Global Research

In this report, first published in 2000 (on GR in April 2004), Michel Chossudovsky provides conclusive documentary and photographic evidence that contrary to the statements of various international observers, the environmental catastrophe at the Pancevo petrochemical plant near Belgrade was neither the result of ‘collateral damage’ (that is, an accident of war) nor a case of criminal negligence (that is, resulting from criminal disregard of consequences).

Rather, the evidence is compelling. NATO willfully blew up with meticulous accuracy containers of toxic chemicals with the intention of creating an ecological nightmare

First published on GR in April 2004

*   *   *

At the outset of the War, NATO had reassured World opinion that “precise targeting” using sophisticated weaponry was intended to avoid “collateral damage” including environmental hazards:

• “We do everything we possibly can to avoid unnecessary collateral damage. We take it very seriously, work very hard at doing that, spend a lot of time planning for the missions.“1

At the Pancevo petrochemical complex located in the outskirts of Belgrade, however, exactly the opposite occurred. “State of the art” aerial surveillance and satellite thermal image detection were not only used to disable Yugoslavia’s petrochemical industry; they were willfully applied to trigger an environmental disaster.

The air raids on the Pancevo complex started on April 4th 1999 and continued relentlessly until the 7th of June. The Pancevo complex also included an oil refinery facility (built with technical support from Texaco) and a Nitrogen Processing Plant producing fertilizer for Yugoslav agriculture. The petrochemical plant was bombed extensively (41 bombs and 7 missile attacks). The bombed areas were within less than two hundred meters from residential buildings.

At the beginning of the war, workers at the plant were actively involved in removing toxic materials from the site, emptying several large tanks and containers of chemicals precisely to avert the risks of “collateral damage“. Little did they realize that NATO was watching them through air-to-ground surveillance systems and satellite images. Using thermal detection, NATO military planners knew which of the containers had been emptied and which remained full.

How does this work?

All objects in the Pancevo plant –including the containers of toxic chemicals– emit infrared radiation. A thermal imager from a spy satellite or an aircraft can detect infrared radiation emitted from any object situated on the petrochemical plant and convert its readings into a high-resolution video or snap picture.

The thermal imager can detect temperature differentials as small as 0.1 degrees centigrade which enables NATO planners to easily “categorize” and distingush between full and empty containers. NATO warplanes were equipped with various advanced imaging systems including infrared/electro-optical sensors. Thermal satellite images were relayed to the Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC) in Vicenza, Italy where the bombing raids had been carefully scheduled. Other advanced surveillance systems were used including small unmanned predator (UAV) drones and high altitude U2 spy planes. In the words of a Pentagon spokesman, the U2 “snaps a picture from very high altitude, beams it back in what we call a reach-back, to the States where it is very quickly analyzed”. And from there, “the right targeting data” is relayed to the CAOC in Vincenza which then “passes [it] on to people in the cockpit”.2

NATO planners also had detailed information on the layout of the plant, which had been designed and built on contract with a US multinational engineering company Foster Wheeler (a firm specializing in the construction of petrochemical and polymer plants). NATO knew exactly where things were. In a cruel irony, US investment in Yugoslavia (financed with loans from the World Bank) was being bombed by Uncle Sam. Did the pilots sitting in the cockpit know that they were destroying a plant which was “Made in America“?

A large number of the containers had been emptied. By using thermal images, NATO was able to identify which of the tanks were still filled to the brim with toxic chemicals. Among these noxious liquids were containers of ethylene-dichloride (EDC), ethylene, chlorine, chlorine-hydrogen, propylene and vinyl chloride monomers (VCM). Well documented by environmentalists, the VCM monomer used to produce plastics (eg. PVC resin) is a dangerous cancerogenic contaminant (see photo 2). Vinyl chloride also has the potential to cause neurological and liver damage, as well as damage to the fetus causing serious birth defects.

If NATO’s intent were solely to disable the plant without risking “collateral” environmental damage, they could have done it by smart bombing the equipment and machinery. Why did they also decide to hit with utmost accuracy the tanks containing noxious liquids?

The “smart bombs” were not dumb; they went where they were told to go. NATO had scrupulously singled out the containers, tanks and reservoirs, which still contained toxic materials. According to the petrochemical plant director, NATO did not hit a single empty container: “This was not accidental; they chose to hit those that were full and these chemicals spilled into the canal leading to the Danube“. Moreover, according to the plant director, the ethylene-dichloride (EDC) spillovers had contaminated 10 hectares of land on and in the vicinity of the plant. 3

When the smart bombs hit their lethal targets at Pancevo (see photos below), noxious fluids and fumes were released into the atmosphere, water and soil. The containers were deliberately blown up or perforated. The soil at the petrochemical complex is still soaked with toxic ethylene-dichloride. According to a report of the Regional Environment Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC):

