Ari Harow with PM Netanyahu (Source: Miriam Alster, FLASH90/Channel 2 News)

Netanyahu’s trusted colleague may become his worst enemy to save himself from harsher punishment, including possible imprisonment.

According to former Netanyahu communications director Yoaz Hendel,

Harow “sat on the seam between the political and the personal, between the family of Netanyahu and the nation, between the bureau and the home. On these seams, all the gray episodes happened.”

Netanyahu could be charged in so-called Cases 1,000 and 2,000 – the first on suspicion of inappropriately or illegally receiving lavish gifts from wealthy supporters, amounting to possible bribery.

The second case involves him getting caught red-handed on tape, negotiating a quid pro quo with Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Mozes for more favorable broadsheet coverage in return for legislation prohibiting distribution of the free daily Israel Hayom, YA’s main competitor, owned by Netanyahu supporter Sheldon Adelson.

Mozes was caught on tape, saying

“(i)f we can come to an agreement (for legislation prohibiting Israel Hayom’s free distribution), I will do all I can to make sure you stay (in power) as long as you want. I’m looking you in the eye, and saying this as clearly as I can.”

Former State Prosecutor’s Office financial investigations department head Avia Alef said if the above report is true,

“there is no question that this is bribery.”

Netanyahu reportedly agreed to a quid pro quo deal, enough under Israeli law to hold him accountable for bribery even if no follow-through occurred.

Harow apparently has detailed information on both cases. He was Netanyahu’s chief of staff when events relating to both cases were ongoing.

On Friday, police recommended indicting Netanyahu. It’s for state prosecutors to decide if charges are made.

If prosecuted and punished, it won’t be the first time for an Israeli prime minister. After leaving office, Ehud Olmert was convicted and imprisoned for municipal corruption, including taking bribes worth around $450,000, connected to various real estate deals.

In May 2014, he was sentenced to six years imprisonment for bribery. In late December 2015, Israel’s High Court reduced his sentence to 18 months – extended to 27 months for obstruction of justice.

In mid-February 2016, he began serving his sentence. On July 2, he was released after serving one-third of it provided he undergo rehabilitation and perform community service.

If Netanyahu is prosecuted and convicted, he’ll likely get off as easily, maybe avoid prison time altogether.

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Netanyahu in the Dock? Bribery, Fraud and Breach of Trust

Featured image: Comandante Borsini (Source: Marina Militare)

On August 3, the Italians government sent the frigate Commandante Borsini into Libyan territorial waters to stop refugees fleeing Libya for Europe. This violation of the sovereignty of Libya, a former Italian colony, aims to destroy refugee vessels and force refugees back into Libya, where the militias that have controlled the country ever since the devastating NATO war against Libya in 2011 detain them in appalling conditions.

The Italian parliament has approved a law allowing the Italian navy to trespass into Libyan waters under the pretext that they are helping the Libyan coast guard to arrest refugees. Italian Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti even declared that the goal was to “reinforce Libyan sovereignty.” A large majority in parliament voted for the intervention, 328 to 113 in the lower house and 191 to 47 in the upper house.

The law provoked outrage on Libyan social media and protests in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, with banners bearing pictures of Omar al-Mukhtar, the “Lion of the Desert” who led the resistance to Italian colonial rule in the early 20th century, and the slogan “No to a return to colonialism.” Rome reacted by cutting the number of vessels deployed off Libya from six to two.

Human rights groups denounced the Italian naval operation.

“The Italian Navy deployment in Libyan waters could effectively lead to arbitrary detention of people in abusive conditions,” said Human Rights Watch official Judith Sunderland. “Italy is preparing to help Libyan forces who are known to detain people in conditions that expose them to a real risk of torture, sexual violence, and forced labour.”

The Italian Navy also seized the Iuventa, the ship of the German Jugend Rettet (“Youth Rescue”) NGO, which tries to save refugees on the dangerous central Mediterranean passage from western Libya to Italy. The NGO had refused to sign a “code of conduct” dictated by the European Union (EU) that would have limited the number of refugees it could save on the high seas.

“If NGOs do not sign [the code of conduct], it is hard to see how they can continue their work,” Italian Interior Minister Marco Minniti told La Stampa.

The Italian naval mission points to the rising danger of a new imperialist intervention in Libya by competing European powers. Paris has already called for the installation of camps where French and Libyan officials would imprison, inspect, and render judgment on refugees seeking to escape Libya to Europe. Now, Rome is proposing its own intervention amid escalating rivalries between French and Italian imperialism in North Africa.

The Italian operation provoked a loud condemnation from Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, a former Libyan general and CIA asset who now controls much of eastern Libya around Benghazi and is being groomed as a proxy for French imperialism.

Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) declared in a communiqué that it would “confront any naval vessel that enters national waters without permission from the army.” It called the Italian operation a “violation of sovereignty” of Libya by Italy; which was aiming to “export the illegal immigration crisis from its territory to Libya’s.” The LNA claimed that its forces in Benghazi, Tobruk, and Ras Lanouf, in the eastern part of Libya, as well as in Tripoli in the west, would confront Italian vessels.

The Iuventa, operated by a German NGO, is impounded at Lampedusa harbour as part of the enforcement of a controversial code of conduct.

This is only a political maneuver, however, in that the LNA only has forces in eastern Libya, whereas refugees travel along sea lanes going from western Libya to Italy. This is where Rome is sending its warships.

It is plainly evident that Haftar, like the other militia leaders in Libya, is hostile to the anti-imperialist sentiment that is rising among the Libyan workers and masses. He has no fundamental differences from the militias in Misrata and elsewhere in western Libya currently working with Rome. He plans to use the LNA’s control of eastern Libya’s vast petroleum reserves and of the Ras Lanouf refineries to develop ties with other imperialist powers, including France, as well as with the Russian, Algerian, and Egyptian regimes.

These conflicts expose yet again the utterly reactionary character of the 2011 NATO war in Libya. With the assistance of petty-bourgeois academics and political groups like France’s New Anti-capitalist Party, the media and governments shamelessly promoted a war of imperialist plunder, in which NATO coordinated its actions with Islamist and tribal militias, as a “humanitarian” war to defend a democratic revolution. NATO’s overthrow of the Libyan regime only created a disaster for Libya’s inhabitants, as well as for hundreds of thousands of refugees in the country.

Nearly 2,500 refugees have drowned in the Mediterranean in the first seven months of 2017, putting 2017 on track to be the deadliest year yet for refugees trying to cross the Mediterranean. A total of 94,000 refugees traveled from Libya to Italy.

The civil war is also sharpening tensions between the major powers, and in particular among the NATO countries. As Washington threatens Russia and China with war, and rivalries grow between Washington and a Berlin-Paris axis that aims to develop an “independent” defense policy from the United States, a diffuse coalition of countries is backing Haftar.

In January, a military officer from neighboring Algeria spoke to Middle East Eye to underscore growing ties between Moscow, Algiers, and Haftar:

“We will not wait forever for the various Libyan political forces to reach a settlement. Libya needs the law to be applied across its territory and, above all, a strong army that is capable of guaranteeing security all the way to the border. And with the Russians, we see eye to eye.”

According to another Algerian source, Moscow and Beijing both hope Haftar will fight members of the Islamic State (IS) militia that, they fear, could return via Libya to Central Asia or to Xinjiang in China, to carry out attacks there:

“In a certain measure, the Russians also want to secure this area. For they fear that after the defeat of IS in Syria and Iraq, Russian or Chinese terrorists in East Turkestan sympathetic to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham [ex-Al Nusra, the Syrian wing of Al Qaeda], that is 2,000 to 3,000 men, could also flee to Libya.”

After Haftar was invited onto the Russian aircraft carrier Kuznetsov in the Mediterranean in January, the commander of US forces in Africa, General Thomas Waldhauser, said the ties between Moscow and Haftar are “undeniable.” Waldhauser added,

“They are on the ground, they are trying to influence the action, we watch what they do with great concern and you know in addition to the military side of this, we’ve seen some recent activity in business ventures.”

He indicated that Washington planned to continue working with the Tripoli regime.

Paris has oriented to Haftar, however, since the election of President Emmanuel Macron in May, inviting Haftar to a summit in Paris, as Franco-Italian tensions continued to grow on several issues. Not only is Paris refusing to accept refugees who have arrived in Europe via Italy, citing the EU’s Dublin Accords, but Macron has nationalized the STX naval shipyards in Saint Nazaire to block an Italian firm, Fincantieri, from acquiring them.

This provoked an angry comment from the Italian paper Il Fatto Quotidiano on the Berlin-Paris axis in the EU:

“European ideals mask nationalist interests. French President Emmanuel Macron has just decided to nationalize STX, the largest French shipyard, to keep it from falling into Italian hands … In Libya, Macron is playing without Europe and against Italy on petroleum and on immigration: the goal is to take over the petroleum to benefit French [energy] firm Total. France is acting in line with its interests, like Germany.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Italy Sends Warships into Libyan Waters to Block Refugees

Important article first published in May 2009

Since at least 2009 the U.S. Department of State has budgeted at least US$49 million in total to support right-wing opposition forces in Venezuela who are now in their seventh week of violent protests to oust democratically-elected President Nicolas Maduro.

According to the 2010 budget justification, which designated US$6 million that year to Venezuela’s “Economic Support Fund” the budget “will support efforts to preserve and expand democratic space through programs that strengthen and promote civil society, citizen participation, independent media, human rights organizations, and democratic political parties.”

In a more detailed breakdown of the 2011 US$5 million budgeted for Venezuelan economic support, the budget indicates that US$1 million was designated specifically for the support of “political competition and consensus building.”

Throughout its budget justifications for Venezuela, the State Department repeatedly emphasizes its concern over the “increasingly authoritarian tendencies” of the governments of the late President Hugo Chavez, and current President Nicolas Maduro, in spite of regularly scheduled elections that are internationally recognized.

The 2009 budget reiterated support and continued funding for the Organization of American States in order to deploy teams of “democracy practitioners” to Venezuela and Bolivia where they say “democracy is threatened by the growing presence of alternate concepts such as ‘participatory democracy’.” The nature of the activities carried out by these teams is unclear in the budgets.

OAS General-Secretary Luis Almagro has led a campaign to ousted Venezuela from the regional organization and on April 26, the body voted to hold a meeting on the situation in the country, which Venezuela called a violation of its sovereignty, leading President Nicolas Maduro to announce the nation’s formal withdrawal from the group.

In its 2011 budget, the State Department wrote,

“The United States has a major interest in preserving and strengthening Venezuelan democratic institutions.”

Since the beginning of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution, with the democratic election of former President Hugo Chavez in 1998, the oil-rich nation has been repeatedly attacked as “undemocratic.” President Maduro has reiterated that elections will be held on schedule in 2018, but the opposition has demanded his immediate removal, seeking foreign intervention in its destabilization campaign.

The revolutionary government has significantly eroded the political and economic hegemony the U.S. had over Venezuelan oil, which holds one of the largest petroleum reserves in the world. Prior to the election of Chavez, in spite of its vast resource wealth, Venezuela was plagued by sharp class inequalities.

According to United Nations sources, poverty rates in Venezuela were nearing 60 percent before 1998, and by 2015 were halved to less than 30 percent in spite of an economic crisis triggered by falling oil prices. Under the Bolivarian government, health care has been made widely available through the Barrio Adentro program, and average life expectancy has steadily risen.

The U.S. government is silent on the widespread violence of the right-wing opposition groups that they fund, which in 2014 resulted in 43 deaths, of which the opposition was responsible for more than half.

Currently, violent protests by the right wing calling for Maduro’s ouster continue into their seventh week and have already resulted in at least 50 deaths and many more injuries, exceeding the causualties of the opposition violence in 2014. In spite of the government calling for dialogue and participation in its constituent assembly debates, the opposition has refused to participate and called on supporters to continue protests.

Indicating an awareness that their regime change efforts are not well-received among the mass of the people, the 2008 budget wrote,

“Democracy in Latin America, as it has been promoted by the developed countries, is being increasingly defined by populist voices as exploitative and imperialist.”

According to a 2007 U.S. strategic document leaked by former CIA-whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013, Venezuela was seen as the main adversary of the United States in the Western Hemisphere. The country was listed as one of the top six “enduring targets for the NSA,” along with China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Russia.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Has Budgeted $49 Million for Venezuelan Right-Wing Since 2009

First published by GR on January 5, 2017

The United States has recently claimed the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from US territory as well as additional sanctions against the Russian state are in retaliation for what the Washington Post claims is “2016 election interference.”

In the Post’s article, “Obama administration announces measures to punish Russia for 2016 election interference,” it’s stated that:

The response, unveiled just weeks before President Obama leaves office, culminates months of internal debate over how to react to Russia’s election-year provocations. In recent months, the FBI and CIA have concluded that Russia intervened repeatedly in the 2016 election, leaking damaging information in an attempt to undermine the electoral process and help Donald Trump take the White House.

The “damaging information” that was leaked, however, was disseminated by Wikileaks, and likely the result of an internal whistle-blower, not Russian operatives. Questions surrounding the veracity of America’s claims are owed to a substantial lack of evidence provided by US departments and agencies involved in both the investigation and the punitive measures applied in its wake.

However, the US’ reaction to what it claims is “2016 election interference” could significantly backfire, since the US itself is engaged in very real, overt election interference globally, and for decades. In fact, even as the US berated Russia for allegedly interfering in America’s internal politics, its own organisations, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), funded by the US government, openly admitted they were leaking information regarding China’s internal politics in efforts to undermine Beijing.

In fact, NED and its subsidiaries (including the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI) and Freedom House) as well as myriad fronts around the world these organisations fund, support and direct, are openly dedicated to manipulating foreign elections, creating US-friendly opposition movements and even overthrowing governments that impede US interests worldwide.

The New York Times, in fact, would admit in 2011 in an article titled, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” that:

A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.

US interference across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in 2011 would eventually lead to regional war, the complete destruction of Libya and near destruction of Syria as well as regime change in a number of nations including Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen.

NED and its subsidiaries are also busy elsewhere. In Southeast Asia, NED backs opposition parties and media fronts in Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and the current US-backed government in Myanmar led by Aung San Suu Kyi whose political party and associated media organisations have been NED aid recipients for decades.

For nations in Asia like China, Malaysia and Thailand that still face significant pressure from NED-backed opposition fronts, the US’ current “retaliation” against Russia could serve as an opportunity to likewise “expel” those who could easily be characterised as “interfering” with each respective nation’s internal politics, and particularly, with elections.

Recipients of US aid (particularly media fronts) could also be dismantled under the same pretexts used by American and European powers regarding “fake news,” by citing Washington’s current actions versus Moscow.

While the US has little evidence regarding Russia’s role in leaking what were genuine e-mails revealing very real impropriety among American political circles, nations like China, Malaysia and Thailand have verified evidence that opposition fronts are funded, backed and even directed by US organisations like NED. What has been perhaps preventing these nations from dismantling these foreign-backed networks, has been the illusion of America’s pro-democracy stance. However, with the US now cracking down on whistle-blowers, opposition media and shifting tides amid American politics all based on allegations of “Russian” involvement, what is preventing other states from cracking down on verified US interference in their own internal politics?

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


  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington’s Alleged “Election Interference” vs. U.S. Overt “Intrusion” in National Elections Worldwide

Image: Award winning author William Blum

This article is a chapter from Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower by William Blum published in 2005.

How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite of what its name implies. The NED was set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate – the Church committee of the Senate, the Pike committee of the House, and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing the powers-that-be much embarrassment.

Something had to be done. What was done was not to stop doing these awful things. Of course not. What was done was to shift many of these awful things to a new organization, with a nice sounding name – The National Endowment for Democracy. The idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA had been doing covertly for decades, and thus, hopefully, eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities.

It was a masterpiece. Of politics, of public relations, and of cynicism.

Thus it was that in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy was set up to “support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts”. Notice the “nongovernmental” – part of the image, part of the myth. In actuality, virtually every penny of its funding comes from the federal government, as is clearly indicated in the financial statement in each issue of its annual report. NED likes to refer to itself as an NGO (Non-governmental organization) because this helps to maintain a certain credibility abroad that an official US government agency might not have. But NGO is the wrong category. NED is a GO.

“We should not have to do this kind of work covertly,” said Carl Gershman in 1986, while he was president of the Endowment. “It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60’s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created.”

And Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, declared in 1991: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through NED.

The Endowment has four principal initial recipients of funds: the International Republican Institute; the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs; an affiliate of the AFL-CIO (such as the American Center for International Labor Solidarity); and an affiliate of the Chamber of Commerce (such as the Center for International Private Enterprise). These institutions then disburse funds to other institutions in the US and all over the world, which then often disburse funds to yet other organizations.

In a multitude of ways, NED meddles in the internal affairs of numerous foreign countries by supplying funds, technical know-how, training, educational materials, computers, faxes, copiers, automobiles, and so on, to selected political groups, civic organizations, labor unions, dissident movements, student groups, book publishers, newspapers, other media, etc. NED typically refers to the media it supports as “independent” despite the fact that these media are on the US payroll.

NED programs generally impart the basic philosophy that working people and other citizens are best served under a system of free enterprise, class cooperation, collective bargaining, minimal government intervention in the economy, and opposition to socialism in any shape or form. A free-market economy is equated with democracy, reform, and growth; and the merits of foreign investment in their economy are emphasized.

From 1994 to 1996, NED awarded 15 grants, totaling more than $2,500,000, to the American Institute for Free Labor Development, an organization used by the CIA for decades to subvert progressive labor unions.  AIFLD’s work within Third World unions typically involved a considerable educational effort very similar to the basic NED philosophy described above. The description of one of the 1996 NED grants to AIFLD includes as one its objectives: “build union-management cooperation”.  Like many things that NED says, this sounds innocuous, if not positive, but these in fact are ideological code words meaning “keep the labor agitation down … don’t rock the status-quo boat”. The relationship between NED and AIFLD very well captures the CIA origins of the Endowment.

NED has funded centrist and rightist labor organizations to help them oppose those unions which were too militantly pro-worker. This has taken place in France, Portugal and Spain amongst many other places. In France, during the 1983-4 period, NED supported a “trade union-like organization for professors and students” to counter “left-wing organizations of professors”. To this end it funded a series of seminars and the publication of posters, books and pamphlets such as “Subversion and the Theology of Revolution” and “Neutralism or Liberty”.  (“Neutralism” here refers to being unaligned in the cold war.)

NED describes one of its 1997-98 programs thusly: “To identify barriers to private sector development at the local and federal levels in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to push for legislative change … [and] to develop strategies for private sector growth.”  Critics of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, a socialist, were supported by NED grants for years.

In short, NED’s programs are in sync with the basic needs and objectives of the New World Order’s economic globalization, just as the programs have for years been on the same wavelength as US foreign policy.

Interference in elections

NED’s Statement of Principles and Objectives, adopted in 1984, asserts that “No Endowment funds may be used to finance the campaigns of candidates for public office.” But the ways to circumvent the spirit of such a prohibition are not difficult to come up with; as with American elections, there’s “hard money” and there’s “soft money”.