• “More than one thousand tons of ethylene dichloride spilled from the Pancevo petrochemical complex into the Danube [through the canal which links the plant to the river]. Over a thousand tons of natrium hydroxide were spilled from the Pancevo petrochemical complex. Nearly 1,000 tons of hydrogen chloride spilled from Pancevo into the Danube River”4

Eight tons of mercury also escaped from the petrochemical complex spilling into the soil. The wastewater treatment plant was also bombed thereby contributing to exacerbating the ecological impacts. 5

NATO military strategists knew precisely what they were doing and what would be the likely consequences. At the neighboring oil refinery, two NATO missiles had hit on April 4th the refinery’s control rooms killing three staff members. The strikes had set the plant on fire, reducing it to a toxic wreck. The objective was not to avoid an environmental disaster. The objective was to create an environmental disaster (see photos). NATO was expecting that by ruthlessly bombing Pancevo among other civilian sites, this would intimidate Belgrade into accepting the Rambouillet Agreement including its infamous Military Appendix which essentially gave NATO the right to occupy all parts of Yugoslavia.

In the wake of the bombings, the Greens from Germany and experts from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) as well as other groups visited the Pancevo plant. The UNEP report dismisses the environmental impacts caused by the bombings while underscoring in its main conclusions that Pancevo and other petrochemical plants in the country were an ecological hazard prior to the bombings due to lax environmental standards.6 The UNEP report is a carefully worded cover-up. It whitewashes NATO; it downplays the seriousness of the environmental catastrophe, while placing the blame (without supporting evidence) on the Yugoslav authorities. Tacitly upholding the legitimacy of the Western military alliance, UNEP’s findings are in overt contradiction with those of other scientific studies including that of the Regional Environment Center for Central And Eastern Europe (REC) prepared for the European Commission (see footnote 4).

The complicity of UNEP –a specialized agency of the UN with a track record of integrity– is yet another symptom of the deterioration of the United Nations system which now plays an underhand in covering up NATO war crimes.

A ‘smart bomb’ hit this container with perfect accuracy. (Pancevo petrochemical complex ( ©Michel Chossudovsky, March 2000 )

The container on the right was targeted by NATO because it was full of highly cancerogenic VCM ( © Michel Chossudovsky, March 2000 )

Notes

1. Statement of General Charles Wald of the Pentagon, Department of Defense Press Briefing, Washington, 12 April 1999.

2. Department of Defense Press Briefing, Washington, May 14th, 1999.

3. Interview conducted by the author in Pancevo, March 2000.

4. See the report of the REC entitled Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Military Activities During the Yugoslavia Conflict at http://www.rec.org/REC/Announcements/yugo/background.html )

5. Interview conducted by the author in Pancevo, March 2000.

6. The UNEP report entitled The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment & Human Settlements prepared for the European Commission can be consulted at

www.grid.unep.ch/btf/final/index.htmlhttp://www.grid.unep.ch/btf/final/index.html

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

Decades of US hostility toward Pyongyang could be resolved by America saying let’s talk, followed by officials of both countries meeting face-to-face for good faith discussions – something neocons infesting Washington reject.

Instead, the Trump administration intends instituting tougher anti-DPRK measures than already – stiffer sanctions and whatever else it has in mind.

Trump officials signaled policies coming to try strangling Pyongyang economically and financially, including more sanctions on China for failure to observe Washington rules.

The tougher US policies get, the more determined the DPRK becomes to strengthen its nuclear and ballistic missile deterrents, its best defense against possible US aggression.

Trump officials lied, claiming greater than ever stakes following Pyongyang’s July 4 ballistic test – an intermediate-range one, Russia explained, not an ICBM as Western sources and media reported.

Alaska and Hawaii aren’t close to being in range of North Korean ballistic missiles. Most important, its government has no aggressive intentions. It solely wants a deterrence capability if attacked – what’s important for all nations.

North Korea has no known assets in the West to freeze. China is another story. In late June, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin announced US sanctions on China’s Bank of Dandong for alleged dealings with North Korea.

Without corroborating evidence, he claims it’s a

“gateway for (the DPRK) to access the US and international financial systems, facilitating millions of dollars of transactions for companies involved in North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.”

Sanctions were also imposed on two Chinese individuals and a Chinese company. New ones may target Beijing’s Dandong Zhicheng Metallic Material Co.

Again with no corroborating evidence, Trump officials claim it’s one of the largest importers of North Korean goods. Other Chinese banks may be targeted for alleged dealings with Pyongyang.

According to Mnunchin,

“(w)e will continue to look at these actions and continue to roll out sanctions.”

Last week, during a Security Council session on North Korea, neocon US UN envoy Nikki Haley threatened “the full range of our capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies.”

Sanctions may not be enough, she added, suggesting possible military force – risking unthinkable nuclear war on the Korean peninsula if launched.

US imperial madness threatens everyone everywhere.

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.

US officials familiar with the situation say that the Trump Administration is likely to announce a dramatic “ramping up” of US involvement in Libya, appointing a new US ambassador, and setting up a permanent US military presence in the nation.

While the military operation appears primarily aimed at supporting the “unity government” in Tripoli, officials suggest it might also see some US troops deployed to war-torn Benghazi, currently under the control of a rival faction, with an eye toward eventually uniting the country under unity government rule.

President Obama decided to back the unity government during the Sirte offensive, sending US troops to fight ISIS there with the expectation that the unity government’s victory would give them a massive advantage over the rival governments. This has not proven the case, however, with East Libya mostly dominated by the Tobruk parliament and the LNA, and the unity government struggling with the Tripoli parliament over the capital.

The US officials say that the administration is happy with their increased involvement in Somalia, and is looking to replicate that sudden escalation in Libya, trying to carve out a permanent US presence in the country, and ensure that whoever ends up in power becomes a US client.

Jason Ditz is news editor of Antiwar.com. View all posts by Jason Ditz

Featured image from Antiwar.com

Featured image: President Donald Trump and King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia sign a Joint Strategic Vision Statement for the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, during ceremonies, Saturday, May 20, 2017, at the Royal Court Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (Official White House Photo Shealah Craighead)

On the morning of Monday July 10th, broke online from three reporters at The Intercept — Ryan Grim, Ben Walsh, and Clayton Swisher — the headline, “Jared Kushner Tried and Failed to Get a Half-Billion Dollar Bailout from Qatar”, recounting events which could also have been titled (perhaps more interestingly) “Evidence Trump Sparked Saud Boycott of Qatar to Salvage His Fortune and that of Daughter Ivanka”. Here are key portions of that narrative, which will be introduced and accompanied by other details of this case, which add even more to the picture of the U.S. President’s using his political position so as to protect, and add to, the wealth of Donald Trump and, even more, of Ivanka Trump.

Jared Kushner (Source: 6sqft)

Ivanka’s husband, Jared Kushner, had used his father Charles Kushner’s fortune to buy, in 2007, at the highest price ever paid for any building in NYC, 666 5th Avenue at 53rd Street; and, now, this investment could turn out to have been so bad as to bankrupt his father’s, and his and his wife’s company, Kushner Properties: 

On 13 March 2017, Bloomberg News reporters David Kocieniewski and Caleb Melby had bannered “Kushners May Get $400 Million From Chinese on Tower” and reported that a:

“planned $4-billion transaction includes terms that some real estate experts consider unusually favorable for the Kushners. It would provide them with both a sizable cash payout from [China’s] Anbang Insurance Group for a property that has struggled financially and an equity stake in a new partnership” that “would make business partners of Kushner Cos. and Anbang, whose murky links to the Chinese power structure have raised national security concerns over its U.S. investments. In the process, an existing mortgage owed by the Kushners will be slashed to about a fifth of its current amount,”

thus enabling Kushner Properties to avoid being bankrupted by Jared’s 2007 purchase-decision. (Two days later, on March 15th, news became public that Anbang declined the deal.)

Just weeks prior to that news-report, Dow Jones had headlined on 16 February 2017, “One of Government’s Largest Landlords Pays Millions Each Year to Trump Company” and Alexandra Berzon and Peter Grant reported that: 

President Donald Trump‘s company receives tens of millions of dollars a year from Vornado Realty Trust, which relies on the federal government for a significant portion of its revenue and is vying for new work from Mr. Trump’s administration. … Two of the most valuable real-estate assets in Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, are 30% stakes in a pair of office buildings controlled by Vornado. … Vornado decides how much Mr. Trump’s company — the properties’ only other owner — receives from the partnership each year. … It is up to Vornado to decide how much of their incomes are held for capital upgrades and other long-term expenses and how much of the income is profit. Of that bottom-line figure, Vornado has to distribute 30% annually to Mr. Trump’s company. … 

Vornado bought a 49.5% stake in the mixed-use tower at 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan from Kushner Cos., where Mr. Kushner at the time was chief executive. The next year, Vornado purchased retail space in the building for $710 million. … The company [Vornado], a major owner of buildings in Washington and other U.S. cities, counts the U.S. government as its largest tenant. … Government vacancies, he [the head of Vornado] said on an investor conference call that year, are “the eye of the storm for our company.”

So, 666 5th Avenue is no longer owned fully by Kushner Properties, but also by Donald Trump’s major business partner, Vornado (which is heavily dependent upon decisions by U.S. President Trump), and both could be bankrupted if some other investors cannot be quickly found to take on the burden of Jared’s 2007 decision to purchase that building. (After Anbang said no, the Kushners were really desperate.)

This brings us to The Intercept’s July 10th report, that U.S. President Trump might have requested the Sauds to blockade Qatar so as to punish the family who own and control Qatar, the Thanis. It says:

Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Throughout 2015 and 2016, Jared Kushner and his father, Charles, negotiated directly with a major investor in Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, known as HBJ for short, in an effort to refinance the property on Fifth Avenue, the sources said.