As described in the “Elections” and “Interventions” chapters, NED successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in 1996; helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992; and worked to defeat the candidate for prime minister of Slovakia in 2002 who was out of favor in Washington. And from 1999 to 2004, NED heavily funded members of the opposition to President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to subvert his rule and to support a referendum to unseat him.

Additionally, in the 1990s and afterward, NED supported a coalition of groups in Haiti known as the Democratic Convergence, who were united in their opposition to Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his progressive ideology, while he was in and out of the office of the president.

The Endowment has made its weight felt in the electoral-political process in numerous other countries.

NED would have the world believe that it’s only teaching the ABCs of democracy and elections to people who don’t know them, but in virtually all the countries named above, in whose electoral process NED intervened, there had already been free and fair elections held. The problem, from NED’s point of view, is that the elections had been won by political parties not on NED’s favorites list.

The Endowment maintains that it’s engaged in “opposition building” and “encouraging pluralism”. “We support people who otherwise do not have a voice in their political system,” said Louisa Coan, a NED program officer.  But NED hasn’t provided aid to foster progressive or leftist opposition in Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, or Eastern Europe – or, for that matter, in the United States – even though these groups are hard pressed for funds and to make themselves heard. Cuban dissident groups and media are heavily supported however.

NED’s reports carry on endlessly about “democracy”, but at best it’s a modest measure of mechanical political democracy they have in mind, not economic democracy; nothing that aims to threaten the powers-that-be or the way-things-are, unless of course it’s in a place like Cuba.

The Endowment played an important role in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, funding key components of Oliver North’s shadowy “Project Democracy” network, which privatized US foreign policy, waged war, ran arms and drugs, and engaged in other equally charming activities. At one point in 1987, a White House spokesman stated that those at NED “run Project Democracy”.  This was an exaggeration; it would have been more correct to say that NED was the public arm of Project Democracy, while North ran the covert end of things. In any event, the statement caused much less of a stir than if – as in an earlier period – it had been revealed that it was the CIA which was behind such an unscrupulous operation.

NED also mounted a multi-level campaign to fight the leftist insurgency in the Philippines in the mid-1980s, funding a host of private organizations, including unions and the media.  This was a replica of a typical CIA operation of pre-NED days.

And between 1990 and 1992, the Endowment donated a quarter-million dollars of taxpayers’ money to the Cuban-American National Foundation, the ultra-fanatic anti-Castro Miami group. The CANF, in turn, financed Luis Posada Carriles, one of the most prolific and pitiless terrorists of modern times, who had been involved in the blowing up of a Cuban airplane in 1976, which killed 73 people. In 1997, he was involved in a series of bomb explosions in Havana hotels,  and in 2000 imprisoned in Panama when he was part of a group planning to assassinate Fidel Castro with explosives while the Cuban leader was speaking before a large crowd, although eventually, the group was tried on lesser charges.

The NED, like the CIA before it, calls what it does supporting democracy. The governments and movements whom the NED targets call it destabilization.

Notes

  1. The New York Times, June 1, 1986
  2. Washington Post, September 22, 1991
  3. NED Annual Reports, 1994-96
  4. NED Annual Report, 1996, p.39
  5. For further information on AIFLD, see: Tom Barry, et al., The Other Side of Paradise: Foreign Control in the Caribbean (Grove Press, NY, 1984), see AIFLD in index; Jan Knippers Black,United States Penetration of Brazil (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1977), chapter 6; Fred Hirsch, An Analysis of Our AFL-CIO Role in Latin America (monograph, San Jose, California, 1974) passim; The Sunday Times (London), October 27, 1974, p.15-16
  6. NED Annual Report, November 18, 1983 to September 30, 1984, p.21
  7. NED Annual Report, 1998, p.35
  8. See NED annual reports of the 1990s.
  9. Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Washington, DC), press release, June 13, 2002; Washington Post, November 18, 2003; NED Annual Report, 1998, p.53; Haiti Progres (Port-au-Prince, Haiti), May 13-19, 1998
  10. New York Times, March 31, 1997, p.11
  11. Washington Post, February 16, 1987; also see New York Times, February 15, 1987, p.1
  12. San Francisco Examiner, July 21, 1985, p.1
  13. New York Times, July 13, 1998
  14. For a detailed discussion of NED, in addition to the sources named above, see: William I. Robinson, A Faustian Bargain: U.S. Intervention in the Nicaraguan Elections and American Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era (Westview Press, Colorado, 1992), passim

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trojan Horses and Color Revolutions: The Role of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)

E Então, Quem É Cão Vira-Latas no Brasil?

August 6th, 2017 by Edu Montesanti

Reservas morais e intelectuais do naipe do economista Paulo Kliass (foto), um dos colunistas do brilhante sítio na Internet da Revista Caros Amigos, foram achincalhadas nos anos do PT no governo federal. Em junho de 2011, em uma análise do então partido neo-oligárquico no poder, Kliass observou sobre a agressividade petista em relação a toda e qualquer crítica no artigo Não ao Patrulhamento e ao Medo da Crítica:

“[Vigora hoje] a velha e conhecida chantagem do ‘quem não está comigo, então é porque está ‘contramigo’ [sic] (…) No interior do governo, e mesmo em algumas áreas do próprio movimento social, não se compreendia que a crítica era necessária justamente para que fossem apresentadas alternativas (…) Chega a ser mesmo surpreendente ler e ouvir as tentativas de algumas pessoas buscando defender o indefensável, justificar o injustificável. Quando se trata, então, de indivíduos cujo passado conhecemos e sabemos o que defendiam até anteontem, aí a coisa fica ainda mais triste ou esquisita. Imagino o que estariam a dizer e argumentar esses mesmos responsáveis pelo patrulhamento, caso tais políticas estivessem sendo desenvolvidas por outro governo, em um contexto em que estivessem na oposição. Mas agora, não! A coisa é diferente, pois se trata do ‘nosso governo’, como acontece de eu ouvir, baixinho por aí, de alguns ainda envergonhados pelo argumento chinfrim”.

Em um passado não muito remoto, mesmo enquanto a ex-presidente Dilma (sim, em grande medida vítima de preconceito de gênero neste País reacionário por natureza) era “fritada”, especialmente nos anos em que Luiz Inácio era presidente e gozava de ampla popularidade, para e caricata esquerda brasileira era inadmissível qualquer crítica à sociedade brasileira: uma simples menção crítica neste sentido valia o raivoso título de “cão vira-latas”, dando a entender que o crítico sofria de complexo de inferioridade. Todos nos lembramos bem dessa chantagem psicológica, como observou Kliass.

Enquanto hoje abundam entre a própria “esquerda” brasileira delirante, no maior cinismo, as mesmas críticas à sociedade nacional que passou, repentinamente, a não prestar mais após o bico nos fundilhos do PT pela mesma oligarquia a quem ele outrora abraçou, este que escreve agora foi publicamente achincalhado quando escrevia no Observatório da Imprensa (OI) em 2013, tempos nada distantes: por observar a despolitização e falta de dedicação à leitura da sociedade brasileira em geral, um militante petista passou a fazer ataques pessoais no espaço de leitores, para posteriormente, em seu blog, voltar a atacar o autor nominalmente com fotos de cães vira-latas que, na opinião dele, retratavam a mentalidade deste que escreve. Hoje, este tipo de apontamento crítico feito uns anos atrás no OI é “fichinha” em comparação ao que andam dizendo, do brasileiro em geral, os militantes petistas.

Em outras oportunidades – quando o PT esteve no poder – tachado também por militantes do PT de reprodutor da versão da grande mídia, de desmerecedor imperialista da sociedade brasileira (!). Pois uma rápida busca nos arquivos deste autor em comparação ao que essa mesma “esquerda” anda agora dizendo, evidencia a profunda hipocrisia, o descarado mau-caratismo, o jogo baixo de muitos: muda-se de posição facilmente por medo, por interesses, ou por uma combinação de ambos como diz o romancista norte-americano David Zeman.

Ontem deslumbrados e raivosamente agarrados ao poder sobre seus cães de guarda, hoje desesperados pela retomada do poder, a “esquerda” nacional vive de distração em distração (ela mesma o que – agora – tanto critica na outra vertente política) tem se “esquecido” de uma questão: como é possível que, em quase dois anos após Dilma ter começado a “balançar”, não se foi capaz de projetar ou ao menos colocar em discussão uma alternativa realmente popular no Brasil em relação ao mestre na retórica, Luiz Inácio?

Note-se que uma simples menção de opção já gera a raiva de “esquerda” no País. Ou seja: a história não anda sendo capaz de dar lições ao nosso povo em geral.

Está-se há mais de um ano das eleições presidenciais – as quais nem se tem certeza que ocorrerão -, enquanto se trata a questão de “luta” por Luiz Inácio “contra” as oligarquias como se estivéssemos em outubro de 2018, às vésperas do segundo turno eleitoral diante da disputa entre Luiz Inácio e Jair Bolsonaro: excesso de fanatismo que cega o indivíduo, ou a desavergonhada defesa de interesses político-partidários segue imperando no País?

Como pode um país, e das dimensões continentais do Brasil, viver há tantos anos sob uma única “alternativa” vendida como salvadora da pátria, insubstituível na “luta” contra as oligarquias nacionais, e estrangeiras? O que o PT fez em suas bases e com os “movimentos sociais”, além de cooptá-los durante todos esses anos?

O óbvio: a fajuta esquerda tupiniquim não foi nem será capaz de sequer colocar em pauta uma alternativa popular muito mais que pela falência dos partidos políticos, mas porque as críticas que ela mesma anda tecendo à sociedade valem tanto para ela quanto para os outros segmentos sociais.

A ausência de uma sombra alternativa popular no Brasil justificam que este autor insista em destacar “esquerda” com aspas, e todos os adjetivos que, mesmo quando gozava do poder, aplicava. A saber: apática, inerte, sisuda, despolitizada, mesquinha, sectária, reacionária, rancorosa, corrupta.

Em epítome, a fim de ajudar a responder à questão derradeira, palavras do próprio Luiz Inácio a seguir, abraçado com as oligarquias as quais, nem poderia ser diferente neste País perdido, acabam gerando por parte de não poucos raiva e ódio… contra o comunicador que as divulga, e não contra o autor da gargalhada política abaixo!! Enfim, com a palavra, morrendo de rir do povo brasileiro diante das classes dominantes, a única alternativa de “esquerda” deste País em queda livre moral, intelectual, econômica e tudo o mais que a criatividade possa mandar:

“O presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) arrancou, na noite desta segunda-feira [dezembro de 2006], risos e aplausos de uma platéia formada por empresários e intelectuais ao, de certa forma, desmerecer a esquerda brasileira. Segundo ele, trata-se de uma ideologia típica da juventude.

“‘Se você conhece uma pessoa muito idosa esquerdista, é porque está com problema’ [risos e aplausos]. ‘Se você conhecer uma pessoa muito nova de direita, é porque também está com problema’, afirmou o presidente depois de receber o prêmio ‘Brasileiro do Ano’ da revista IstoÉ.

“Lula explicou que, em sua opinião, as pessoas responsáveis tendem a, conforme amadurecem, abrir mão de suas convicções radicais para alcançar uma confluência. Tal fenômeno ele classificou de ‘evolução da espécie humana’.

“‘Quem é mais de direita vai ficando mais de centro, e quem é mais de esquerda vai ficando social-democrata, menos à esquerda. As coisas vão confluindo de acordo com a quantidade de cabelos brancos, e de acordo com a responsabilidade que você tem. Não tem outro jeito'”.

Para nem se estender diante do fato que os militares, do mesmo Bolsonaro que causa pavor na “esquerda” hoje, foram do início ao fim elogiados e protegidos dos crimes de lesa humanidade por Luiz Inácio na Presidência da República (mais detalhes). Em uma dessas defesas do regime militar, o líder petista acabou dizendo que ao criticá-la a “esquerda” demonstra não compreender a história (vídeo). Realmente, faltam brios tanto quanto sobra baixa auto-estima em amplos setores da nossa sociedade para aceitar passivamente (e ainda defender!) seguidos tapas na cara desta natureza, e tão obedientemente fornecer a única coisa que quer essa gente, que nunca aceitou ouvir quem esteve fora de seu grupelho:apoio eleitoral e poder!

Brasil: só podia dar no que deu, e só não percebeu quem não quis. Mas, afinal, diante das palavras de Luiz Inácio acima em contexto, quem é cão vira-latas neste País mesmo?

O Brasil precisa, urgentemente, de uma alternativa popular autêntica!

Edu Montesanti

http://edumontesanti.skyrock.com

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on E Então, Quem É Cão Vira-Latas no Brasil?

A new declassified CIA report unearthed by the FOIA investigative cooperative MuckRock contains some shocking commentary on how the intelligence community views and interacts with the media. The 1984 series of internal memos, part of the CIA’s recent CREST release (CIA Records Search Tool) of over 900,000 newly declassified documents, were drafted in response to a study on unauthorized leaks and disclosures written by legendary CIA officer Eloise Page.

The CIA Inspector General [IG] was tasked by CIA Director Bill Casey to investigate and review CIA vulnerabilities to media scrutiny. One of Eloise Page’s suggestions involved CIA and agency friendly individuals gaining influence at universities and journalism schools in order to change and shape curriculum. As MuckRock explains:

The IG passed the task onto someone on his staff, who produced a four page SECRET memo for IG James Taylor, who passed it onto Director Casey. The IG specifically endorsed the proposal for a program where the Agency would intervene with journalism schools, which is discussed further below.

The most startling sections from the CIA memos – all marked “SECRET” – reveal how CIA views the first amendment and journalistic freedoms:

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the power of the media to publish in this country is nearly absolute.”

Below are among the most significant sections from the 1984 formerly Secret report.

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely”: Ironically enough these are actual words coming out of the CIA applied not to itself – a secretive spy agency which frequently operates above and outside of the law (Iran-Contra, COINTELPRO, Operation Mockingbird, Church Committee findings… to name a few examples) – but these are words applied to the media. The CIA further likens investigative journalism with enemy foreign espionage:

“we can cite precise parallels in methods and results, if not in motivations, between the media’s attempts to penetrate us and our opposition’s attempts to do the same.”

“Maybe it’s time for an offense [against the media]”: The 1980’s was a time when the CIA continued to be on the defensive in the face of startling findings by the 1975-1976 Church Committee. The Congressional committee, chaired by Frank Church, uncovered rank and pervasive lawlessness by the CIA and other government agencies like the FBI and NSA, including foreign assassination plots, illegal wiretaps, widespread domestic spying and post office infiltrations, planting fake media stories, and embedding spies and agency-friendly journalists in American and foreign newsrooms. Many of these programs had been reportedly rolled back or eliminated by the 80’s. The 1984 document perhaps represents a period of CIA internal regrouping or restrategizing for a new offensive in shaping public perceptions.

Watch: “CIA Admits Using News To Manipulate the USA (1975)”

“Remember that the organization has official contacts with influential people outside… We have periodic sessions with college and university presidents, some of them undoubtedly with schools of journalism.” This is the section Director Casey got excited about, which he called attention to as the brief was circulated among departments. The idea of direct campus influence is aimed at shaping the end media product, and to have some influence very early on in young journalists’ careers, resulting in a “challenge to the practice of publishing indiscriminately” – that is, ensuring CIA consultation prior to news being published. Perhaps the most sinister line in the below passages is “given some curriculum changes, the next generation of reporters might show some elevation of ethics.”

CIA Do’s and Don’ts – “direct CIA sponsporship [of media influence campaigns] would be pilloried”: The CIA prepared a practical guide on how to subtly combat the media while avoiding Congressional oversight, including providing the public with a “sanitized list of examples” of media disclosures the CIA sees as hurting its mission, as well as setting up proxy organizations to shape the media indirectly in order to conceal the CIA’s role. Another section of the full document, which can be accessed here, speaks of a hoped-for chilling effect that prosecution of a prominent journalist might induce: “A single well-publicized, high-level conviction would do a lot.” 

We are of course reminded of today’s war on WikiLeaks and whistleblowers. Current CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently declared WikiLeaks “a non-state hostile intelligence service”.The CIA is now actively working to destroy the media and whistleblowing organization which has broken endless stories while partnering with news outlets around the world.

CIA to its staff of intelligence officers: Don’t announce a program to curb the media’s excesses… Don’t forget that public confidence in the press is low.

Later CIA documents and historical studies confirm that much of the strategy laid out in these memos was carefully implemented and developed. One example among many can be seen in a 1997 classified internal CIA study called, Managing a Nightmare: CIA Public Affairs and the Drug Conspiracy Story. The now declassified paper was authored by the agency’s Center for the Study of Intelligence, which is a kind of inhouse think tank which also works closely with CIA Public Affairs – the official media relations wing.

“Managing a Nightmare” details the steps the CIA went through to crush California journalist Gary Webb’s investigative series exposing CIA-Nicaraguan Contra drug running. The CIA report boasted of “a ground base of already productive relations with journalists” which was levereged to quell “a genuine public relations crisis.” It also admitted to using proxies and friendly journalists in major news rooms to attack both Gary Webb and his investigative story.

Similar to the 1984 memos advising on the public relations importance of avoiding “frontal attack” of either the press or Constitutional protections like free speech, the 1997 study admits of subtle behind the scenes maneuvering to bring about the desired end:

“In the world of public relations, as in war, avoiding a rout in the face of hostile multitudes can be considered a success.”

And added further that,

“We live in somewhat coarse and emotional times–when large numbers of Americans do not adhere to the same standards of logic, evidence, or even civil discourse as those practiced by members of the CIA community.”

Likely, such declassified papers constitute the tip of the iceberg in terms of revealing the depths that US intelligence agencies have gone to in studying how to manipulate public perception and opinion. No doubt the more extensive content still remains classified and hidden.

Featured image is from Collective Evolution.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Newly Unearthed CIA Memo: Media Are the “Principal Villains”

Neocons Leverage Trump-Hate for More Wars

August 6th, 2017 by Robert Parry

A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives is that they alone couldn’t win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance.

Part of the reason for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.

Since the neocons’ emergence as big-time foreign policy players in the Reagan administration, they also have demonstrated extraordinary resilience, receiving a steady flow of money often through U.S. government-funded grants from organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and through donations from military contractors to hawkish neocon think tanks.

But neocons’ most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting the Left’s disgust with President Trump.

People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more difficult.

The provocative “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act,” which imposes sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump’s hands in removing those penalties, passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.

The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.

In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on the table just where the neocons want it.

The Putin Obstacle

As for Russia, the neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since 2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military strike over dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013.

Subsequent evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda’s side.

Russian President Vladimir Putin with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at an energy meeting on Nov. 23, 2015, in Tehran. (Russian government photo)

While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to shatter the so-called “Shiite crescent,”anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.