Trump himself has unsuccessfully sought financing in recent years from the Qataris, but it is difficult to overstate just how important to Kushner the investment at 666 Fifth Avenue is for him, his company, and his family’s legacy in real estate. Without some outside intervention or unforeseen turnaround in the market, the investment could become an embarrassing half-billion dollar loss. It’s unclear precisely how much peril such a loss would put Jared, or his family’s, finances in, given the opacity of their private holdings.

HBJ, a former prime minister of Qatar who ran the country’s $250 billion sovereign wealth fund, is a billionaire and one of the world’s richest men. He owns a yacht worth $300 million called Al Mirqab, the same name he gave to the private investment firm that Kushner pitched. The former emir of Qatar summed up HBJ’s power with a quip: “I may run this country, but he owns it.” …

Meanwhile, the water is rising on the Fifth Avenue investment. And the blockade continues.

Had the Qataris known where things were heading diplomatically, said the source in the region, they’d have happily ponied up the money, even knowing that it was a losing investment. “It would have been much cheaper,” he said.

The Intercept’s reporting-team present strong circumstantial evidence that, as they put it,

“THE CRISIS DATES TO MAY, when President Trump visited Saudi Arabia and met with regional leaders there, laying his hands on the now-famous orb.”

That “orb” is pictured here, atop my earlier article documenting that the Sauds’ power-competition against the Thanis to lead the global fundamentalist-Sunni movement, had long preceded the Sauds’ boycott of Qatar, and that the Sauds quite likely requested from Trump during his visit there on May 20th, whether he would back them on a boycott of the Thanis’ Qatar, and that Trump (whether for personal business reasons or otherwise) was eager to say yes to that proposal from them.

But, in either case (as I document there with links), Trump’s pro-Saud position is supporting what the U.S. federal government has long been stating, in confidential communications, is, in fact, the world’s biggest financial backer of Al Qaeda and other fundamentalist Sunni jihadist organizations. The royal Sauds are even bigger in that than the royal Thanis are. If Trump does this (supports jihadism) out of incompetency, or if he does it out of greed, makes no difference to his being able to be impeached and removed from office and replaced by Mike Pence. 

Also, it should here be pointed out — which neither The Intercept’s report, nor the Huffington Post’s report that it linked to (including in the excerpt that’s quoted here from the TI article) as backup for it, noted, but should have noted — that Clayton Swisher, who wrote all of the HuffPo’s article and co-authored TI’s article, is an employee of the Thanis: as TI puts it,

“Clayton Swisher is the Doha-based director of investigative journalism with Al Jazeera Media Network.”

HuffPo failed to publish that essential information, but said only the far less relevant:

“Clayton Swisher is an investigative journalist and author of two books on the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

What readers need to know, is that to be an employee of Al Jazeera is to be an employee of the Thani family. Swisher writes as one of their agents. He also is the only one of the three co-authors of the TI article who lives and works in Qatar (Doha); so, he was probably the lead investigator among the three. The other two (Grim and Walsh) are U.S.-based and had previously worked for the Huffington Post, which has always been a Democratic Party organ (and the Democratic Party want President Trump to be impeached and Mike Pence to become President).

Whereas the ‘Russiagate’ argument against Trump is built upon so much misrepresentation as to be basically the Democratic Party’s turning of the Republican Joseph R. McCarthy now 60 years later, into a ghost against his own Republican Party and turning today’s Democrats into McCarthy’s mere imitators long after communism has gone, there is real and solid substance to the argument against Trump regarding his backing of the royal Sauds.

The evidence against Trump on Saudi-Qatar-gate is clearly damning against Trump in either case, and the only real questions are the initiating motive behind, and the precise sequence of events immediately preceding, the 5-6 June 2017 boycott-blockade of Qatar. Trump is now clearly impeachable if the Republican Party decides that Pence would serve their purposes more effectively than Trump does.

At this stage, it’s only a political judgment-call by Republicans. They won the 2016 elections, and they will decide what to do with their prize — whether, going forward into the 2018 mid-term elections, theirs will be the Trump brand, or become switched to the Pence brand. Corruption isn’t, by any means, the only issue; there also are real policy-differences at stake, even within just the Republican Party. Pence built his base amongst fundamentalist Christians. And the judgment-call here will be made by Republicans, not by Democrats.

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.

On Friday, July 7, Jordan, Russia and the U.S. agreed upon the de-escalation zones in Deraa, Quneitra and Suweida provinces in southwest Syria. The truce came into effect on July 9, noon Damascus time. According to the sources of Inside Syria Media Center, no violations of the ceasefire have been registered.

The UN welcomed the agreement.

“This is a significant step towards reducing violence and increasing humanitarian access across Syria. It is in line with the pursuit of the goal of a comprehensive, nationwide ceasefire that has been endorsed by multiple Security Council resolutions,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said.

The ceasefire was also praised by the armed opposition. However, according to Chief of Staff of the so-called ‘Free Syrian Army’ Ahmed Berri, opposition forces seek a comprehensive truce not just in several areas but also across the whole country.