Many neocons are, in effect, America’s Israeli agents and – since Israel is now allied with Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Gulf states versus Iran – the neocons exercise their media/political influence to rationalize U.S. military strikes against Iran’s regional allies, i.e., Syria’s secular government of Bashar al-Assad.

For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama’s negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran’s actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving “regime change” in Tehran.

Punishing Russia

It was in that time frame that NED’s neocon President Carl Gershman identified Ukraine as the “biggest prize” and an important step toward the even bigger prize of removing Putin in Russia.

Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain, delivered the Ukraine “prize” by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia’s border.

Former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders. (Source: Consortiumnews)

When Putin responded by allowing Crimeans to vote on secession from Ukraine and reunification with Russia, the West – and especially the neocon-dominated mainstream media – denounced the move as a “Russian invasion.” Covertly, the Russians also helped ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who defied the coup regime in Kiev and faced annihilation from Ukrainian military forces, including the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which literally displayed Swastikas and SS symbols. Putin’s assistance to these embattled ethnic Russian Ukrainians became “Russian aggression.”

Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the “responsibility to protect” (or R2P) argument for the violent “regime change” in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.

But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American “peace activists” to support the “regime change” war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.

Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially flacked for “moderate” Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.

Successful Propaganda

As part of this propaganda process, the jihadists’ P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets, phoned in anti-government atrocity stories to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn’t dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for fear of being beheaded.

Still, whenever the White Helmets or other “activists” accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel. When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.

Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has said,

“Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press.”

But all these successes in the neocons’ “perception management” operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.

Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame Russia.

A heart-rending propaganda image designed to justify a major U.S. military operation inside Syria against the Syrian military. (Source: Consortiumnews)

The evidence that Russia had “hacked our democracy” was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that “incriminating evidence” contradicted Crowdstrike’s own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace.

So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee’s computers so the government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to come up with an assessment that could be used to blame Trump’s victory on “Russian meddling.” Obama, of course, shared the revulsion over Trump’s victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.

‘Hand-Picked’ Analysts

According to Clapper’s later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were “hand-picked” from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an “assessment” before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the “trust us” approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.

Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia’s RT network for covering the Occupy Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney.

The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)

So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point about Washington groupthink.

“When all right-thinking people in the nation’s capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality,” Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President’s hands on when to remove sanctions.

Lost Logic

But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia “meddling” in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia’s guilt is now shared by “all right-thinking people” in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government.

Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:

“Don’t misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I’m not excusing Trump’s behavior. His non-response to Russia’s well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election has been outrageous.”

However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn’t cite any of those documents. Presumably, he’s referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.

Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn’t make the allegation true or “well-documented.” And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush’s Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama’s wild exaggerations about the need to intervene in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.

But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers at CNN and other cable outlets.

Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more “regime change” wars.

There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear war, more likely.

In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani, “We told you so” that the U.S. government can’t be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with the nuclear agreement.

And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from his own hardliners who view him as naïve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.

Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, are citing Trump’s tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow.

In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more “regime change” wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Neocons Leverage Trump-Hate for More Wars

It is estimated that 40,000 people died in the US Alliance’s Mosul Massacre involving the explosive demolition of a huge city of 2 million inhabitants. This is but the latest atrocity in an Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide. Iraqi deaths from Western violence and imposed deprivation total 9 million  since the British invasion in 1914. The post-tsunami peaceful settlement of the Islamist insurgency in Aceh, Indonesia,  demonstrated a humane alternative to genocide. US Alliance war crimes demand comprehensive Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).

The Mosul Massacre is but the latest in a Western-imposed Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide that has been ongoing since 1914 in oil-rich Iraq [1-9]. Leading UK Middle East journalist, Patrick Cockburn, reporting on the latest awful episode of the Iraqi Genocide in Mosul, stated (2017):

“More than 40,000 civilians were killed in the devastating battle to retake Mosul from Isis, according to intelligence reports revealed exclusively to The Independent – a death toll far higher than previous estimates. Residents of the besieged city were killed by Iraqi ground forces attempting to force out militants, as well as by air strikes and Isis fighters, according to Kurdish intelligence services. Hoshyar Zebari, until recently a senior minister in Baghdad, told The Independent that many bodies “are still buried under the rubble”. “The level of human suffering is immense,” he said. “Kurdish intelligence believes that over 40,000 civilians have been killed as a result of massive firepower used against them, especially by the federal police, air strikes and Isis itself,” Mr Zebari added… The UN estimated that Mosul had 1.2 million inhabitants at the start of the siege” [10].

Lest we forget – a Holocaust involves the deaths of a huge number of people, and Genocide is defined by Article 2 of the UN Geneva Convention which states:

“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

a) Killing members of the group;

b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” [11].

For all that ISIS was evidently barbarous and fanatical with an extremist Islamic ideology, a peaceful alternative to more US Alliance-imposed Iraqi Genocide through the near-total destruction of the Iraqi cities of Mosul, Ramadi and Fallujah was always possible. Thus, for example, the fundamentalist Muslim, Sharia Law-committed Free Aceh Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka or GAM) fought against Indonesian government forces in the Aceh insurgency from 1976 to 2005, during which over 15,000 were killed. After the calamitous 2004 tsunami (170,000 Indonesians killed, mostly in Sumatra) there was a  peace agreement between Aceh and the Indonesian Government in 2005 involving cessation of violence and considerable Acinese autonomy. The killing stopped at the price of imposition of Sharia Law in Aceh – thus, for example, unmarried lovers, women with a penchant for “immodest dress”, homosexuals and apostates would have their human rights and civil rights grossly violated and they would have to move from Aceh to elsewhere in Indonesia to avoid extreme medieval punishment ranging from caning to execution, but at least the war and killing stopped [12].

The 40,000 killed in the Mosul Massacre must be placed in the wider context of about 9 million Iraqis who have died untimely deaths from violence or imposed deprivation in over a century of Western wars against remote but oil-rich Iraq since the British invaded and conquered Iraq in 1914 with the help of British Empire colonial Indian forces and the nascent Australian air force [1, 3]. A technical examination of Iraqi history shows that the UK and its former lackey and now US lackey, Australia, are presently into their 8th Iraq War in just over a  century. Indeed this appalling Western violence against Iraq is but part of a wider scene of Western violence against Humanity that has been ongoing for the last millennium in which the  British have invaded 193 countries, Australia 85, France 82, the US 70 (50 after WW2), Germany 39, Japan 30, Russia 25, Canada 25, Apartheid Israel 12, China 2 and India none [3, 4, 13-18].

Detailed below are key features of the ongoing post-1914 Western Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide that has been associated with an estimated Iraqi body count of a total of circa 9 million violent deaths and avoidable deaths from imposed deprivation.

  1. 9 million Iraqi violent deaths and avoidable deaths from imposed deprivation, 1914-1917.

(a) Assuming excess mortality of Iraqis under British rule or hegemony (1914- 1948) was the  same as for Indians under the British [1, 19]. one can estimate from Iraqi population data ([20]. that Iraqi avoidable  deaths from deprivation under British occupation and hegemony from 1914-1950 totalled about 4 million.

(b) Iraqi deaths from imposed deprivation under deadly UN Sanctions (1990-2003) totalled 1.7 million and Iraqi Gulf War violent deaths totalled 0.2 million, for a total of 1.9 million Iraqi deaths from violence or imposed deprivation in the Sanctions period of 1990-2003.

(c) US Just Foreign Policy has used data from top US epidemiologists to determine 1.5 million violent Iraqi deaths under occupation in 2003-2011 [21],  to which we must add a further 1.2 million Iraqi deaths from war-imposed deprivation for a total of 2.7 million Iraqi deaths from violence or deprivation under US Alliance occupation (2003-2011).

(d) Since the “official” US withdrawal in 2011 one can estimate from the latest Mosul Massacre data that a further 0.1 million Iraqis have died violently in the US-backed Iraqi Civil War and UN Population Division data  indicate that a further  0.3 million Iraqis have died from deprivation, for a total of 0.4 million Iraqi deaths from violence or deprivation since the US withdrawal in 2011.

Thus, ignoring violent Iraqi deaths under the British occupation and violent Iraqi deaths associated with the US-backed Iraq-Iran War, one can estimate about 8.8 million  Iraqi deaths from UK or US  violence or imposed deprivation in the century after the 1914 invasion of Iraq by Britain. Refugees from the US Alliance invasion of Iraq totalled 5-6 million [1, 2]. This is an ongoing  Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide. Even if the killing were to stop, an estimated circa 50,000 Iraqis presently  die avoidably each year from deprivation in war-devastated Iraq.

  1. Depraved indifference of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

As discussed further below, the 2003 invasion of was illegal and thus a war crime. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a cowardly, racist, degenerate and look-the-other-way organization that, apart from prosecuting Balkan war criminals,  confines its  prosecutions to non-European war criminals.  The ICC is thus a holocaust-ignoring and genocide-ignoring organization that is holocaust-complicit and genocide-complicit through its depraved indifference to Western imposed holocausts and genocides such as the ongoing Palestinian Genocide ( 90% of Palestine now  ethnically cleansed of Indigenous inhabitants, 2 million Palestinian deaths from violence, 0.1 million, or imposed deprivation, 1.9 million, since 1935) [23], the ongoing Iraqi Genocide (9 million deaths from violence or imposed deprivation since 1914) [1],  the ongoing Afghan Holocaust and Afghan Genocide (6 million deaths from violence or imposed deprivation since 2001, 12 million deaths from  violence or imposed deprivation since the US-backed overthrow of secular governance in Afghanistan in 1978) [3, 24], and the ongoing Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide ( 32 million Muslim deaths from violence, 5 million, and imposed deprivation, 27 million, in 20 countries invaded by the US Alliance since the US Government’s 9-11 false flag atrocity that killed about 3,000 people) [2, 22, 25].

It must be noted that genocide-ignoring and holocaust-ignoring is far, far worse than repugnant genocide-denying and holocaust-denying because the latter can at least admit the possibility of refutation and public debate. I have done my duty as a citizen of the world  and sent a well-documented war crimes complaint to the genocide-ignoring,  holocaust-ignoring and thus war crimes-complicit ICC [25]. Indeed, in general lying by omission is far, far worse than repugnant lying by commission because at least the latter permits refutation and public debate. The US-beholden ICC and Western Mainstream media, politician and academic presstitutes in general  are involved in massive “fake news through lying by omission” [26-32].

  1. The Iraqi Genocide has been about oil.

The genocide inflicted  on remote and powerless Iraq by the UK and thence by the Zionist-subverted US Alliance was about oil and related Neocon American and Zionist Imperialist (NAZI)  hegemony in the Middle East. Thus from the Right, Alan Greenspan (leading Republican economist,  chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades, and servant of  four US presidents):

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil” [33].

On the Left, Professor Noam Chomsky (eminent linguistics expert  and anti-racist Jewish American human rights activist at 101-Nobel-Laureate Massachusetts Institute  of Technology (MIT) (2009):

“There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional conception that if we can control Middle East energy resources, then we can control the world” [34].

  1. Invasions and subjugations of Iraq were horrendous war crimes.

The ultimate in racism and the ultimate in crime is genocidal invasion of other countries. The British, the French, the Americans and variously UK lackey or US lackey Australia have invaded scores of countries in genocidal enterprises over 2 centuries (the US and Australia) and over the last millennium (the UK and France). In contrast, India has invaded nobody over thousands of years and China has only ever invaded 2 countries, namely Tibet (in the 13th century) and India (in the border region in 1962). The UN Charter forbids invasion of other countries unless the invasion of a country (a) is approved by the UN , (b) is invited by the government of the country, or (c) is in response to invasion by the country to be attacked. These criteria were not satisfied in the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the US, UK and Australia that was consequently a war crime for which Tony Blair (UK), George Bush (US) and John Howard (US lackey Australia) and their associates should be arraigned before the ICC.

Indeed the same criteria are not satisfied today in the US Alliance invasion of Syria (in contrast, the Russians and Iranians have been invited by the UN-recognised  Syrian Government). The US Alliance and the Iranians been invited in by the Iraqi Government, remembering however, that this was installed “democratically” by the racist and  war criminal Americans after they had  had exiled, imprisoned, tortured, driven underground, mangled or killed the people they really didn’t like (standard practice in the American Empire from Latin America to Korea and Vietnam). The cities of Mosul, Ramadi and Fallujah were “liberated by being destroyed”.

In Australia John Valder (National President of the conservative Liberal Party headed by PM John Howard) declared (2004):

“Bush, Blair, and Howard, as leaders of the three members of the coalition of the willing, inflicted enormous suffering on the people of Iraq. And, as such, they are criminals. I believe the only deterrent to a repetition of the Iraq situation is punishment in some form as war criminals” [35].

US lackeys Blair and Howard went to war on the basis of false US claims of  Iraqi possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). After the invasion no WMD were found but this begs the question of why would a militarily  puny Iraq attack a nuclear-armed UK or a  nuclear–armed UK even if it had WMD.

Anti-racist Jewish British writer Harold Pinter in his 2005 Nobel Prize Acceptance Address stated:

“We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it ‘bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East’. How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they’re interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London” [36].

To paraphrase Harold Pinter,

“How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? 9 million (1914-2017? 4 million (1914-1950)? 5 million (1990-2011)? 2 million (1990-2003)? 3 million (2003-2011)? 0.4 million (2011-2017)? More than  enough, I would have thought”.

Final comments

It is unlikely the George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, their associates and successors – notably war criminal Barack Obama and war criminal Donald Trump – will ever be arraigned before the racist, Iraqi  Genocide-ignoring and Iraqi Holocaust-ignoring International Criminal Court (ICC). What can decent people do? Decent, humane people around the world must

(a) penetrate the Mainstream Media Wall of Silence and tell everyone they can about the ongoing, blood-for-oil  Iraqi Genocide, and

(b) urge and apply Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against all people, politicians, parties, companies, corporations and countries complicit in the ongoing Iraqi Genocide and the ongoing Muslim Genocide.

Dr Gideon Polya taught science students at a major Australian university for 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003). He has published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ); see also his contributions “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/australian-complicity-in-iraq-mass-mortality/3369002#transcript

Notes

[1]. “Iraqi Holocaust, Iraqi Genocide”:  https://sites.google.com/site/iraqiholocaustiraqigenocide/ .

[2]. “Muslim Holocaust Muslim Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/

[3]. “Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, including an avoidable mortality-related history of every country from Neolithic times and is now available for free perusal on the web : http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com.au/  .

[4]. William Blum, “Rogue state”.

[5]. Gideon Polya, “12th anniversary of the illegal invasion if Iraq: the Anglo-American Iraqi Genocide” , Global Research 23 March 2015: http://www.globalresearch.ca/12th-anniversary-of-the-illegal-invasion-of-iraq-the-anglo-american-iraqi-genocide/5438977 .

[6]. “Genocide in Iraq Volume I . The case against the UN Security Council and member states” by Dr Abdul-Haq Al-Ani and Tarik Al-Ani (foreword by Professor Joshua Castellino; Clarity Press, Atlanta).

[7]. Gideon Polya ““Genocide in Iraq, The Case Against UN Security Council And Member States”. Book review”, Countercurrents, 8 February, 2013: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya080213.htm  .

[8]. Abdul-Haq Al-Ani and Tariq Al-Ani, “Genocide in Iraq Volume II. The Obliteration of a Modern State” (Clarity Press, 2015).

[9]. Gideon Polya, “Review: “Genocide in Iraq Volume II. The obliteration of a modern state” By Abdul-Haq Al-Ani & Tariq Al-Ani”, Countercurrents, 15 March 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya150315.htm  .

[10]. Patrick Cockburn, “The massacre of Mosul: 40,000 feared dead in battle to take back city from Isis as scale of civilian casualties revealed ”, Independent, July, 2017: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/mosul-massacre-battle-isis-iraq-city-civilian-casualties-killed-deaths-fighting-forces-islamic-state-a7848781.html .

[11].  “UN Genocide Convention”: http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/genocide/convention.html .

[12]. “Aceh”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aceh#Aceh_War .

[13].  Gideon Polya, “The US Has Invaded 70 Nations Since 1776 – Make 4 July Independence From America Day”, Countercurrents, 5 July, 2013: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm .

[14]. Gideon Polya, “British Have Invaded 193 Countries:  Make  26 January ( Australia Day, Invasion Day) British Invasion Day”, Countercurrents, 23 January, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya230115.htm .

[15]. Gideon Polya, “As UK Lackeys Or US Lackeys Australians Have Invaded 85 Countries (British 193, French 80, US 70)”, Countercurrents, 9 February, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya090215.htm .

[16]. Gideon Polya, “President Hollande And French Invasion Of Privacy Versus French Invasion Of 80 Countries Since 800 AD”, Countercurrents, 15 January, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya150114.htm  .

[17]. “Stop state terrorism” : https://sites.google.com/site/stopstateterrorism/ .

[18]. “State crime and non-state terrorism”: https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/  .

[19]. Gideon Polya, “Economist Mahima Khanna wins Cambridge Prize”, MWC News, 20 November 2011: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/14978-economist-mahima-khanna.html .

[20]. “Iraq Population”: http://www.populstat.info/Asia/iraqc.htm .

[21]. “Iraq deaths”,  US Just Foreign Policy:  http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq  ;

[22]. Gideon Polya, “Paris Atrocity Context: 27 Million Muslim Avoidable  Deaths From Imposed Deprivation In 20 Countries Violated By US Alliance Since 9-11”, Countercurrents, 22 November, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya221115.htm .

[23]. “Palestinian Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/ .

[24]. “Afghan Holocaust Afghan  Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/ .

[25]. “Experts: US did 9-11”: https://sites.google.com/site/expertsusdid911/ .

[25]. “9 January 2010 Formal Complaint by Dr Gideon Polya to the International Criminal Court (ICC) re US Alliance Palestinian, Iraqi, Afghan, Muslim, Aboriginal, Biofuel and Climate Genocides”, Climate genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/bangladesh-civil-society-organizations .

[26]. “Mainstream media censorship”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/home  .

[27]. “Mainstream media lying”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/  .

[28]. Gideon Polya, “Australian ABC and UK BBC fake news through lying by omission”, Countercurrents, 2 May 2017: http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/05/02/australian-abc-and-uk-bbc-fake-news-through-lying-by-omission/ .

[29]. Gideon Polya, “Mainstream media:  fake news through lying by omission”, Global Research, 2 April 2017: http://www.globalresearch.ca/mainstream-media-fake-news-through-lying-by-omission/5582944

[30]. “Lying by omission is worse than lying by commission because at least the latter permits refutation and public debate”, Mainstream media lying: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/lying-by-omission .

[31]. “Censorship by the BBC”: https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbythebbc/ .

[32]. Gideon Polya (1998), “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability”, G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 1998, 2008 that  is now available for free perusal on the web: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/  .

[33]. Peter Beaumont and Joanna Walters, “Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m”, The Observer, 16 September 2007: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline .

[34]. Noam Chomsky quoted in Sherwood Ross, “Chomsky: Iraq invasion “major crime” designed to control Middle East oil”, The Public Record, 3 November 2009:  http://pubrecord.org/nation/5953/chomsky-invasion-major-crime/ .

[35]. “Howard is a war criminal,, says former colleague”, Sydney Morning Herald, 19 July 2004: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/18/1090089035899.html .

[36]. Harold Pinter, “Art, Truth and Politics”, Countercurrents, 8 December 2005: http://www.countercurrents.org/arts-pinter081205.htm .

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mosul Massacre Latest in Iraqi Genocide – US Alliance War Crimes

Hiroshima Marks 72nd Anniversary of Atomic Bombing

August 6th, 2017 by Japan Today

Featured image: Thousands of people attend a ceremony at the Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima on Sunday morning to mark the 72nd anniversary of the world’s first atomic bombing that killed 140,000 people in 1945.  (Photo: KYODO)

Hiroshima marked the 72nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing on Sunday at its annual memorial ceremony, with Mayor Kazumi Matsui calling on the Japanese government to help realize a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

This year’s ceremony at the Peace Memorial Park near Ground Zero follows the adoption by 122 United Nations members of the world’s first treaty to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons.

The pact’s preamble uses the Japanese term “hibakusha” in its mention of the “the unacceptable suffering” of survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that killed an estimated 214,000 people by the end of 1945.

But Japan refused to participate in the treaty, along with the world’s nuclear weapon states and other countries under the U.S. nuclear umbrella.

In the city’s annual Peace Declaration, Matsui stopped short of demanding that Japan join the treaty, but urged the government to “manifest the pacifism in our Constitution by doing everything in its power to bridge the gap between the nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon states, thereby facilitating the ratification.”

He said the countries that adopted the treaty “demonstrated their unequivocal determination to achieve abolition,” and that now is the time for all governments to “strive to advance further toward a nuclear weapon-free world.”

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe avoided any mention of the ban treaty in his speech at the ceremony.

“For us to truly realize a ‘world without nuclear weapons,’ the participation of both nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states is necessary,” he said.

Having met representatives of seven local hibakusha groups who protested Japan’s lack of participation later Sunday, Abe defended the decision to stay out of the ban treaty, saying “a realistic approach” is needed to draw close to a world without nuclear weapons.

“We think (the treaty) must not result in the distance between the nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon states being further widened and the realization of a world without nuclear weapons getting further away,” Abe told a press conference.

About 50,000 people assembled in the park for the ceremony, at which 80 nations plus the European Union were represented.

The nuclear states Britain, France, the United States and Russia sent representatives, as did India, Israel and Pakistan, which are also known to possess atomic weapons.

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres called for all states to work toward a world free of nuclear arms “in their own ways” in a message read on his behalf by Izumi Nakamitsu, U.N. undersecretary general and high representative for disarmament affairs.

“Hiroshima’s message of peace and the heroic efforts of hibakusha have reminded the world of the devastating humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons…The United Nations stands with you in our shared pursuit of a world free of nuclear weapons,” the message said.

A moment of silence was observed at 8:15 a.m., when a uranium-core atomic bomb named “Little Boy” dropped by a U.S. bomber exploded about 600 meters above Hiroshima on Aug 6, 1945, killing an estimated 140,000 people by the end of that year.

A second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on Aug 9 and Japan surrendered six days later, bringing an end to World War II.

The combined number of hibakusha, people who survived either bombing, stood at 164,621 as of March, down 5,530 from the year prior. Their average age was 81.41.

Matsui demanded in his speech that the government give more assistance to the aging hibakusha and to “the many others also suffering mentally and physically from the effects of radiation.”

According to city officials, “the many others” include people affected by the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster triggered by a devastating earthquake and tsunami.

This year’s anniversary is the first to follow the election of U.S. President Donald Trump, whose predecessor Barack Obama last year became the first sitting U.S. president to visit Hiroshima.

Trump had suggested before his election that Japan and South Korea might acquire nuclear weapons in the future, and U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson refused to rule this out in an interview with U.S. media in March, according to U.S. media reports.

Braving high temperatures from the early morning, young and old visited the park ahead of the ceremony to remember those who died in the bombing and to wish for peace.

Hiroshima native Masaharu Masuda, 70, offered a prayer as he does every year in memory of his parents, who both experienced the bombing. The midsummer heat reminded him of how his older sister wore long sleeves growing up to hide keloid scars on her arms.

Masuda said he is disappointed by the Japanese government’s “half-hearted” response to the ban treaty, and worries that the world is losing interest in Hiroshima’s message.

“People used to say with feeling, ‘No More Hiroshimas,’ but I hear it less and less these days,” he said.

Naomi Miyamoto, 56, came from Tokyo to place flowers at the memorial and renew his commitment to peace and nuclear abolition.

“I don’t have confidence that the way Japan and other countries deal with each other will change any time soon, but one thing individual people can do is educate themselves about what happened here in Hiroshima,” he said.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hiroshima Marks 72nd Anniversary of Atomic Bombing

Gaza: Ten Years of Economic Blockade

August 6th, 2017 by Stephen Mccloskey

Featured image: Maghazi Refugee Camp. Stephen McCloskey. All rights reserved.

The tenth anniversary of Israel’s illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip has been marked by a glut of new reports from human rights organisations alerting the world to a deepening humanitarian crisis in the territory. Perhaps the starkest warning has come from the International Committee of the Red Cross in suggesting that “a systemic collapse of an already battered infrastructure and economy is impending.” 

What distinguishes this crisis from the disasters and emergencies that normally push civilian populations to the edge of catastrophe is that it is not the result of a hurricane, flood, tsunami, drought or famine but the calculated policy of the Israeli government.

As Harvard scholar Sara Roy, who has meticulously researched the impact of Israel’s policy-making on Gaza for thirty years suggests,

“What is happening to Gaza is catastrophic; it is also deliberate, considered and purposeful.”

Roy argues that Gaza has been subjected to ‘de-development’ meaning that it has been “dispossessed of its capacity for rational and sustainable economic growth and development, coupled with a growing inability to effect social change”. So, what we are witnessing in Gaza today is the ‘logical endpoint’ of this policy; “a Gaza that is functionally unviable”.

In its public pronouncements on Gaza, Israel insists that the blockade is a security matter designed to keep Hamas, the Palestinian political group with a militant wing, at arm’s length. In its more off-guard moments, however, Israel has revealed its true hand in Gaza.

United States government cables leaked to Wikileaks show that the Israeli government kept the US embassy in Tel Aviv briefed on the blockade and on “multiple occasions” said their policy aimed “to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge.”

This appears to have been Israel’s blockade policy from the outset as the BBC reported an Israeli government adviser, Dov Weisglass, as having said in 2006:

“The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” And, in 2012, an Israeli court forced the release of a government ‘red lines’ document which detailed “the number of calories Palestinians in Gaza need to consume to avoid malnutrition.”

The Israeli human rights organisation Gisha, which won the legal battle to have the red lines document published, argues that “the research contradicts Israel’s assertions that the blockade is needed for security reasons.”

The chilling calculation behind the ‘red lines’ policy underlines the extent of Israel’s deception in publicly suggesting that the blockade is a security measure while privately, and quite methodically, inflicting collective punishment on an already desperately poor population, mostly comprising refugees.

On visits to Gaza’s eight refugee camps, I’ve seen stunted children clearly undernourished and underweight, living in desolate, concrete environments devoid of any greenery or safe spaces to play. The camps are concrete blocks heaped upon each other constrained in their expansion on the ground by Gaza’s tiny area of 360 square kilometres which is home to 1.8 million people; a population density akin to that of Manhattan or Tokyo.

Around 70 percent of Gazans are refugees and, according to the Euro-Med Monitor for Human Rights, food insecurity in the territory is at 72 percent and unemployment at 43.2 percent.

This economic crisis has created serious mental health problems in Gaza. Sara Roy quotes the Gaza Community Mental Health Program which has found that “forty percent of Palestinians are clinically depressed, a rate unmatched anywhere in the world” with Gaza’s Shifa Hospital receiving “up to 30 patients every month who have attempted suicide.”

Israel imposed the blockade on Gaza in 2007 following the return of a Hamas government in elections in 2006. The US and EU followed Israel’s lead in refusing to accept the legitimacy of the election result. International pressure contributed to an internal Palestinian power struggle which resulted in Hamas assuming control of Gaza and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority governing the West Bank.

While Israel had withdrawn its settlements from Gaza in 2005, it remained the territory’s occupying power under international law by controlling its borders, airspace and coastline.

As Sara Roy suggests, the 2005 withdrawal reflected “Israel’s desire to rid itself of any responsibility for Gaza while retaining control of it.” She regards the core goals of Israel’s disengagement as seeking:

“to internally divide, separate, and isolate the Palestinians – demographically, economically, and politically – so as to ensure Israel’s full control both direct (West Bank) and indirect (Gaza Strip) – over all Palestinian lands and resources”.

The imposition of strict border controls tightly limiting the movement of goods and people across Gaza’s borders by Israel has been compounded by the closure of smuggling tunnels into Gaza by General Abdel Fattah El Sisi, who seized power in Egypt through a military coup in 2013.

The tunnels were an economic lifeline for Gaza and the passenger terminal at Rafah into Egypt, which became the only means for most Palestinians of leaving Gaza, has opened only intermittently under Sisi.

Euro-Med Monitor for Human Rights found that less than 50 percent of requests to exit Gaza for medical treatment through Israel’s Erez Crossing were approved in 2016 and 43 cancer patients were refused permission to cross to seek treatment in the first half of 2016.

With only a trickle of Palestinians securing passage through the Rafah crossing, these closures can be a death sentence for patients in need of medical assistance. They also deny opportunities for employment and study overseas which, for the majority, are the only escape routes from poverty.

The compounding pressures of war

The social pressures of poverty, isolation and economic inertia caused by the blockade have been compounded and exacerbated by three Israeli military operations in Gaza since 2008, which have collectively claimed the lives of 3,745 Palestinians and wounded 17,441.

Zeitoun School. Stephen McCloskey. All rights reserved.

Zeitoun School. Stephen McCloskey. All rights reserved.

The most recent operation, ‘Protective Edge’, was a 51-day onslaught in July and August 2014 that killed 2,131 Palestinians, of whom 1,473 were civilians, 501 were children and 257 women. There were 71 Israeli casualties; 66 soldiers and five civilians.

The infrastructural damage caused by ‘Protective Edge’ was devastating with: 78 hospitals and clinics damaged; 7 schools destroyed and 252 damaged; 17,800 homes damaged or completed destroyed; and half of the open-field crop areas damaged or destroyed. Just 46 percent of the $1.59 billion pledged by donors for reconstruction in Gaza has been received and a constant source of crisis is the greatly reduced electricity supply which impacts on all aspects of daily life in Gaza.

The World Health Organisation (2017) has said that the worsening electricity outages are “threatening the closure of essential health services which would leave thousands of people without access to life-saving health care.”

This crisis has been compounded by the Palestinian Authority’s decision this summer not to pay the full fuel bill to Israel for Gaza’s electricity supply in an attempt to weaken Hamas and wrest back control of the territory.

This wreckless and petty politicking by the PA will add to the bitterness of internal relations in Palestine and further delay overdue elections in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It leaves the prospects for much needed Palestinian unity and strategy at a low ebb.

Unhappy anniversaries

This has been a year of significant and painful anniversaries for Palestine. It is the centenary of the Balfour Declaration in which the British Foreign Secretary in 1917, Arthur James Balfour, declared

“with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

Theresa May has celebrated the centenary with ‘pride’ and seems unconcerned with the continued marginal existence of Palestinians on their own land.

Robert Fisk was closer to the mark when he described the Balfour Declaration as the “most mendacious, deceitful and hypocritical document in modern British history.”

2017 is also the 50th anniversary of the six day war in 1967 when Israel seized control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights, and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. This annexation has continued apace since then with the settlement of 600,000 colonists in settlements across the West Bank that Amnesty International describes as illegal under Article 49 of the Geneva Convention.

These unhappy anniversaries are as much a result of the collusion and mendacity of western powers as they are of the relentless colonialism of Palestinian land by Israel which should compel us all to take action and oppose the siege and construction of settlements.

Stephen McCloskey. All rights reserved.

Jabalia Refugee Camp. Stephen McCloskey. All rights reserved.

Gaza’s creaking infrastructure and impoverished population cannot countenance another decade of siege and war, and Israel has shown itself unwilling to respect its human rights obligations as the territory’s occupying power.

Only external pressure will change Israel’s policy toward Gaza which is why Palestinian civil society has reluctantly called for international support of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. This is a non-violent, vibrant and truly global movement for freedom, justice and equality in Palestine inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement.

BDS urges action to pressure Israel to respect international law and is supported by trade unions, churches, academics and grassroots movements across the world. Supporting BDS will hasten an end to the siege and help lance a running sore in the Middle East and international relations. It deserves your support.

Stephen McCloskey is Director of the Centre for Global Education, a development non-governmental organisation based in Belfast. He is editor of Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, an online, open access, peer reviewed journal. He is editor (with Gerard McCann) of From the Local to the Global: Key Issues in Development Studies(Pluto Press, 2015). He manages education projects for young people in the Gaza Strip and writes regularly on a range of development issues for books, journals and online publications.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Gaza: Ten Years of Economic Blockade

The opposition in Venezuela, which is backed by the United States and supported by prominent “human rights groups”, like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, has played a key role in fomenting violence that has resulted in multiple deaths. However, most world leaders and press around the globe pin all responsibility on Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro’s government.

In the United States, it is exceptionally difficult to find news reports that document the violence of the opposition, along with the violence of the government. The fact that the vast majority of daily news reports do not detail the actions of the “guarimbas,”—the opposition blocking roads, setting fire to tires and other objects, and throwing objects—demonstrates how skewed media coverage of Venezuela is currently.

Deutsche Welle’s coverage of the constituent assembly vote described the day of the election as “one of the bloodiest days since protests began nearly four months ago.” At least ten people died. Candidate Jose Felix Pineda, a 39-year-old lawyer, was assassinated. Ricardo Campos, the regional secretary for Democratic Action, which is an opposition youth party, was shot and killed during a protest. (The report does not say whether it was government forces that shot Campos.)

A Venezuelan soldier was killed in the western state of Tachira. A bomb was set off in Caracas nearby police officers on motorcycles. It injured multiple officers.

Reuters journalist Girish Gupta in Caracas reported the streets were closed. Trash was burning on most of the streets and kids were out “in balaclavas with slingshots,” which has become normal.

“We have – and this is something that’s surprised even me today, and actually very close to where I am based here in Caracas, we saw a bomb go off. It was targeted towards police officers. And it wasn’t huge. It didn’t kill anybody. But it’s not something – we don’t see that sort of insurgent-type equipment being used. So that’s interesting. And that might be an escalation we’re seeing from the opposition or some parts of it,” Gupta said.

Even the Los Angeles Times noted on August 1,

“Protesters dressed in helmets, gas masks and carrying full body shields have sealed off many neighborhood streets with barricades made of trash, bricks, and abandoned vehicles. The ongoing battles with police and national guard members have forced motorists to create new traffic patterns to avoid violent flashpoints.”

On June 28, Oscar Perez, a member of the opposition stole a police helicopter and launched a grenade attack against the country’s Supreme Court. He is part of a “coalition of security forces,” who believe Maduro should resign immediately and apparently have no reservations about engaging in violent acts against government buildings.

“Opposition Shrewdly Chose To Boycott Constituent Assembly Vote”

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch take a simplistic and disingenuous view of the intensifying crisis in Venezuela, ignoring the acts of a violent insurgency entirely.

“Venezuela is at a turning point, as are its regional neighbors. Latin America should show the world it will not tolerate a full-fledged dictatorship that is willing and able to commit widespread abuses against its people while unraveling the fundamental democratic principles that the region worked has hard to build,” Human Rights Watch declared after the constituent assembly vote.

Erika Guevara-Rosas, who is the Americas Director for Amnesty International, proclaimed,

President Maduro and his government appear to be living in a parallel universe. The authorities cannot continue to ignore the tension and violence and should respond to the urgent needs of the entire population, including those who do not agree with the government.”

Ironically, the constituent assembly vote was held to address the urgent needs of the population. Maduro wanted the opposition’s participation to end the brewing conflict.

The opposition shrewdly chose not to participate, recognizing that refusing to participate would be far more rewarding than running a slate of candidates that might lose to “Chavistas” or Maduro loyalists. The opposition blasted the vote as one-sided and even held their own referendum against the constituent assembly vote that involved Venezuelans from all over the world. They were easily able to achieve the propaganda coup of further cementing perceptions that Maduro is a strongman, who must step down from power.

Immediately, President Donald Trump’s administration imposed sanctions. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin declared,

“Yesterday’s illegitimate elections confirm that Maduro is a dictator who disregards the will of the Venezuelan people.”

Watch Mnuchin’s announcement to slap Venezuela with new sanctions:

“By sanctioning Maduro, the United States makes clear our opposition to the policies of his regime and our support for the people of Venezuela who seek to return their country to a full and prosperous democracy,” Mnuchin added.

“Maduro is not just a bad leader, he is now a dictator,” H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser. “The United States stands with the people of Venezuela in the face of this oppression.”

Yet, what few are willing to concede is that calling the constituent assembly vote may have been a poorly conceived decision by Maduro, but it was most certainly within the government’s power.

The Venezuelan Constitution states that a

“National Constituent Assembly may emanate from the president of the republic sitting with the cabinet of ministers.”

There also is a bit of protection from undue influence in that it prevents Maduro from objecting to whatever new constitution is passed by the assembly. Existing authorities are not allowed to obstruct the process in any way.

Venezuela’s Election Process: “Best In The World”

Smartmatic, the company which has helped manage Venezuela’s voting system since 2004, accused the Maduro government of manipulating the results of the constituent assembly vote. But the company has provided scant specifics on how they know this for certain. They even said they did not pass evidence of alleged manipulation or tampering of the vote count to Venezuela’s electoral council, which seems puzzling.

In 2012, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter hailed Venezuela’s electoral process as the “best in the world.” He praised the Smartmatic voting technology, which “offers several security mechanisms for audits and verification of results, which have been accredited by national and international observers including the Carter Center.”

Watch former President Carter praise Venezuela’s e-voting technology:

“The technological solution developed by Smartmatic, which has been used in Venezuela since 2004, includes touch-screen voting machines that store votes electronically (encrypted and scrambled), and print a paper receipt for each vote. This characteristic, the full implementation of the VVPAT concept, gives the system a great advantage,” Carter asserted.

Smartmatic could call on the Venezuelan government to conduct an audit or verification of results. Notably, that wasn’t in their statements to press. All they did was fan the flames of outrage against a left-wing government that carried out a process allowed by the country’s constitution.

What may have happened if the opposition, mostly composed of right-wing elements, had run a slate of candidates who pledged to resolve a deepening economic crisis?