Such a stance shows the opposition experiences quite a number of issues. And it’s not surprising that with pressure exerted by the Syrian army (SAA), it is being affected by internal problems. Thus, on July 2, it was reported that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group arrested more than 100 people in Idlib for participating in Euphrates Shield on the side of the Turkish army. On July 6, clashes between the fighters of the group and Jaish al-Islam took place in Eastern Ghouta. These are not the only recent conflicts between the terrorists.

Obviously, as the SAA advances, there will be more and more such accidents. That is why Ahmed Berri wants a comprehensive ceasefire, to have a chance to preserve what’s left of unity.

A truce across the whole of Syria shall be a long-waited resolution for all Syrians as the war affects everyone.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to say how the opposition will act because it can use the truce for regrouping and provocations like in September, 2016.

In any case, the fragile ceasefire in southwest Syria bears a hope of the return of peace and may become a groundwork for the crisis’ diplomatic solution.

Featured image from MintPress News

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies conducted a surprise operation against US-backed militants in the desert east of Damascus. Government forces liberated Dier Nasrani, Rajm Bakar, Jabal Makhoul, Bi’r Makhoul, Jabal Seis, Tal Sad Risha, Al-Qasr, Khirbat umm Atayiq, Banat Baeir, Surat Aliyah, Tulul al-Faddayn, Tal al-Asfar, and nearby points.

The aim of the operation was to clear the militant-held pocket northeast of Suweida and to oppress the units of US-backed militant groups operating in the area since they pose a threat to the countryside of the Syrian capital.  According to some sources, US-backed forces have already withdrawn from the area.  However, this still has to be confirmed.

US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) recaptured the village of Ukayrishah from ISIS in the southeastern Raqqah countryside. The SDF is slowly moving along the Euphrates River capturing villages located near the road to Deir Ezzor. The goal of these efforts, being taken during the battle for Raqqah, is to set conditions for an expected operation against ISIS in the Deir Ezzor countryside.

If the SDF reaches and captures the town of Maadan, the US-backed force will have a useful position for an attempt to seize oil fields located in the northern countryside of the government-held part of Deir Ezzor City besieged by ISIS. This could also be used for a push towards the ISIS-held town of al Maydan. Capturing it would enable the SDF to cut off the Deir Ezzor-Baghdad highway and to secure a position for an advance on another ISIS-held town, al-Bukamal.

Meanwhile, SDF units continued their attempts at retaking the Old Raqqah area in the ISIS-held city of Raqqah. Following a heavy bombardment campaign by US-led airpower and artillery, the SDF captured some of Old Raqqah but faced fierce resistance from ISIS.  Intense fighting is on-going in the area.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi has officially declared the liberation of the city of Mosul from ISIS terrorists. The declaration of the liberation of Mosul followed the victory of Iraqi security forces over ISIS in the Old Mosul area. However, the security situation in the city remains complicated. Iraqi forces are working to remove IEDs and mines set up by ISIS as well as searching for the terrorist group’s sleeper cells.

Voiceover by Harold Hoover

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

Featured image: Russian and Chinese Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping at the Kremlin, Russia on 4 July 2017 [Source: PPIO]

Russian President Vladimir Putin held talks with visiting Chinese President Xi Jinping in the Kremlin on Tuesday during which the two leaders held wide-ranging talks on a host of issues including bilateral ties and international hotspots like Syria and North Korea.

“We invariably have economic matters at the top of our agenda, but they are not the only issues we address. We also coordinate our efforts on the international stage, in the area of security and in the fight against modern threats and challenges,” Putin said.

Putin also announced Russian plans to create a joint investment forum with the Bank of China at a joint press conference following talks with the Chinese President.

The Russian Direct Investment Fund and the China Development Bank (CDB) also agreed to establish a Russian-Chinese investment fund worth 68 billion yuan ($10 billion).

The new fund, to be called the Russia-China RMB Cooperation Fund, “will give a powerful impetus to increase the volume of cross-border direct investment and significantly increase the number of jointly implemented projects” according to Russian Direct Investment Fund chief Kirill Dmitriev.

“We have expressed our support for the agreement between the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and the China Development Bank towards the creation of a joint investments fund worth 65 billion yuan [$9.56 billion]. We agreed to continue consultations on a more wide use of national currencies in mutual payments and investments. I am sure that the opening of the first foreign office of the Central Bank of Russia in China will contribute to that,” Putin said.

Moscow and Beijing also reiterated their opposition to the US deployment of the THAAD anti-missile system to South Korea.

“Russia and China will work in close coordination to advance a solution to the complex problem of the Korean Peninsula in every possible way,” a joint statement from the two foreign ministries said after the Putin-Xi talks.

The statement called on Pyongyang, Seoul and Washington, South Korea and the United States to back a Chinese de-escalation plan for the Korean peninsula.