More than likely the opposition would have sustained massive defeats at the polls. The country overwhelming believes the opposition lacks a plan for dealing with high inflation and the lack of state revenue for social services. They also oppose the violent tactics of the opposition.

The opposition is much better off engaging in violent protests that force responses by the government and make the Maduro government look like an authoritarian regime. They won the support of the European Union, Canada, as well as Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, which condemned the constituent assembly vote. The Trump administration has turned to sanctions and other initiatives to force regime change, and there is no telling what the CIA might be doing to bolster the efforts of opposition activists.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently said the CIA is working with the Mexican and Colombian government to get a “better outcome” for “our part of the world.”

“Gas Lighting” On A “Grand Scale”

Regime change is only possible if the opposition is able to implant its propaganda into the world’s conscience.

Adrian Kane, chair of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was invited by Venezuela’s electoral council to observe the constituent assembly vote.

“One of the most bizarre criticisms of Maduro’s government is that there is no freedom of expression,” Kane asserted. “Most of the media, however, both print and television, are privately owned and almost all are critical of the regime.”

Kane acknowledged the government wants to bring “diverse interests” together and pull back from the escalated violence. It also wants a new constitution to “give constitutional status to the social missions that they have embarked upon over the last two decades.”

“These missions have been the most successful part of the Bolivarian revolution; more than 1.5 [million] social-housing units were built, literacy increased hugely, and poorer people gained access to health care for the first time.”

Samuel Moncado, foreign minister and foreign Venezuelan ambassador to Ireland, “described the relentless distortion of reality in Venezuela as ‘gas lighting’ on a grand scale.”

“This is something that resonated with me and with most of the international delegation, as the Venezuela I have visited, on a number of occasions over the last 15 years, and have experienced firsthand, is a very different place to the one I have read about in the international press,”

“I regularly doubt what I have seen with my own eyes,” Kane shared. “I witnessed long queues outside polling booths on Sunday, as mostly poorer sections of the city turned out to vote in large numbers; other polling stations were quiet.”

The “gas lighting” is a grand achievement of the opposition. Francisco Rodriguez of Torino Capital, who served in Hugo Chavez’s government but opposes Maduro, said on “Democracy Now!”,

“The reality is that when there is political violence of this type, you’re not going to be able to find out what really happened until you have a truth commission.”

“You have investigations, you kind of can understand the process that led to it.”

Make the world believe the government is violent and there is no way to really figure out what violence the opposition is responsible for and any insurgency can engage in the armed overthrow of their government with global support. That does not mean they will be able to successfully govern a country.

Published in partnership with Shadowproof.

Featured image is from Socialist Appeal.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Venezuela’s US-Backed Opposition Turns Up the Violence Following Assembly Vote

The House and Senate are currently considering defense authorization legislation which, if passed into law, would start dismantling some of the bedrock agreements of US-Russian arms control – the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), as well as longstanding US–Russia arms control efforts. The treaty eliminated all ground-based nuclear and conventional missiles, as well as their launchers, with ranges of 500–1,000 kilometers (310–620 mi) (short-range) and 1,000–5,500 km (620–3,420 mi) (intermediate-range). Signed in December 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the INF deal is accredited with significantly reducing the threat of nuclear confrontation and accelerating the end of the Cold War.

The landmark deal for the first time eliminated an entire class of missiles in Europe and set up a new framework for verifying compliance. Russia and the US have recently exchanged accusations of breaching the treaty but there have been no substantive talks on the issue.

Both versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2018 require the development of medium-range missiles the INF Treaty bans. They authorize programs of development on a new US mobile ground-based cruise missile (GLCM) with a range of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.

Politico cites the Office of Management and Budget, saying it “unhelpfully ties the Administration to a specific missile system, which would limit potential military response options”. Legal experts are also criticizing the legislation as congressional overreach, saying the Senate can only ratify treaties and the president alone can negotiate or pull out of them. The House has no role whatsoever in approving treaties, Politico notes.

Image result

Gorbachev and Reagan sign the INF Treaty (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The House version states that if Russia failed to comply with the INF terms within 15 months of the bill’s enactment, the US would no longer be legally bound by the treaty as a matter of domestic law. A similar provision could be inserted into the Senate version of the bill.

Russia’s alleged violations serve as a pretext for deploying shorter and intermediate range weapons to strike other countries, like North Korea. The US Army is believed to lack sufficient firepower in a large-scale conflict, such as missiles that can hit targets hundreds of miles away. David Johnson, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, believes that “the lack of long-range firepower in the Army [is] a problem that could haunt land forces in a war in Eastern Europe”.

Army Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. John Murray told lawmakers about the need for a “long-range precision fires” program to develop a powerful new missile that can reach targets 499 kilometers out, or about 310 miles. The range has to stay below 500 kilometers to comply with the INF treaty. If it’s not in force anymore, then the Army will get what it wants.

Mark Gunzinger of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) thinks that pulling out from the treaty is the right thing to do. He believes that future ground-based strike systems could help the US suppress Russia’s advanced integrated air defense systems and freedom of action in the event of a conflict. The intermediate range missiles could help the American military gain more advantage over China and North Korea.

“Perhaps the time is right for a serious debate over the US withdrawing from the INF Treaty”, Gunzinger says.

Michaela Dodge of the Heritage Foundation affirms that, the Treaty is no longer relevant, and the US should withdraw.

Launching a program to develop a new ground-based cruise missile would add to the fact that some missiles to be eliminated under the terms of the INF Treaty are used as targets for ballistic missile defense tests, while Aegis Ashore systems use the launching pads that can be used to fire medium range Tomahawks. The Senate version of the bill says the US has no intention to tear up the treaty but the need to close the capability gap opened by Russia is given as a reason for launching the program. The two things contradict each other. The sum of these factors make the US actually abandon the agreement while not leaving it officially.

The same thing applies to Iran. Formally, the United States has not torn up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. At the same time, imposing sanctions on Tehran over its ballistic missile program makes the agreement deprived of any substance. No matter what pretext is used, the fact is that punitive measures against Iran are in place. It makes Iranians put into doubt the need to further comply with the JCPOA.

The US-Russian relations under ex-President Obama left much to be desired but the issue of violating the INF Treaty was not on the agenda. If the medium-range missile development program had been launched, the Congress would have been in violation of the international agreement. It did not occur then, but it is happening now under President Trump.

This would put into doubt the reputation of the United States as a reliable partner. If one international agreement is breached by the Congress, any other treaty can be abrogated, too.

Other defense programs would suffer, with money directed to implement the program in violation of the INF. The defense budget already includes funding to develop a fleet of nuclear air-launched cruise missiles. The more, the better?

No European ally has given consent to have the weapon on its soil. Would Europeans agree to have nuclear weapons on their soil? It makes the 1983 protests leap to memory.

The US will not benefit greatly if it withdraws from the treaty. It does not have an intermediate-range ballistic missile, and developing a new one will take time and effort. The bill does not mention intermediate ballistic capability anyway. Land-based cruise missiles would not tip the balance into US favor because they are too slow to effectively knock out critical infrastructure sites in a first unexpected strike. The US military need ballistic missiles with short flight times to decapitate the enemy but the Congress wants a cruise, not a ballistic, missile.

If Europe-based cruise missiles are fired, Russia will have enough time for a launch-upon-attack against those European states, which host the weapons, and the United States.

With the INF Treaty effective no more, Moscow will be free to deploy intermediate-range missiles without restriction. In theory, its Iskander-M systems could be armed with ballistic and cruise missiles with extended range, while the American military has nothing to respond with.

The House version has a provision that would prohibit the use of funds to extend New START until Russia complies with the INF treaty. But the conclusion, whoever makes it, about Russia’s compliance can be biased or outright wrong. Signed into law, the bill would undermine the whole architecture of arms control. The New START and the INF are the only two treaties still in place. Without them, the way to uncontrolled arms race would be unhindered.

The Congress would exceed its authority. It actually forces the administration to abandon an international treaty. The Senate can ratify international treaties, not abrogate them. The House does not vote on them. Both versions of the bill encroach on the president’s foreign policy prerogatives the same way the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act does.

The bill includes provisions to undermine the treaty while the opportunities offered by the Special Verification Commission (SVC) envisioned by the INF treaty are far from being exhausted. The parties could use the SVC venue to consider additional confidence-building measures and information exchanges that take into account technological and political developments that have occurred recently.

The bill wants the Open Skies Treaty that could be used for INF verification to be deprived of funds. The observation capabilities could be upgraded. The NATO-Russia Council could serve as another mechanism to address specific security concerns. A lot of things could be done to preserve arms control regime and prevent its crisis. The world is facing the most serious and comprehensive crisis in the fifty-year history of nuclear arms control with almost every channel of negotiation deadlocked and the entire system of existing arms control agreements in jeopardy. The US Congress appears to be adamant in its desire to make things even worse.

Andrei Akulov is a retired colonel and Moscow-based expert on international security issues.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Congress to Undermine US-Russia INF Treaty and Entire Existing Nuclear Arms Control Architecture

The United States is preparing for all options to counter the growing threat from North Korea, including launching a “preventive war,” national security adviser H.R. McMaster said in an interview that aired Saturday on MSNBC. The comments come after North Korea carried out two tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles in the past month and after the president said he has been clear he will not tolerate North Korea’s threats to attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons.

The key excerpts (full transcript):

H.H.: Let me switch if I can to North Korea, which is really pressing. And– and remind our audience, at the Aspen Institute ten days ago, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Joe Dunford, said, “There’s always a military– option. It would be horrific.” Lindsey Graham on Today Show earlier this week said– “We need to destroy the regime and their deterrent.” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Tuesday, I believe, to North Korea, “You are leaving us no choice but to protect ourselves.” And then the Chairman of the Chief of Staff of the Army said, “Just because every choice is a bad choice doesn’t mean you don’t have to choose.” Are we looking at a preemptive strike? Are you trying to prepare us, you being collectively, the administration and people like Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton for a first strike North Korea?

H.R.MWell, we really, what you’re asking is– is are we preparing plans for a preventive war, right? A war that would prevent North Korea from threatening the United States with a nuclear weapon. And the president’s been very clear about it. He said, “He’s not gonna tolerate North Korea being able to threaten the United States” if they have nuclear weapons that can threaten the United States; It’s intolerable from the president’s perspective. So of course, we have to provide all options to do that. And that includes a military option.

Now, would we like to resolve it short of what would be a very costly war, in terms of– in terms of the suffering of mainly the South Korean people? The– the ability of– of that North– North Korean regime to hold the South hostage to conventional fire’s capabilities, artillery and so forth, Seoul being so close. We’re cognizant of all of that. And so what we have to do is– is everything we can to– to pressure this regime, to pressure Kim Jong-un and those around him such that they conclude, it is in their interest to denuclearize. And there are really I think three critical things, came out of the president’s very successful summit with– President Xi of China that were different– that were different from past efforts to work with China, which has always been, you know, the– the desire, right, to work with China– on the– on the North Korean problem.

How many casualties will there be:

HH: In 1994, when the first North Korean deal with signed, the people who executed it, Gallucci, Dan Poneman, Joe Wit wrote a book. And they quoted a general saying, “If there is a conflict,” called Going Critical, “there will be a million casualties.” A million casualties. Is that still a good estimate of what happens if– preemptive strike unfolds in North Korea, General?

HRM: You know, one thing about war. It’s impossible oftentimes to predict. It’s always impossible to predict the future course of events. Because war is a continuous interaction of opposites, a continuous interaction between your forces and those of the enemy. It involves not just the capability to use force, but also intentions and things that are just unknowable at the outset. And so I think it’s important to– to look at– range of estimates of what could happen, because it’s clear that at war, it’s unpredictable. And so you always have to ask the question, “What happens next? What are the risks? How do you mitigate those risks?” And– and obviously, you know, war is– is– is the most serious decision any leader has to make. And so what can we do to make sure we exhaust our possibilities and exhaust our other opportunities to accomplish this very clear objective of denuclearization of the peninsula short of war?

 Should Americans be concerned:
HHHow concerned should the American people be that we are actually on the brink of a war with North Korea?

HRM: Well, I think it’s impossible to overstate the danger associated with this. Right, the, so I think it’s impossible to overstate the danger associated with a rogue, brutal regime, I mean, who murdered his own brother with nerve agent in an airport. “I mean, think about what he’s done in terms of his own brutal repression of not only members of his regime but his own family,” McMaster added.

On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham said that the president told him there would be a war with North Korea if the regime continues to try to hit America with an ICBM. Appearing on the Today Show, the South Carolina Republican Senator said that President Trump has indicated to him that the administration is prepared to strike North Korea to prevent an attack against the U.S. Pushed on by Matt Lauer on whether a viable military option exists in the region, Graham responded:

“They’re wrong. There is a military option to destroy North Korea’s program and North Korea itself.”

The Hwasong-14 ICBM seen during its test in this undated photo released by North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang, July 5 2017.

As reported last Friday, North Korea claimed that its latest missiles can now strike anywhere in the United States, delivering nuclear warheads. Experts have said that the country’s missile program has greatly accelerated in recent months putting it far ahead of previous predictions about when it could launch reliable long-range missiles. Speaking to Newsweek in recent days, several experts said that an attack would be the deadliest the U.S. has ever received and potentially kill more than 100,000 people if it struck in large population centers like New York City or Los Angeles.

“I’m not going to confirm [whether the latest ICBM could reach anywhere in the U.S.] but whether it could reach San Francisco or Pittsburgh or Washington, I mean how much does that matter? It’s a grave threat,” McMaster said.

He added:

“It’s impossible to overstate the danger associated with a rogue, brutal regime.”

McMaster cautioned that he was aware of the fact that any strike against North Korea could bring about a “very costly war” that would cause immense “suffering of mainly the South Korean people.”

Last month, CIA Director Mike Pompeo floated another option for dealing with the North Korea threat, saying that he was “hopeful we will find a way to separate that regime from this system.” North Korea responded by threatening swift and brutal consequences for any attempt to topple Kim.

“Should the U.S. dare to show even the slightest sign of an attempt to remove our supreme leadership, we will strike a merciless blow at the heart of the U.S. with our powerful nuclear hammer, honed and hardened over time,” a foreign ministry spokesman said.

Still, McMaster did not rule out such an attempt when asked whether it could be a legitimate tool.

“I think it depends on the legal justifications for that. And this goes back to just war theory. And what is the nature of the risk? And does that risk justify acting in defense of your people and your vital interests?”

Last week, the local press reported that South Korea’s military is preparing a “surgical strike” scenario that could wipe out North Korean command and missile and nuclear facilities following an order by S. Korea’s president Moon Jae-In.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on McMaster: U.S. Preparing for “Preventive War” with North Korea

Fake News: A US Media Specialty

August 6th, 2017 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The American media specializes in fake news. Indeed, since the Clinton regime the American media has produced nothing but fake news. Do you remember the illegal US bombing and destruction of Yugoslavia? Do you remember “war criminal” Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian president branded “the butcher of Belgrade”,  who was compared to Hitler until Hillary passed the title on to the President of Russia? Milosevic, not Bill Clinton, was arrested and placed on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal. He died in prison, some say murdered, before he was cleared of charges by the International Criminal Tribunal. 

Do you remember the destruction of Iraq justified by the orchestrated propaganda, known by the criminal George W. Bush regime to be an outright lie, about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction,” weapons that the UN arms inspectors verified did not exist? Iraq was destroyed. Millions of Iraqis were killed, orphaned, widowed, and displaced. Saddam Hussein was subjected to a show trial more transparent than Stalin’s trial of Bukharin and then murdered under the pretext of judicial execution.

Do you remember the destruction of Libya based entirely on Washington’s lies and the criminal misuse of the UN no-fly resolution by turning it into a NATO bombing of Iraq’s military so that the CIA-armed jihadists could overthrow and murder Muammar Gaddafi? Do you remember the killer bitch Hillary gloating,

“we came, we saw, he died!”

Do you remember the lies that the criminal Obama regime told about Assad of Syria and the planned US invasion of Syria that was blocked by the UK Parliament and the Russian government? Do you remember that Obama and the killer bitch sent ISIS to do the job that US troops were prevented from doing? Do you remember General Flynn revealing on TV that it was a “willful decision” of the criminal Obama regime to send ISIS to Syria over his objection as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency? This bit of told truth is why Gen. Flynn is hated by the Washington criminals who forced him out as Trump’s National Security Adviser.

Do you remember the US coup in Ukraine against the democratically elected government and its replacement with a neo-nazi regime? Do you remember that Washington’s crime against Ukrainian democracy was quickly hidden behind false charges of “Russian invasion”?

Can you think of any truthful report in the American news in the past two decades?

All of the lies leading to the death of millions told by the criminal Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes were transparent. The US media could easily have exposed them and saved the lives of millions of peoples and saved seven countries from destruction in whole or part. But the presstitutes cheered on the gratuitous and criminal destruction of countries and peoples. Every one of the presstitutes is a war criminal under the standards set by US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials.

We cannot even get a truthful jobs report. Yesterday (Aug. 4) the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported 205,000 new private sector jobs in July and a drop in the unemployment rate to 4.3%. This is fake news.

Christopher Rugaber (Source: @ChrisRugaber / Twitter)

The Associated Press’s Christopher Rugaber rah-rahs the fake news, adding that many economists think “robust hiring could continue for many more months, or even years.” Let’s think about that for a moment. Generally speaking economists regard full employment to be a 5% rate of unemployment. There can never be a zero rate of unemployment because of frictions in the job market. For example, there are people between jobs who have lost or quit a job and are looking for a new one, and there are people who have dropped out of the work force, perhaps to spend more time parenting or to care for an aged and ill parent, and have reentered the work force. Economists also believe that employment cannot go too low without pushing up inflation. 

Assuming economists have not suddenly changed their minds about what rate of unemployment is full employment, if the unemployment rate is currently 4.3%, it is already below the full employment rate. How can the rate continue to fall for years when the economy is already at full employment? Apparently, this question did not occur to the AP reporter or to the “many economists.”

Of course, the 4.3% unemployment rate is fake news. It does not include millions of discouraged workers. When these workers who have not looked for jobs within the last four weeks are included, the unemployment rate jumps to 22-23%.

Now consider the alleged 205,000 July new jobs. Probably about half of these jobs are due to the add-ons from the birth-death model, and the other half from manipulations of seasonal adjustments. John Williams at shadowstats.com will tell us. However, let’s assume the jobs are really there. Where does the BLS tell us the jobs are?

Eighty-nine percent of the jobs are in services, essentially domestic non-tradable services. 

Professional and business services account for 49,000 of the jobs, of which 30,000 are in administrative and waste services (garbage collection) and 14,700 are in temporary help services.

54,000 of the jobs are in education and health services, of which ambulatory health care services, home health care services and social assistance account for 46,900 of the jobs.

62,000 of the jobs are in leisure and hospitality, of which waitresses and bartenders account for 53,100 of the jobs and amusements, gambling, and recreation account for 5,900 jobs.

This picture of American employment has been holding for about two decades. It is a portrait of a third world labor force. The jobs are not in export industries. The jobs are not in high productivity, high value-added occupations that produce a middle class income. The jobs are in lowly paid, often part-time domestic services. 

The jobs do not produce incomes that provide discretionary spending to drive up business profits. So why did the stock market hit new highs? The answer is that corporate executives are taking advantage of the Federal Reserve’s zero interest rates to borrow money with which to buy back their companies’ shares in order to drive up their bonuses, the main component of their pay.

But these undeniable facts about employment did not prevent Christopher Rugaber and the other financial presstitutes or newspaper headline writers or “many economists” from asking “How much better can it get?” (Atlanta Journal-Constitution front page, Aug. 5, 2017).

It is not only seven Muslim countries that Washington and its presstitutes have destroyed in whole or part with lies.  Washington’s lies have also destroyed the American economy and the American work force.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fake News: A US Media Specialty

Venezuela’s Constituent Assembly Inaugurated

August 6th, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

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

On Thursday, anti-Bolivarian Attorney General Luisa Ortega Diaz’s attempt to halt the swearing in of the democratically elected 545-seat body failed.

A court order she sought was denied – based on phony claims of unconstitutionality and voter fraud. She lied claiming “(t)he country is headed toward dictatorship.”

It’s the hemisphere’s model democracy, struggling in the face of US-orchestrated political and economic war, along with CIA-instigated street violence – classic Washington color revolution tactics used to topple independent governments.

On Friday, Constituent Assembly members were sworn in as scheduled. Thousands of Chavistas took to the streets supportively, welcoming the CA’s first working session.

Former Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez was appointed president of the body. Former vice presidents Aristobulo and Isaias Rodriguez were chosen as first and second vice presidents.

Washington, its rogue allies and the Vatican oppose political affirmation of Bolivarian social democracy – notably right wing EU and Latin American countries in lockstep with America’s imperial agenda.

Vatican history isn’t pretty. Pontiffs notoriously meddle where they don’t belong. Liberation theology supporting social justice is verboten.

Pope Francis’ high-minded rhetoric belies papal tradition, supporting wealth and power interests, paying lip service alone to popular needs and welfare.

A Vatican press statement expressed opposition to Venezuela’s CA, saying:

“The Holy See asks that all political actors, and in particular the government, guarantee full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as for the existing Constitution; avoid or suspend ongoing initiatives such as the new Constituent which, instead of favoring reconciliation and peace, foments a climate of tension and confrontation and puts the future at stake” – code language for opposition to Bolivarian social democracy.

Over eight million Venezuelan voters disagreed, participating in CA elections, democracy in action, the way Bolivarian governance works.

Constituent Maria Alejandra Diaz likely spoke for other members, saying

“(w)e have an immense task after the National Constituent Assembly is seated -to implement justice by seeking peace.”

International observers called last Sunday’s process open, free and fair – 545 members chosen from among 6,120 candidates. President Maduro called the CA a way “to bring order, do justice and defend the peace.”

The body is temporary for as long as it takes to complete its work – revising or rewriting Venezuela’s constitution, above all aiming to restore order and serve all Venezuelans equitably.

Article 349 of Venezuela’s constitution states no other power can “in any way impede the decisions of the National Constituent Assembly” – not the president, National Assembly legislators and Supreme Court justices.

When completed, the revised or new constitution will be voted on by national referendum, Venezuelans deciding whether to approve or reject the document.

Depending on what’s in the final text, general elections could follow – for president, National Assembly members, governors, mayors and other public officials, the same process used to establish the Bolivarian Republic under Hugo Chavez in 1999.

As of now, the referendum will be held on December 19, elections for governors on December 10. Chavistas hope to hold onto the presidency and win a National Assembly majority when those elections are held.

CA president Delcy Rodriguez said its mission aims to end political conflict and street violence.

“The Venezuelan people will not turn their fate over to a violent minority. We’ve come to deepen our Constitution,” she stressed.

No easy task given Washington’s call for regime change, Rex Tillerson saying

“(w)e 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.”

A previous article explained Washington’s assault on Venezuela is its latest color revolution attempt, adding if it fails, will sending in the Marines be next?

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Venezuela’s Constituent Assembly Inaugurated

The ever-so-wise members of the Congress of the United States have just passed one of the most bizarre pieces of legislation in US history. Unilaterally, it makes illegal and severely punishable investments by European companies in international energy projects where Russia is involved. But it does far more. Unlike earlier US sanctions acts, the EU countries were not even consulted on the new act. It may well be that the bill, HR-3364: Countering Americas Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (sic) and its Senate counterpart will mark the irreversible decline of the United States as a global power and forge new ties between Russia, China, Iran and, yes, the major states of the EU including Germany.

What the Act says

First let’s see what the act, HR-3364, actually states.

In Title I, the part of the act dealing with Iran, the legislation states that the US President “shall impose the sanctions described…with respect to any person that the President determines (1) knowingly engages in any activity that materially contributes to the supply, sale, or transfer directly or indirectly to or from Iran, or for the use in or benefit of Iran, of any battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems, as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or related materiel, including spare parts; or (2) knowingly provides to Iran any technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance, or use of arms and related materiel described…”

While this may seem aimed at Iran which is in no cited violation of international law and the fact that recently both US intelligence as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency declared Iran in compliance with the nuclear deal, a main target is also Russia.

With the lifting of US and EU sanctions by the Obama Administration in January 2016, Russia began talks with Teheran to supply up to $10 billion of Russian weapons systems including advanced tanks, artillery systems, planes and helicopters. As well, sanctions removal allowed Russia to legally renegotiate delivery of its advanced anti-missile S-300 missile defense system which was done in August 2016.

The Iran section directly aims to block closer relations, including military, between Russia and Iran, a vital part of the emerging Eurasian economic space that Washington and the US Deep State feel so threatening to its power.

Let’s now look explicitly at the Russian section of the new act.

Title II: The Russian Section

The section on Russia was inserted into the original bill on Iran sanctions. It is called, TITLE II—SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND COMBATING TERRORISM AND ILLICIT FINANCING.

Title II justifies its unprecedented new sanctions against Russia by citing a litany of the already sanctioned Crimea annexation and Russian alleged support of Ukraine separatists following the CIA-instigated February 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev, as well as unproven allegations of Russian hacking of Democratic National Committee data files during the 2016 US election campaign. To sweeten the brew, Congress added Russia’s involvement in Syria, legal under international law, aiding the legitimate Assad government fighting ISIS and other terrorists.

Another justification for the unprecedented new Russia sanctions is cited as unnamed “human rights violators in the Russian Federation.” Of course, the “human rights violators” are to be determined as anyone Washington backs in CIA attempts at trying to foment a new NGO Color Revolution to block re-election of President Vladimir Putin in March 2018 elections.

Moreover, in a constitutionally dubious arrogation of power of the Executive, Congress mandates that the President no longer has executive authority to remove any Russian sanctions without first the approval of Congress.

“Oppose Nord Stream II Pipeline”

Source: energypost.eu

This Russian section of the Countering Americas Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, among other remarkable provisions, declares in Section 257: Ukranian (sic) Energy Security that,

“It is the policy of the United States…to continue to oppose the Nord Stream 2 pipeline given its detrimental impacts on the European Union’s energy security, gas market development in Central and Eastern Europe, and energy reforms in Ukraine;”

As the governments of Germany and Austria bluntly pointed out, with whom the EU countries decide to buy their natural gas is their business, not to be decided by Washington.

As reason for this extraordinary trampling on international law, Title II goes on,

“…the United States Government should prioritize the export of United States energy resources in order to create American jobs, help United States allies and partners, and strengthen United States foreign policy.”

The new sanctions act as part of this effort gives the US Treasury the right to sanction or penalize European companies doing business with Gazprom on the proposed Nord Stream II pipeline into Germany.

Oops. Did I read the wrong act? The US President shall impose sanctions in order that the US can stop the EU-Gazprom Nord Stream II second pipeline construction that is soon to be completed, linking Vyborg in Russia with Griefswald in Germany and bypassing existing Soviet-era gas pipelines through the now-hostile US-run Ukraine? He shall do this as part of a US jobs-creation policy? Is this actually part of the current USA strategy, expressed repeatedly by the Trump Administration to “dominate the global energy market” including export of oil, shale gas as LNG, coal exports and nuclear power?

Russian Mining and Railways

Section 233 of the Act specifies the US Treasury may also determine sanctions against “a state-owned entity operating in the railway or metals and mining sector of the economy of the Russian Federation.” US sanctions against domestic Russian railways, mining companies, metals industry? Why not be honest and just proclaim the US Congress hereby declares itself to be absolute dictators over the entire world with power to decide everything everywhere? No questions permitted…

Further the Act,

“prohibits the provision, exportation, or re-exportation… by persons within the United States, of goods, services… or technology in support of exploration or production for new deep-water, Arctic offshore, or shale projects…that have the potential to produce oil…” Sanctions include power to “block…all transactions in all property…of a person determined by the President to be subject to subsection (a)(1).”

Section 232 goes after development of pipelines in the Russian Federation against anyone who

“…knowingly makes an investment…or sells, leases, or provides to the Russian Federation, for the construction of Russian energy export pipelines, goods, services, technology, information…which has a fair market value of $1,000,000 or more; or…an aggregate fair market value of $5,000,000 or more.”

It goes after any foreign investment that “directly and significantly contributes to the enhancement of the ability of the Russian Federation to construct energy export pipelines.” Those could be to China or Germany or Turkey or anywhere.

Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia

Subtitle B is titled Countering Russian influence in Europe and Eurasia. This section asserts “findings” of Congress, unspecified, that

“The Government of the Russian Federation has sought to exert influence throughout Europe and Eurasia, including in the former states of the Soviet Union, by providing resources to political parties, think tanks, and civil society groups that sow distrust in democratic institutions and actors, promote xenophobic and illiberal views, and otherwise undermine European unity.”

Conveniently ignored are the hundreds of millions of dollars that the US State Department, USAID, the CIA’s civilian NGO front National Endowment for Democracy and other Washington agencies have spent over the past twenty five years to exert US “influence throughout Europe and Eurasia, including in the former states of the Soviet Union, by providing resources to political parties, think tanks, and civil society groups.”

And what is this about “undermine European unity”? Since when is European unity or its undermining the business of Washington? Oh, excuse me sir. I forgot that Washington is now self-proclaimed dictator, Absolute Supreme Ruler, Top Dog, barking its orders to the entire planet…

To counter the alleged Russian exertion of influence in Europe and Eurasia, Section 254 of the bill authorizes $250,000,000 for 2018 and 2019 for its Countering Russian Influence Fund (sic). The countries for US “countering” targets include Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina (including Republika Srpska), Georgia, Macedonia, Moldova, Kosovo, Serbia, and Ukraine. The countering actions are described as,

“To build the capacity of civil society, media, and other nongovernmental organizations countering the influence and propaganda of the Russian Federation.”

The new Russian sanctions act explicitly names who shall use this pot of US taxpayer money to interfere in the internal affairs of countries in Europe and Eurasia:

“non-governmental or international organizations, such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Black Sea Trust, the Balkan Trust for Democracy, the Prague Civil Society Centre, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, the European Endowment for Democracy, and related organizations…”

In brief, the new extraordinary Russian sanctions act openly calls for Color Revolutions, the CIA’s form of “fake democracy” using the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and allied CIA or US State Department front NGOs to massively intervene in the internal affairs of the entire land space from the European Union to Eurasia. This all should not surprise as the key figure in the US Senate credited with forging support for the Russian part of the new sanctions act is the patron saint of the NED and of virtually all US Color Revolutions, John McCain.

Section 257—Ukranian (sic) Energy Security explicitly targets “Russian Federation’s oil and natural gas resources, but also on its state-owned nuclear power and electricity companies.”

In effect, the new US sanctions bill is like a nuclear barrel bomb with sanctions flying in all directions—Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, EU energy companies, even US oil and other companies.

HR-3364: Countering Americas Adversaries Through Sanctions Act is truly a 2017 bad remake of the classic Warner Brothers Looney Tunes cartoon series. This time Senator John McCain is in the role of Daffy Duck and the entire gaggle of Senators and Congressmen who bravely marched lockstep behind Daffy rushing to be seen as good American patriots are like so many fevered lemmings marching off the cliff of sanity. Fortunately the Act is so extreme that it will blow up in the faces of its backers. It may be the catalyst to shift the entire world geopolitical balance away from the Washington Superpower run amok.

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

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Sanctions: A “Looney Tunes” Bad Remake, “Irreversible Decline of the US as A Global Power”

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

Special council/former FBI director Robert Mueller is part of a diabolical CIA plot to remove Trump from office.

Accusations of Russian US election hacking and allegations of possible improper or illegal Trump team connections to Russia were fabricated by John Brennan as CIA director – the plot against Trump continuing under Mike Pompeo.

A grand jury impaneled by Mueller issued subpoenas as part of his investigation into Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya – a private citizen unconnected to the Kremlin.

The meeting amounted to much ado about nothing. Yet it became a cause celebre to denigrate and weaken Trump for the wrong reasons.

No evidence suggests any improper or illegal dealings with Russia by Trump, his family members, or team.

Published emails between Trump Jr. and Veselnitskaya showed they had nothing to do with Russia. Issues discussed related to adoption of children and related charitable activities.

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Russian government knows nothing about Veselnitskaya. President Trump is correct, calling ongoing Mueller, FBI and congressional investigations “a witch-hunt.”

Grand juries reflect deep-rooted Anglo-American tradition. The process originally served to protect accused defendants from overly-zealous prosecutors.

Though nominally independent, they only hear cases prosecutors choose. They’re lawyers like Mueller, involved in investigating, charging and taking people to trial for alleged offenses.

According to former prosecutor Paul Callan, impaneling a grand jury “is a serious development in the Mueller investigation.”

“Given the (he) inherited an investigation that began months ago, it would suggest that he has uncovered information pointing in the direction of criminal charges. But against whom is the real question.”

Law Professor Stephen Vladeck believes involvement of a grand jury suggests “prosecutions being contemplated and being pursued by” Mueller.

Grand jurors can select witnesses. They can exclude ones they wish exempted, grant discretionary immunity and ask questions after witnesses testify.

Their job is to judge what prosecutors present, deciding whether enough evidence warrants indictments or exonerations.

Proceedings are conducted secretly. No one may disclose what goes on unless judicially ordered or permitted.

Anyone may be subpoenaed, and must answer questions unless a specific privilege is claimed such as lawyer/client confidentiality or self-incrimination.

Lawyers can’t represent their clients while testifying. Double jeopardy doesn’t apply to grand juries.

If prosecutors fail to get indictments, they need Criminal Division Attorney General permission to try again. Targets remain vulnerable. As long as he remains special council, Mueller can pursue Trump, his family and team members until kingdom come if he and dark forces backing him wish.

Zealous prosecutors can charge defendants on rejected charges or new ones, endless harassment if proceedings go on long enough. In Mueller’s case, it can be months, years or in perpetuity as long as he remains on the job.

The ABA asks

“(w)hat protection does a target have against witnesses lying to the grand jury (perhaps for leniency on existing or threatened charges), or against the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence? None.”

Law Professor Mark Kadish earlier explained

“grand jur(ies) (give) prosecutors extraordinary powers (providing) “incredible pretrial and trial advantages – especially where those powers are otherwise unavailable through authorized civil discovery tools.”

Notably post-9/11, prosecutors zealously sought grand jury indictments, manipulating proceedings to get them.

Is this what Mueller has in store for Trump, his family or team members? In the fullness of time we’ll know.

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 Heavy.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Grand Jury Subpoenas Issued in Witch-Hunt “Russia Probe”

The NoWar Network in Rome has issued a declaration, published below, which claims that the current events in Venezuela have been misreported in the mass media and in government declarations of practically all NATO countries.  

The aim is clear, says the NoWar declaration: to present the left-wing Maduro government as dictatorial (or aspiring to become dictatorial) and to present the right-wing opposition as a spontaneous, popular resistance movement, that merits our support.

Similar scenarios were presented before the NATO invasions of Iraq and Libya, before the NATO proxy-war in Syria, and before the NATO backed coup that overturned the Yanukovych government of Ukraine.  Is this selfsame scenario to be played out, once again, in Venezuela?

 

Press Release

The NoWar Network Condemns the Media’s One-sided Attack Against the Venezuelan Government and Its Silence over the Terrorist Practices of the Right-wing Venezuelan Opposition.

The mass media in practically every NATO country have, for months, dutifully reechoed the U.S. government’s one-sided portrayal of the Venezuelan crisis. This portrayal aims at discrediting the left-wing Maduro government and ushering into power a right-wing opposition that does not hesitate to use terrorist violence to destabilize the country and seize control.

The events currently unfolding in Venezuela are clearly a repeat of the “soft coup” that the international media helped promote last year in Brazil. Then, the media relentlessly backed calls to impeach the left-wing and anti-FMI President Dilma Rousseff on trumped-up charges and substitute her with the right-winger (and pro-FMI) Michel Temer, whose first act in office as President was to freeze all social spending and pay back the international debts that Rousseff had considered usury and thus illegal.

Now, a similar scenario is playing out in Venezuela.

Italy has shamelessly joined in the international media campaign to oust the Maduro government through declarations such as the one recently made by Matteo Renzi, the leader of the Partito Democratico (the party in power in Italy): Maduro, according to Renzi, “is destroying the liberty and well-being of his people who are dying not only from hunger but from all the [government] violence”. This gross misrepresentation of the facts was not challenged by any of the major national newspapers.

As for the current Italian Prime Minister, Paolo Gentiloni, he – along with the media in practically every NATO country – has not hesitated to denounce the “persecution” and arrest of the opposition leaders Ledesma and Lopez, while overlooking the fact that, in Italy or any other NATO country, these two individuals would have been jailed long ago for promoting acts of terrorism. Gentiloni apparently has not noticed the admission by Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, that his agency is involved in the destabilization of Venezuela. Nor does Gentiloni seem to have noticed that it is the Venezuelan oligarchs, not grass roots organizations, that have been recruiting gangs to create havoc in the streets for over 100 days, burning down pro-government neighborhoods, attacking the police with fire bombs – on occasion with roadway bombs – and, in short, bringing the country to a standstill.

The only criticism that Gentiloni and the international media have made so far is of Maduro’s supposed “attempt at creating a dictatorship” through the creation of a Constituent Assembly charged with rewriting the constitution, an Assembly elected by a large part of the population. Indeed, even before the Assembly has convened to formulate changes to the Constitution (following the exact procedures which the Constitution itself has provided for), the U.S., Italy and other NATO countries have declared that they will refuse to recognize whatever document is produced.

Clearly the economic wars that the U.S. and the Venezuelan oligarchs have waged against the living conditions of the lower and middle classes in Venezuela, combined with a century of extractivism and declining oil prices, have left Venezuela in economic chaos. But as we can see from the case of Brazil (which suffers from similar economic chaos), one cannot, in South America, simply oust a left-wing social-spending government – and bring to power the right-wing opposition and their wealthy pro-austerity backers – and hope for greater economic stability. Indeed, as Brazil has shown, this only leads to increased economic chaos and corruption — certainly not to greater social justice and peace.