The statement also alleged that Washington was using North Korea as an excuse to expand its military infrastructure in Asia.

On Syria, the two countries stuck to their stated positions while denouncing “regime change via illegal external intervention”.

China and Russia are also calling for an independent investigation into the Syrian chemical weapons issue, according to the joint statement.

The US is backing rebel fighters against the Syrian government in the protracted civil war.

At the Kremlin on Tuesday, Xi referred to the close ties between the two heads of state saying “the two of us have met 22 times over these years” since 2013.

“Russia is the country that I visited the most, and among foreign leaders I maintain the closest contacts and ties with you. This is indicative of the high level and special nature of the relations between our two countries,” Xi told Putin during talks on Tuesday.

A joint statement set emphasis on further expansion of the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation and on the current global situation.

On Tuesday, China and Russia also pledged to jointly push for implementation of the Paris agreement on climate change.

Earlier last month, US President Donald Trump announced that Washington would withdraw from the pact and seek to negotiate a better deal, in a move that attracted widespread criticism from counterparts in Europe and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, Russia and China also discussed bilateral trade ties including Russian agriculture exports to China.

“The decision was made to increase supplies of Russian wheat. Negotiations around a document authorising other grain crops to enter the Chinese market is at the final stage. The issue of canceling China’s import restrictions for Russian meat and poultry products was also discussed,” Putin said.

Russian Rosneft energy company and China’s CEFC also signed a strategic cooperation agreement.

According to the head of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation (Rosatom), Alexey Likhachev, Putin and Xi instructed their governments to sign a package of documents on building four nuclear power projects in China before the end of 2017.

Featured image: Artist’s impression of type 055 destroyer. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Peoples’ Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) launched the first Type 055 Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG) on June 28th, 2017. The vessel represents a major technological step forward for China’s navy. The Type 055 meets and likely exceeds the capabilities of the U.S. Arleigh Burke Class DDG, the Japanese Atago Class DDG, and just about any other DDG in service in the world today.

Word first surfaced of China’s intention to field a large surface warfare ship in late 2013, and photos of a full size test mock-up of the vessel first appeared in March of 2014. The test mock-up located at the Wuhan University of Science and Technology gave hints to the general size and displacement of the new vessel, and possible general arrangement. Additional satellite imagery appeared online in late November of last year that seemed to show one vessel in advanced stages of hull construction, as well as the early stages of construction of a second vessel, at the Jiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai.

The Type 055 DDG was designed and constructed in roughly a three and a half year period, quite an accomplishment in many respects. The Type 055 DDG program highlights the rapid pace at which China has been able to envision, design and construct complex warships.

Built to supplement the smaller, yet very formidable Type 052 Class DDG, which is already fielded in significant numbers in both the South and East Sea Fleets, the new vessel will provide the PLAN with a larger, more capable surface combatant than ever before seen in the ranks of the PLAN. Envisioned as a fleet or task force command ship, a powerful ASW/AAW platform for aircraft carrier strike group escort duty, or as a powerful stand-alone naval power presence asset, the Type 055 will add one more powerful tool to the PLAN’s toolkit.

Although the PLAN has publicly disclosed that the vessel has a loaded displacement of 10,000 tons, she is probably closer to 12,000 tons fully loaded. Weapons systems include two 64 cell VLS quad-packed with a mixture of anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM), land attack cruise missiles (LACM), anti-aircraft missiles (SAM), and anti-ship missiles (ASM). A dual-purpose 130mm deck gun is also fitted, as well as anti-submarine rockets and torpedoes, and close-in defense weapons comprising of FL3000N and 30mm CWIS. Most analysts agree that the Type 055 is most likely fitted with an updated Type 346A active phased array radar (APAR) as well an X-band radar. The integrated mast atop the forward superstructure most likely carries radar panels used in friend-or-foe identification (FFI), fire control and electronic countermeasures. While the Wuhan test bed mock-up had an exposed electronic support measures (ESM) mast, the finished vessel has a much more low-profile, radar masked mast.

This Type 055 DDG will most likely be the first of at least six vessels in class. Although there is a second vessel currently under construction at the Jiangnan Shipyard, the vessel now launched must undergo lengthy sea trials and will not be commissioned until early 2018.

These sea trials should reveal any design flaws or shortcomings that need to be rectified in follow-on vessels. If the PLAN intends to equip future aircraft carrier strike groups (CSG) with one Type 055 each, six vessels will be required at a minimum, with one vessel active while another is ashore for repairs/refit or training. The second PLAN aircraft carrier, and the first 100% indigenously built, the CV-17 Shandong, should be commissioned at the beginning of 2018, with a third and totally new design to follow. The third aircraft carrier will most likely be of an entirely new design, of larger dimensions and displacement, and will be a catapult assisted take off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) design. If the Type 055 DDGs serve a similar function in the CSG as the U.S. Ticonderoga Class CGs, six vessels will be required to support three PLAN CSGs (1 active, 1 ashore). With the first PLAN aircraft carrier, the CV-16 Liaoning, serving as a training platform for the foreseeable future, the most likely date of the PLAN fielding three combat capable CSGs is 2025 at the earliest, unless a major global conflict occurring before that time necessitates an expedited aircraft carrier construction program.