The NoWar Network in Rome therefore condemns the unilateralism of the Italian government and of the governments of the other NATO countries, as well as that of their mass media, who have chosen to dutifully join in the Washington-led campaign to destabilize Venezuela.

It should be remembered that NATO is the primary cause of wars and political instability in the world today, from Afghanistan to Libya to Syria to Ukraine – wherever a local government refuses to bow to the dictates of Washington.

Indeed, the NoWar Network wishes to express the debt of gratitude that we all owe to Venezuela and to the other countries of the Alba Alliance (Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador) in opposing over the years, in the General Assembly of the United Nations and elsewhere, the NATO wars of aggression and attempts at destabilization. Against the Axis of War, Venezuela, and the other four South American countries just mentioned, constitute a genuine Axis of Peace.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Crisis in Venezuela: One-sided Reporting as a Prelude to Invasion?

“American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression,” was the Washington Post headline some 53 years ago, on August 5, 1964.

The front page of that day’s New York Times reported: “President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and ‘certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam’ after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.”

Of course, as historians now acknowledge, there was no “second attack” by North Vietnam—no “renewed attacks against American destroyers.”

But as activist, author and FAIR associate Norman Solomon has described, including in the film War Made Easy, US journalists reported those official claims as absolute truths, ignoring countervailing evidence and opening the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War and the deaths of over 50,000 Americans and millions of Southeast Asians.

The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an “unprovoked attack” against the US destroyer Maddox, which was on “routine patrol” in the Tonkin Gulf on August 2—and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a “deliberate attack” two days later, firing 22 torpedoes on the Maddox and another destroyer, Turner Joy.

The USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin. (Photo: US Navy)

President Johnson was on television that night, telling Americans that “aggression by terror against the peaceful villagers of South Vietnam has now been joined by open aggression on the high seas against the United States of America,” ordering retaliatory airstrikes representing a momentous escalation of the war, and calling for immediate passage of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which stated,

“Congress approves and supports the determination of the president, as commander in chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.”

“It’s like grandmother’s nightshirt. It covers everything,” Johnson quipped.

The House dispensed with hearings and approved in 40 minutes; the Senate took two days, finally voting 88 to 2 to adopt.

But reality was very different from the tale that Johnson and the press told the public.

The New York Times (8/8/64) reporting the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

The Maddox, which fired first in the earlier skirmish, was not on routine patrol; it was engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers—in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force.

And as for the second reported attack, the spark for the “retaliatory” airstrikes, it simply never happened. Many historians think the Maddox crew mistook their sonar’s pings off their own rudder for North Vietnamese torpedoes; Johnson later “joked” they might’ve been shooting at whales.

But it shouldn’t surprise you to know that there was plenty of intelligence at the time suggesting that no attack had occurred; it was just overlooked and obscured—intentionally by warmongers in the government, but also by a credulous press. Sound familiar?

Johnson’s late-night speech won editorial praise. The president, said the New York Times, “went to the American people last night with the somber facts.” The LA Times urged Americans to “face the fact that the Communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have themselves escalated the hostilities.”

As Tom Wells, author of The War Within: America’s Battle Over Vietnam, recounts, US media

described the air strikes that Johnson launched in response as merely “tit for tat”—when in reality they reflected plans the administration had already drawn up for gradually increasing its overt military pressure against the North.

The distortion was due to media’s “almost exclusive reliance on US government officials as sources of information”—and their “reluctance to question official pronouncements on ‘national security issues.’”

Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in January of 1971, but that didn’t mean much, since they continued to finance the war. And elite media, evidently, set about a studious forgetting of what columnist Sydney Schanberg called—30 years later, in the midst of another war—the press corps’ “unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.”

Americans, Schanberg said, are “the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth.”

That’s an innocence of course, that we can ill afford—and that journalists, above all, should fight the impulse to indulge.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Remembering the Gulf of Tonkin, and the Consequences of Wanting to Believe

Last month, UN war crimes investigators described the situation in Raqqa, Syria resulting from US airstrikes as a “staggering loss of civilian life.” This from the US-led Coalition’s Operation Inherent Resolve – which the US has been trying to ‘resolve’ (rather unsuccessfully) since 2014. 

US officials are now claiming that they have only killed around 600 civilians during its ‘anti-ISIS’ operations in Iraq and Syria, but that does not square with data collected by independent groups which brings the total to around 4,354 civilians (conservatively) who have been killed as a result of US-led coalition bombing campaigns since June 2014.

21WIRE editor Patrick Henningsen spoke to RT International last night about this discrepancy and about the hypocrisy of US officials when conducting their public relations damage control after any said ‘intervention,’ including the use of cynically concocted, militarized politically correct terms like ‘collateral damage.’

He points out in this report,

“What Americans don’t understand, because they haven’t had to face it on their own territory – is that one man’s collateral is another man’s wife and children – and that’s a reality in Syria.”

Watch:

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Staggering Loss of Civilian Life in Raqqa: ‘One Man’s Collateral Damage Is Another Man’s Wife and Children’

U.S. President Donald Trump has now signed into law what may be considered one of the most insane pieces of legislation ever to come out of the U.S. Congress. While the law itself will not result in major direct actions in terms of immediately attributable effect, it will have far reaching repercussions both at home and abroad. The law, passed almost unanimously in both the House and Senate had sat for days on Trump’s desk awaiting the President’s signature.

The bill is aimed at a number of Russian industries and also takes aim at foreign banks that do business with North Korea. The bill contains a number of provisions implementing sanctions against Iran as well. It also restricts the President’s ability to tamper with the sanctions regime once it is put in place.

While some held out hope that Trump would muster some courage and actually do the right thing, the President, assured by the parasites and puppets in Congress that they would override his veto, signed the bill into law. Trump did issue a signing statement declaring the bill “seriously flawed – particularly because it encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate.” Trump also said the bill contained “clearly unconstitutional provisions.” Nevertheless, Trump signed the bill saying his doing so was for “national unity.”

Trump’s statement was correct. Except the bill is not just “flawed,” it is horrific. It is the legislative announcement of the march forward in the war against Russia by elements within the U.S. Deep State, and Trump’s signature announces to the world that either the American President is willing to go along with the war or is powerless to stop it.

So this begs the question, if Trump knew the bill was unconstitutional, why did he sign it? Is “national unity” worth World War Three? And how many Americans are unified in their desire to fight it? Only the items in Congress purchased by AIPAC, Wall Street, and the Military Industrial Complex as well as the Deep State apparatus are unified in such an insanity-driven desire.

Trump apologists will no doubt suggest that Trump is continuing to march ahead with his master plan and that, by signing the bill, he is simply moving forward with what was going to happen anyway; i.e. the override of his veto and the implementation of the sanctions. They will suggest he signed the bill in order to move ahead with his agenda in other areas and return to the Russia issue later. Others suggest he will simply allow the measure to be challenged and struck down by the Supreme Court.

Ironically, Trump supporters love their President because he “gets things done” and doesn’t apologize for “being tough.” But he was anything but tough with this incredibly important bill. He didn’t fight at all. Trump claims he could make better deals with Russia than the Congress but, unfortunately, he didn’t. He has shown hints of sanity from time to time only to then launch missiles at Syrian airbases inhabited by Russian forces, by refusing to remove sanctions on Russia, and by signing this monstrous bill. Whenever Trump shows some signs of lucidity, he follows up with falling in line with the elements of his government that are intent on their “Moscow or bust!!” war strategy.

As Paul Craig Roberts points out in his article, there were a number of strategies that could have been taken by Trump. First, he should have vetoed the bill. At worst, if Congress overrode his veto, Congress would bear responsibility for the political fallout or the radioactive fallout if it comes to that.

Second, in the lead up to the veto, Trump could have brought his case to the American people. He could have laid it all out in the open, pointing out that Congress, both misinformed and eaten up with special interest money, was endangering America’s way of life and possibly even life itself the world over. He could have stated plainly that the interests who own Congress and who are working through Congress are now marching the United States to World War Three. He could have even told them to go watch The Day After with their families and ask themselves if they think the potential costs would be worth it. He could have done any number of things explaining why he was vetoing the bill and then he could have vetoed it. But he didn’t. Thus, we now have a situation that Paul Craig Roberts has labeled the “most alarming event of my lifetime.” He wrote,

Now that Washington’s criminally insane have convinced Russia that Russia is in Washington’s war plans, Russia has no alternative but to prepare to strike first.

During the Cold War both sides received numerous false alarms of incoming ICBMs, but because both sides were working to reduce tensions, the alarms were disbelieved. But today with Washington having raised tensions so high, both sides are likely to believe the false alarm. The next false alarm could bring the end of life on earth, and for this there is no one to be blamed but Washington.

Trump’s emphasis on normalizing relations with Russia was a great relief to people sufficiently intelligent to understand the consequences of nuclear war. But none of these people are in Washington, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the military/security complex, or among the presstitutes that pass for a media in America. All of these people want to destroy Trump because he wants to make peace with Russia.

Of the 535 members of the House and Senate, 530 voted in support of a bill that violates the separation of powers and prevents President Trump from removing sanctions on Russia. As the vote is so overwhelming that it is veto proof, the White House has announced that Trump will sign the bill, thus surrendering and giving up on his goal of restoring normal relations with Russia.

The White House believes that as the bill is veto proof, all that Trump could achieve by a veto is to prove the charges that he is a Russian agent and is using his office to protect Russia, and this could easily be turned into an impeachment proceeding.

. . . .

I have been amazed at the stupidity and mendacity of the American liberal-progressive-left, who have fallen in line with the military/security complex’s effort to destroy Trump, because peace with Russia takes away the orchestrated enemy so essential to the budget and power of the military/security complex. Of course, America no longer has a left. The left has been displaced by Identity Politics, a Zionist creation, as Gilad Atzmon explains in his books, that is proving effective in destroying the goyim by teaching them to hate one another. In Identity Politics, everyone is the victim of white heterosexual males, whom Identity Politics defines as misogynist, racist, homophobic gun nuts—Hillary’s “Trump deplorables.” As the “deplorables” voted for Trump, the liberal-progressive-left hate Trump and are helping the military/security complex destroy him even if it means nuclear war.

As I predicted would be the case, Trump had no idea how to appoint a government that would be on his side, and obviously failed completely. He is continually contradicted by his UN ambassador, his Secretary of State, his National Security Advisor, his Secretary of Defense. Trump is alone in his government.

So, he might as well fight. Address the American people. Organize the angry Europeans. Take the fight to criminally insane Washington before the criminals destroy the world in war.

While Roberts’ assertion that this bill will lead to nuclear first strikes may seem hyperbolic, there is a logical flow of events that could very well take the United States and Russia into just this type of situation if some major intervention does not prevent it.

It is also important to point out that, while Trump is clearly embattled by elements within the Deep State, that does not mean he is the political messiah the U.S. has been waiting on. Trump has already slapped sanctions on Venezuela, launched political attacks against Hezbollah, and repeatedly threatened and provoked Iran.

Regardless, this new bill is an escalation rarely seen in international politics if for no other reason than the fact that the Deep State apparatus has begun to tear off its mask and bare its teeth for the world to see. The U.S. Congress has essentially stood up in unison and demanded the destruction of Russia. If Americans can’t see something wrong with this picture, we are in deeper shit than many may have realized.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The OutcomeTurbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST atUCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Featured image is from Anti Media.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Signs Russia Sanctions Bill, World at a Dangerous Point as Deep State Shows Their Teeth

A federal appeals court on Friday threw out lengthy prison sentences of three former operatives for private mercenary firm Blackwater Worldwide—and ordered a retrial for a fourth operative who had received a life sentence—for their roles in the notorious 2007 Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad, which left 14 unarmed Iraqis dead and another 17 wounded.

“The men, Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty, Paul Slough, and Nicholas Slatten, were convicted in October 2014 after years of legal battles,” Common Dreams reported in 2015, when U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth sentenced Slatten—who the government says fired the first shots—to life in prison and the other three men to “30 years and one day each on charges that included manslaughter, attempted manslaughter and using firearms while committing a felony.”

During the 10-week trial in 2014,

“prosecutors said the four defendants, among 19 Blackwater guards providing security for State Department officials in Iraq, fired machine guns and grenade launchers in a reckless and out-of-control way after one of them falsely claimed their convoy, called Raven 23, was threatened by a car bomber,” the Washington Post reported.

“While defense lawyers have argued that the men were acting in self-defense, federal prosecutors wrote that the men’s ‘crimes here were so horrendous—the massacre and maiming of innocents so heinous—that they outweigh any factors that the defendants may argue form a basis for leniency,'” Common Dreams reported.

The federal appeals court, in a split decision issued Friday, claimed prosecutors misapplied a law during the lower court’s trial, the New York Times reported:

The three-judge panel declared the contractors’ sentences “grossly disproportionate to their culpability for using government-issued weapons in a war zone.” The court ordered the three men to be resentenced, a initial ruling that could significantly reduce their prison terms.

Mr. Slatten’s conviction was thrown out entirely. The appeals court ruled that he never should have been prosecuted in the same trial as his colleagues, one of whom said he—and not Mr. Slatten—fired the first shots.

By overturning his conviction, the court has forced the Justice Department to decide whether to prosecute again….Retrying Mr. Slatten will not be easy. Prosecutors tracked down dozens of Iraqi witnesses and flew them to Washington for the first trial and would probably have to do so again.

According to the Postspokesmen for the U.S. Justice Department and U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips said Phillips’s office “is reviewing the opinion and has no further comment at this time.”

Paul Dickinson, an attorney who represented the families of six Iraqi massacre victims—including 9-year-old Ali Kinani, who was shot in the back of the head—shared their stories in a long series of tweets on Friday afternoon.

Some of Dickinson’s messages were retweeted by journalist Jeremy Scahill, who authored the book Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. In a piece for The Intercept following the 2014 conviction, Scahill welcomed the ruling, but also outlined the greater issues with U.S. military contractors, particularly Blackwater and its infamous former CEO, Erik Prince. Scahill wrote:

The incident for which the men were tried was the single largest known massacre of Iraqi civilians at the hands of private U.S. security contractors. Known as “Baghdad’s bloody Sunday,” operatives from Blackwater gunned down 17 Iraqi civilians at a crowded intersection at Nisour Square on September 16, 2007. The company, founded by secretive right-wing Christian supremacist Erik Prince…had deep ties to the Bush administration and served as a sort of neoconservative Praetorian Guard for a borderless war launched in the immediate aftermath of 9/11….

Just as with the systematic torture at Abu Ghraib, it is only the low level foot-soldiers of Blackwater that are being held accountable. Prince and other top Blackwater executives continue to reap profits from the mercenary and private intelligence industries.

More recently, the Blackwater founder—who is also the brother the Education Secretary Betsy Devos—has been tied to the Trump administration. In April, as Common Dreams reported, government officials told members of the press that Prince “took part in a clandestine meeting with a confidant of Russian President Vladimir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication’ between Moscow and the White House.”

In June, Prince penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he outlined five ways he believes U.S. President Donald Trump‘s can “fix our approach in Afghanistan,” including the suggestion that the U.S. deploy an “East India Company approach.” As Common Dreams reported, one critic described Prince’s plan as “sheer 19th century bloodlust and thirst for empire,” and another noted, it is hardly surprising that a “war profiteer sees profit opportunity in war.”

Following the op-ed, it was revealed that two of Trump’s top aides, White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and senior adviser Jared Kushnerreportedly solicited advice from Prince “on how to proceed with the 16-year-long war in Afghanistan.”

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Court Throws Out Blackwater Guards’ Sentences for 2007 Baghdad Massacre

The bloody coup in Kiev in 2014 and the subsequent joining [reunification] of The Crimea to Russia is already becoming history. Currently nobody investigates the true reasons and main characters of this unprecedented US intervention in the affairs of Ukraine and Russia, which has changed the centuries-old character of relations between the two fraternal peoples. This was done in an absolutely cynical way and the guilty party was upheld [by the West] as Russia. Now Russia is presented as an aggressor capturing foreign territories for the whole world. That’s how they rewrite history and twist basic democratic values right in front of your eyes.

I was very happy to find on  “Global Research” two articles by Eric Zuesse “Obama’s Double-Standard on Russia: He Attacks Russia, then Condemns Putin for Defending Russia from His Attack“, Global Research, March, 19, 2015 and “Sweden Joins NATO’s Emerging War Against Russia“, Global Research, July 05, 2016  containing the analysis of events in Kiev in 2013-2014, their causes and the true instigator.

Without dwelling on the historical justice of the reunification of the Crimea and Russia, I would like to say that this step of Vladimir Putin  was effective in preventing bloodshed in The Crimea. Residing in the village of Partenit on the southern coast of the Crimea since November 2013 and often visiting Simferopol, the capital of the Republic of Crimea, and other cities, I witnessed escalation of tensions on the peninsula at the beginning of the events on the “Maidan”. This became especially noticeable starting from the end of December – the middle of January 2014, when the events on the “Maidan” began to turn into bloody massacres.

The attitude of the Ukrainian leadership towards those events was explained by the fact that the Rada went on New Year’s holidays. What is this – criminal negligence or treason?

Clashes in Kyiv, Ukraine. Events of February 18, 2014-4.jpg

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

At that time, various nationalists became active, claiming their rights to The Crimea. As events heated up in Kiev, local separatists became active. The events happened simultaneously so that it was obvious that they had the same “customer” [sponsor]. Eric Zuesse [2015] described not only the sponsors, but also specific individuals being responsible for those actions.

Just after the coup, the new government in Kiev decided that the Russian language is no longer an official language. Thus, it provoked the continuation of bloody actions in the Crimea, where almost everybody speaks Russian. The movement of armed young men from the “Maidan” to the border of the Crimea was accompanied by sharp activation of local nationalists. Something terrible was  brewing. The tension in society reached its peak.

And at this moment, Russian military men appear in the Crimea, called “polite people” by the Crimeans for the fact that their appearance and actions are absolutely imperceptible and peaceful. I saw several “polite people” in Simferopol near the Government building; sometimes I met cars with soldiers on the roads. No acts of violence or shooting have been seen or heard anywhere. The appearance of “polite people” immediately calmed tension in society, arose sincere relief and joy in the people. In the referendum, the overwhelming majority voted for joining the Crimea to Russia.

Obama and his followers unleashed “the most blatant coup in history” [Stratfor, Zuesse, 2015], expecting that Putin would protect the Crimeans. So it happened. However coming to the rescue of the Crimea and Crimeans, Putin was portrayed as a world aggressor. As Eric Zuesse noted:

“Obama is the aggressor here, just as Hitler was the aggressor in Poland in 1939. And O’Bomba blames Russia as the aggressor, just as Hitler blamed Poland”.