SouthFront has been closely monitoring the development of the Type 055 DDG for at least the past year and a half. An early review of the vessel appeared in a detailed analysis of the Type 052D destroyer, followed by an analysis of next-generation destroyers being designed by both China and Russia, as well as an in depth update on the progress of the vessel’s construction at the beginning of this year. It is significant to note that although Russia is a few years away from building the Lider (Leader) Class destroyer (Project 23560), the Russian Defense Ministry has purportedly adopted the draft design of the vessel proposed by the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC). This announcement was made on the very same day that the first Type 055 was launched in Shanghai.

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

Jess Rowlands, a US expert exposed in the “Monsanto Papers” in a possible collusion with Monsanto, intervened in EFSA’s glyphosate assessment, providing information which comforted EFSA in its decision to discard the conclusions of a key study showing cancer in mice exposed to glyphosate. Following the revelation, EFSA told the press and civil society that it had double-checked Rowlands’ information. But when requested by CEO to prove it had actually performed these double-checks, EFSA had nothing to show.

The 2001 Kumar study was the only one that EFSA acknowledged showed “a statistically significant increased incidence of malignant lymphoma” in mice exposed to glyphosate. Rowlands argued that these mice had suffered from a viral infection, and EFSA used this argument, among others, to explain why it had refused to take the study’s findings into account, enabling it to say that glyphosate was “unlikely” to cause cancer in humans.

In its response to questions by the press and NGOs, EFSA confirmed Mr. Rowlands’ intervention but also explained that

“The information Mr. Rowland provided at the expert consultation in September 2015 merely served to provide additional explanations for the inconsistent results of Kumar (2001) study, which were checked and confirmed after the teleconference by EFSA experts“.

To check the reality of these additional verifications, we introduced a public access to documents request to EFSA, requesting “all documents, such as correspondence (including emails), briefings or meeting minutes, which relate to or contain the above-mentioned checks and confirmations by EFSA experts of the information provided by Mr. Rowland, following the teleconference (so between September 2015 and November 12 2015 [publication date of EFSA’s final conclusions on glyphosate])“.

After extending the deadline, EFSA finally responded. With nothing to show:

“EFSA is not in the possession of any other documents (correspondence, briefings or meeting minutes) falling within the scope of your access request, besides the TC 117 meeting minutes available on-line. […] a presumption of legality is attached to a statement made by an Institution concerning the non-existence of documents requested“.

Asked why they were unable to show any evidence for their checks into Rowlands’ allegations, EFSA emailed back to CEO that

“There is no particular reason why additional written documents (beyond the information already published on our website) do not exist, nor is there anything particular to infer from this.“

So, EFSA pretends in a public statement to the press and the public that they double-checked the “additional explanations” of a very controversial expert, fails to shows any evidence for it when asked to, and pretends that there isn’t “anything particular to infer from this“.

Really? How about:

– If EFSA did perform these additional verifications, its response means that either it did so without writing anything anywhere, or that it refuses to disclose its evidence on the matter, in breach of EU’s Regulation 1049/2001 on access to documents.

– If EFSA did not perform these additional verifications, its response means that it lied to the press and the public by pretending it performed double-checks it didn’t perform.

Which is it? Illegal/careless behaviour or lies?

To double-check, we also sent an access to documents to EFSA to obtain its correspondence with Rowlands. EFSA denied our request on the ground that the documents at stake contained personal data. We will now appeal this refusal.

Background Information

In EFSA’s glyphosate assessment, much discussion took place on how to interpret the results of the 2001 Kumar study [1]. EFSA published a description of the discussion[2] in its final conclusions.

EFSA’s experts had already criticised the study for using high doses and a mice strain prone to develop cancer, but these arguments were weak (see a detailed criticism of EFSA’s arguments, pp.3-4). The viral infection argument, on the other hand, offered the possibility to close the discussion by dismissing the study entirely. EFSA kept using the argument as one of the main explanations for its decision to discard this study (see f.i. this EFSA presentation from December 2016, on year after its conclusions). Had it not being brought in, EFSA’s final verdict, that glyphosate was “unlikely” to cause cancer in humans, would have been even weaker.

According to toxicologist Dr. P. Clausing (also working for NGO PAN-Europe), EFSA told him that this argument had come from an EPA expert who had participated as an observer on the TC 117 call, J. Rowlands. Rowlands was later exposed in the “Monsanto Papers” as being very close from Monsanto’s interests (he would have said to a Monsanto executive that if he could “kill” a review into glyphosate safety by the US Department of Health and Human Services he should “get a medal”), to the point that the EPA has now launched an internal investigation for a possible collusion. According to recently published “Monsanto Papers”, Mr. Rowlands no longer works for the EPA but provides consultancy work to two chemical companies and a third unknown one. This puts his intervention into strong suspicion, all the more that the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) said (p.72) about the same study and the viral infection argument that “the actual basis for the EPA’s decision [to discard this study based on this argument] is not known“.