Summing up, we can say that Obama’s operation cost Ukraine and Russia death and destruction and suffering of millions of people.

The political and military confrontation has intensified in the world. Truly. I hope that Global Research will continue to publish the truth about the situation in the Crimea and the true instigators of the coup in 2014 in Kiev. This will make it impossible to rewrite history, kindle hatred between nations, push the world toward a third world war.

S. S. Tsygantov is a Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on On the Annexation of Crimea by Russia: A Look from the Inside

Featured image: Moroccans protest the death of fish seller Mouhcine Fikri (portrait) in the northern city (Source: PressTV)

In nearly every case of a forcible, West-led, regime change in the Middle East or Ukraine, the process began with low level public protests against a real or imagined abuse of power by security forces. Morocco’s current situation appears to follow the same scenario. The killing of Mouhcine Fikri, a fisherman who was crushed by a truck while attempting to retrieve fish that was confiscated by the police in October 2016, had sparked several waves of unrest and civil disobedience initially in the city of Al-Khoseima which later spread to other parts of the Rif region.

These protests quickly produced an informal leader, Nasser Zefzafi, a 39-year-old unemployed man with considerable rhetorical skill and a populist touch. Zefzafi’s demands quickly escalated beyond the initial case of Fikri’s death and included Morocco’s corruption, repressions, absence of investments and subsidies to the Rif region, onerous security forces’ presence, even Morocco’s foreign aid to African countries and the King Mohammed VI’s claim of supreme spiritual authority.

Zefzafi, moreover, demanded to enter into negotiations with the king himself rather than his representatives, a demand that was bound to be rejected due to its unprecedented nature. Interestingly, Zefzafi accused the king of having entered a scheme with Gulf Arab states in order to settle Arabs in Morocco, thus displacing the native Berbers.

Morocco’s government responded by dispatching a delegation with promised 1 billion euro over the course of five years and by accusing the protesters of separatism and, on May 29, arresting Zefzafi and other protest leaders who now stand accused of promoting separatism, encouraging rebellion, obtaining financial support from foreign powers, attempting a forcible regime change, which under Morocco’s criminal code may be punished by death.Ultimately 32 of the key activists were sentenced to 18 months of prison, while others received 2 or 3 month sentences.

Alas, far from tamping down on the unrest, the trial proved a rallying point for a variety of forces which hope to capitalize on the protests and turn them to political advantage. About 600 attorneys representing the vast majority of legal offices in the country expressed willingness to challenge the ruling. In Rabat there was held a solidarity protest with up to 40 thousand participants which included such organizations as the February 11 Movement which appeared during the original Arab Spring, the Istiqlal Party which is now much diminished in spite of having won the country independence in the 1950s, and the Al Adl Wa Al Ihssane (Justice and Spirituality), a semi-legal Islamist association, which is tolerated by the Moroccan authorities. It also took part in protests of the Arab Spring with the slogan of introducing Sharia law in Morocco which refuses to participate in the legitimate political process and has a strong presence in Rif. Mohammed VI, clearly not wishing to see the situation escalate into bloodshed, recognized the right to protest and indicated the need to investigate why the 650 million euro development plan for Rif was not implemented.

Indeed, the economic situation in the Rif region is the reason why so many segments of society jumped on the bandwagon of protest, which is a recurring phenomenon in this part of Morocco. The most important form of economic activity is the…cultivation of cannabis and smuggling of Latin American narcotics from West Africa. Even though this is fairly lucrative trade, little of it trickles down to ordinary citizens, with government officials being accused of skimming off the profits. The poverty also prompted many of the region’s young men to join various terrorist factions in Iraq and Syria, and with the fighting in these two countries slowly coming to a close, these men now pose a threat to the long-term stability of Morocco.

Morocco is fortunate in that, unlike in the other cases of regime change, the wave of protests did not coincide with an effort by the US or other Western powers to overthrow its government. Washington appears pleased with the monarchy and is not calling on Mohammed VI to step down. Morocco’s main strategic rival is Algeria which seeks to wrest away Western Sahara, but is in no position to mount major actions of any kind. The unrest in Morocco did coincide with the Saudi-Qatari confrontation and, considering that various Moroccan factions have ties to either Saudi Arabia or Qatar, the future of this country’s politics will be influenced by the outcome of the Gulf power struggle. Mohammed VI is fairly close to the House of Saud and the UAE which are major investors in Morocco (investments in 2016 France – 22%, UAE – 15,2%, SA – 11,2 %, USA – 9,6%, Qatar – 7,8%).  According to some experts, in this situation, protests could be initiated by Qatar through several religious movements which are under its control.

One of the weakest aspects of royal power is the religious sector. The king has complicated relations with Islamic movements within the country. After the terrorist attack in Casablanca in 2003, Mohammed VI began actively strengthen personal power in religious institutions trying to achieve firm control over the religious sector. During his reign, new Islamic governance bodies were established, and many Islamic research centers were opened. Currently Mohamed 6, being a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohamed, is viewed as the highest religious authority in the country and the commander of the faithful (amir al-muminin). He positions himself as a defender of traditional moderate ‘maliki’ Islam. The Mohammed VI Institute for the Training of Imams, Morchidine and Morchidate, which was established in 2015, annually trains hundreds of imams from Nigeria, Chad, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, Tunisia and France. Morocco, along with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, is one of the world leaders in the field of Islamic education. This allows the country to influence foreign states. However, the king was not able to substitute fully for his control of the religious sector.

Mohammed standing behind a lectern

King of Morocco Mohammed VI speak at the UN Climate Change Conference in Marrakech. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

According to some experts, a significant part of Muslims within the country are affected by the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar. Qatar’s possible link to Morocco’s politics is the Party of Justice and Development (PJD) which has been pressing the king to relinquish part of its powers by allowing a new constitution. The PJD leader Abdelilah Benkiran for several years (November 2011- april 2017) was the prime minister of Morocco. The current prime minister Saadeddine Othmani is the incumbent PJD Secretary-General. It is known that PJD has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Though PJD didn’t take part in the protests and there is no direct evidence Qatar was involved in stoking the protests, Qatar’s involvement cannot be ruled out. The Moroccan protests would have been advantageous to Qatar as a means of demonstrating the country’s ability to destabilize Morocco and therefore compel the Mohammed VI to stray from his Saudi-friendly position and, indeed, Morocco has not joined the Saudi economic and political blockade of Qatar.

For the moment, Morocco’s political future is not facing any clear threats. The country’s economy is performing reasonably well and the king is popular and has the backing of the army and security forces. The wild card, as usual, is the United States which has been known of turning on its own allies without a moment’s notice in order to achieve its economic objectives. It is possible that Morocco owns a golden share in the current conflict in the Gulf, this may affect the future of Morocco which may yet find itself the battleground for the struggles between the world giants. The Rif protests may have been simply the first volley of that war.

Voiceover by Oleg Maslov

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Is Morocco Being Groomed for Another Arab Spring?

Now that finally the U.S. government has officially terminated its arming and training of the jihadist gangs that are fighting to overthrow and replace Syria’s government, the neoconservative mainstream U.S. ‘news’ media are disagreeing with each other over how to communicate this fact to the American people without contradicting, or otherwise violating, the false ‘history’ they’ve all been presenting and preserving, throughout the past five years, which has described the U.S. government as being opposed to the jihadists in Syria, instead of as the U.S. government’s arming and training jihadists to overthrow and replace Syria’s government.

That’s a pretty blatant ‘historical’ lie, which they’ve all been maintaining, now, for five years; and, they’re at loggerheads over whether or how they’ll deal with it, now that the program (whose very existence they’ve helped the government to hide from the public) has been so publicly and suddenly ordered to end.

On July 19th, a neoconservative Democratic Party newspaper, the Washington Post, headlined one of their many anti-Trump news-articles, “Trump ends covert CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria, a move sought by Moscow.” Their angle on this (actually momentous and constructive) action by Trump to abandon ‘the rebels’ (almost all of whom are, in fact, jihadists), was that this Republican President had done that in order to please Russia’s President Vladimir Putin (who defends Syria’s government, which secular government is knee-jerk-vilified in this and all American newspapers), and the WP article quoted neoconservatives who criticized the move by Trump to end the program.

The August 7th issue of a neoconservative Republican Party magazine, The Weekly Standard, headlines “Trump Got This One Right: Shutting down the CIA’s ghost war in Syria,” and doesn’t attack the previous, Democratic, President, for having initiated and run that “ghost war,” and doesn’t make clear what it was, or why it was being waged, but does say hostile things against the leaders both of Russia and of Syria, such as that “Putin … has the blood of many Syrian civilians on his hands,” and allegations also against the Syrian government, such as:

Russian and Syrian jets have indiscriminately and repeatedly bombed civilian targets. The Assad regime has used chemical weapons, which Trump himself objected to, bombing a Syrian airfield in response. The United States cannot endorse these war crimes by allying itself with the perpetrators of mass murder in Syria.

Besides the fact that at least some of those assertions are demonstrably false, the United States government has actually (and often) done such things as that propaganda-article alleges Russia and Syria to have done, but nothing is said in this far-right magazine about that; readers of The Weekly Standard don’t get to see even a mention of this reality. The publication fools its readers, instead of informs them.

What’s even more important to take note of here, however, is that the article does not so much as even just mention the key fact: that Russia’s forces were invited into Syria by Syria’s secular government, in order to defend it against the jihadist gangs America was assisting, and that America’s forces weren’t invited by Syria’s government, but are instead invaders there, trying to overthrow that government, and are not only trying to help to defeat the ISIS jihadists who have also invaded Syria in order to overthrow Syria’s secular government.

The crucial fact, that the Obama Administration was insistent that Russia in Syria not bomb Al Qaeda forces in Syria and that that insistence upon protecting Al Qaeda there was the key reason why Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts to reach an agreement with Russia about Syria had failed (they were actually sabotaged by his own boss, President Obama), is ignored by The Weekly Standard. (Also ignored by this far-right magazine is that the U.S. government has the blood of at least as many “Syrian civilians on its hands” there, as does the Russian government or any other participant in the war. That magazine’s playing to this false ‘us’-against-‘them’ prejudice, insults the intelligence of its readers, but is done in order to divert their duped reader’s attention away from the reader’s real enemies, which include the owners of that magazine, who want to manipulate, instead of to inform, their readership, for the benefit of Republican aristocrats. Those aristocrats need these dupes to remain duped.)  

This shows that even when Republican ‘news’ media defend a Republican President who is reversing an imperialistic policy of his Democratic predecessor, it’s done in such a way, so it’s designed to keep the American public still deceived about the actual ugly history, which indicts both of America’s political Parties — indicts the U.S. government itself, at its highest levels, where both Parties are united together, in order to conquer the entire planet (including Syria, including Russia), for the benefit of America’s aristocrats.

Instead of reporting this crucial truth, The Weekly Standard says:

Russia intervened in Syria in September 2015, and the timing was not accidental. Just months earlier, in March, the “Army of Conquest” took over the northwestern province of Idlib. This rebel coalition was no band of moderates. It was led by Nusra and included its closest Islamist and jihadist partners. The Army of Conquest was on the march, threatening the Assad family’s stronghold of Latakia on the coast.

The message the magazine is trying to convey to its conservative American readership, is that Russia there was defending “the Assad family,” and not defending Syria’s sovereignty over Syria’s own territory — not defending the independence of the Syrian government, from the demands of the U.S. aristocracy (which are mainly concerned with building oil and gas pipelines through Syria in order to replace Russia as the main energy-supplier to the world’s biggest energy-market, the EU, by the U.S. and its royal Arab allies as the main energy-suppliers there).

This is an imperialistic war, and the only way for the U.S. aristocracy to win it, is militarily (and/or via coups such as it did in Ukraine) to break apart Russia’s foreign alliances, in order to grab control of Russia’s assets (including that oil and gas) — but the U.S. oligarchs are also going after China’s assets, and Iran’s assets, and the assets of any well-armed government that’s not yet a vassal-nation to the U.S. aristocracy (vassals such as Europe, Japan, and all other U.S. allies).

America (with the assistance of the Sauds, and of the U.S. aristocracy’s other fundamentalist-Sunni business-partners in the Middle East) uses jihadists to serve as those “boots on the ground,” against secular governments such as Syria and Russia, because that’s a lot cheaper to do than to re-institute the U.S. military draft and to send tens of thousands of American soldiers out to overthrow, or at least to weaken, the ‘enemy’ government. It’s much cheaper “boots on the ground,” to grab new territory via these proxies, than via U.S. troops.

The supreme international issue in our time is sovereignty — the independence, or freedom, of nations. It’s international democracy, which is really at stake, in all of this. The alternative (which the U.S. government leads) is international fascism. It’s a vast program, not composed merely of invasions (the ‘Defense’ Department) and of coups (the State Department, etc.).

Now that (after 24 February 1990) the United States has been committed to world-conquest, there is, regarding international news-reporting in the United States, nothing that is fundamentally true that’s reported in the U.S. ‘news’ media, regarding international relations — it’s all based upon a shared lie by both wings of the U.S. aristocracy, Republican and Democratic, saying that the U.S. government supports freedom and democracy around the world, and that the nations which the U.S. government is trying to conquer, do not favor international freedom and democracy. The standard American account (that it supports, instead of opposes, democracy around the world) is the exact opposite of the truth.

For example: How much publicity did the U.S. ‘news’ media provide when twice in one day the Secretary General of the United Nations said that the U.S. President’s insistence upon having a veto-power regarding whom would, and whom would not, be allowed to become Syria’s next President, was “totally unfair and unreasonable” and that instead “The future of Assad must be determined by the Syrian people.” No publicity for those statements. None at all. The fact (that the U.S. President refused to accept that “The future of Assad must be determined by the Syrian people”) was shocking. But it wasn’t reported to the American people. Americans never knew about it.

How much publicity did the U.S. ‘news’ media provide when the U.S. government was one of only three governments in the entire world to vote in the U.N. General Assembly against a resolution to condemn racism, fascism, and denial of the Holocaust? None. None at all. The fact was shocking. But it, too, wasn’t reported.

And: How many Americans know that on the night of 24 February 1990, the U.S. President secretly told the Chancellor of West Germany, that all of their statements to Soviet President (soon to become only Russia’s President) Mikhail Gorbachev, saying to him that the U.S. and its alliances would end the Cold War on their side if the Soviet Union and its alliances did on theirs, had been mere lies and that the Cold War would henceforth continue to be waged on the Western side until Russia itself would be conquered?

How can a nation be a ‘democracy’, while its government (and its ‘news’ media) hides the most important parts of history, and pumps instead lies, to its people, regarding international relations? Who is the actual sovereign in the United States — its public, or its aristocracy?

And how many U.S. news-media will carry this article, which is submitted to all of them, to publish free-of-charge? For any of them that has a large audience, to publish it, could precipitate an unprecedented revolution within the U.S. aristocracy itself (a revolution against their lies), because it would, in effect, officially acknowledge that the existing ‘history’ is founded upon lies. But, if this fact is not publicly recognized in the U.S. now, then when will the truth about these matters be allowed to be published here? Or, will it ever? Or will it never.

The Washington Post’s article said that “a current official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity” said: “Putin won in Syria.” The anonymous source didn’t say: “The Syrian people won in Syria.”

Western-sponsored polls in Syria showed that 55% of Syrians wanted Assad to remain as President, and 82% of Syrians blamed America for the presence of jihadists in Syria trying to overthrow Assad.

Are the U.S. ‘news’media hopeless — beyond salvaging? Is democracy in America beyond salvaging? Is 1984 here locked-in? What would that mean for the future of the world?

‘News’media in the countries that are allied with the U.S. are just as trashy. For example, here’s an article from a brilliant blogger ripping to shreds an August 1st article from Britain’s Reuters ‘news’ agency, about the war in Yemen. That Reuters ‘news’-report could just as well have been published by the New York Times or Washington Post.

Maybe ‘news’media now are that rotten all over the world. But any mainstream ‘news’medium in the U.S., or its allied countries, has no realistic basis for criticizing ‘news’media in other nations. Yet they do criticize the press in those nations, constantly. That’s just another lie, from ‘news’media that might as well be pure lies.

The presumption when reading the ‘news’ should therefore be: What are they really trying to sell, and to whom? In a world dominated by lies, the thing that’s actually more important than anything else, is the motives. And nothing should then be believed on the basis of trust. In international relations, everything now is war, and the first victim of war is truth. And that is the reality today.

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

This article was originally published by Strategic Culture Foundation.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Mainstream U.S. ‘News’ Media Pump Their Government’s Lies to Deceive the Public

Modern 9K333 Verba man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADs) have been spotted at positions of the Russian military servicemen in the Eastern Ghouta region near Damascus. The MANPADs were reportedly deployed to protect checkpoints and observation posts established by the Russians from DIY combat drones as well as other threats from the air.

ISIS has reportedly started forceful conscription campaign for males from 20-yo to 30-yo in Deir Ezzor. The goal is to get enough manpower to fight the Syrian Arab Army and its allies in central Syria. The decision is another sign that ISIS faces significant problems in northeastern Palmyra and southern Raqqah and its defense may fall if the terrorist group does not get additional resources.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have reportedly established a joint operations room in order to coordinate efforts against ISIS in Deir Ezzor and Raqqa provinces as well as to improve the security situation in Aleppo province.

According to the Lebanese newspaper, Al-Akhbar, the operations room has already been established and this will be officially announced by the two parties soon. The so-called “Turkish threat” in northern Syria was the main reason behind the decision to boost the coordination between the two parties.

Turkey is allegedly ready to launch a large-scale military operation against Kurdish militias in the Afrin area. These Kurdish militias are a core of the SDF and now they seek to boost cooperation with the “Assad regime”. Another reason is tensions between the SDF and other US-backed groups of the Free Syrian Army.

Pro-government sources claimed that a joint operations room that include the SAA and the Manbij Military Council [Arab SDF faction] is currently being prepared in Al-Aryima area near Manbij. Thus, according various sources at least two operations room have been set up in different parts of northern Syria.

If reports are officially confirmed, it would be an important step in boosting cooperation between the two sides. Since the end of the battle of Aleppo, the SDF has decreased a level of the cooperation with the Syrian government and the SAA and directly followed the US approach aimed at indirectly undermining the government efforts against ISIS. However, these tensions have never reached the level when they cannot be solved via diplomatic means and some level of cooperation has been always existed.

In Raqqah city, the SDF has been clearing the remaining ISIS-held area in the southern part of the city. 26 ISIS members were reportedly killed in Hisham Bin Abdul Malik district. 9 other terrorists were killed and 2 VBIEDs were destroyed in Al-Rawdah district. ISIS claimed that 11 SDF fighters were killed the Al-Atiq Mosque in central Raqqah.

The SDF, supported by the US-led coalition’s airpower, artillery and special operations forces, have a upper hand in the battle for Raqqah. However, the ISIS strong has a strong defense inside the city.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Syria Army and US Supported SDF Boost Cooperation, Set Up Joint Operations Room?