Notes

1. “Carcinogenicity Study with Glyphosate Technical in Swiss Albino Mice” (Kumar, 2001). The raw data of this study was obtained by CEO but we cannot publish it for legal reasons (it was commissioned by a pesticides company which never published it).

2. See also the short account of the relevant discussion in the TC 117 minutes contained in EFSA’s detailed report (p.1428-1429)

Featured image from Corporate Europe Observatory

Featured image: U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet / Flickr

Several US missile warships, over 800 sailors and a Navy SEALs team have arrived in the Black Sea to take part in the 12-day Sea Breeze 2017 naval exercise off Ukraine, which will include maritime forces from 16 countries.

Featured image: Mordechai Vanunu in 2009 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

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

Vanunu is a heroic whistleblower, viciously persecuted by Israel for revealing its nuclear armed and dangerous.

In 1986, he was kidnapped, beaten, drugged, secretly tried, and politically imprisoned for 18 years, mostly in harsh solitary confinement – for revealing what everyone has a right to know.

Since release in 2004, he’s been relentlessly hounded and monitored, imprisoned without justification, his fundamental freedoms denied, re-imprisoned several times.

Israel won’t give him a moment’s peace even though he has no updated information on its nuclear program since the mid-1980s. He’s got no new secrets to reveal.

He’s denied the right to renounce his Israeli citizenship, leave the country, and be free from its ruthless persecution. He’s barred from having unauthorized contacts with journalists, including Israeli ones.

He’s denied the right to do most everything without official permission. Israel holds him hostage to its viciousness.

Earlier explaining why he revealed information on its nuclear program, he earlier said

“I am neither a traitor nor a spy. I only wanted the world to know what was happening.”

Daniel Ellsberg called him “the preeminent hero of the nuclear era.” He’s vulnerable to rearrest any time for any contrived reason.

All he wants is his freedom, he said, waiting over 30 years in vain. On July 10, the Jerusalem Post headlined “Israeli Nuclear Secret-Leaker sentenced for contact with foreigners,” saying:

“…Jerusalem’s Magistrate’s Court gave…Vanunu a two-month suspended jail sentence on Monday for violating the conditions of his previous release, having met with foreigners in recent years.”

If he commits a “similar violation in the next three years,” he’ll be re-imprisoned for two months, maybe longer if Israel intends severer punishment – for exercising his fundamental rights recognized by all just societies.

He was also sentenced to 120 hours of unspecified community service. In May 2016, he was irresponsibly charged with:

• meeting with two US nationals in East Jerusalem in 2013 without permission;
• moving to a new apartment in the same building in 2014 without notifying Israeli authorities; and
• appearing on Israel’s Channel 2 television on September 4, 2015, discussing his 1986 arrest and imprisonment, as well as dangers of Israel’s nuclear program, including its Dimona plant hazards.

In January, he was acquitted of these charges. Yet unrelenting Israeli mistreatment continues.

Nuclear ambiguity remains official Israeli policy. It neither confirms or denies what’s common knowledge. The nation is nuclear-armed and dangerous.

Despite agreeing to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), effective January 2016, permitting Iranian nuclear development solely for non-military purposes, its government continues being wrongfully accused of seeking nuclear weapons.

In contrast, the world community remains largely silent about Israel’s longstanding nuclear weapons program – supported by Washington from its earliest stages.

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.

Throughout the “civil war” (all of the terrorists are supported by external States) in Syria, which began – according to the official narrative – in 2011, the parties involved either on the side of current Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or on the side of the “Syrian revolution” (jihadists but with the western PR firms and media behind it) and their aims and objectives have been clearly laid out either directly from the horse’s mouth or from independent journalists and scholars who dare to read between the lines:

• ISIS from the very beginning of the group’s creation sought to create a so-called “Islamic State”, where shia muslims are to be massacred and Islam as a whole perverted via a false concept of sharia law. Most of the terrorist organisation’s members come from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Caucasus.
• The “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) receive US and EU training, weapons, and financing in order to fight directly against the Syrian Army, and thus push for Assad’s removal. They also curse shia muslims and behead captured soldiers, sometimes even eating their organs. In the ranks of this terrorist organisation are also Turks and Saudi nationals, but they are mostly traitorous Syrians who sold their soul for a few dollars.
• Al-Qaeda (all versions of Jabhat al-Nusra) is the father of ISIS and more or less seeks the same thing, although instead of building an “Islamic State” being the main aim, an “Islamic Emirate” is preferred instead. The difference is the latter is directly financed by the Gulf and Israel, and the former, apparently, is not.
• Turkey wants to expand its borders but at the same time to prevent a Kurdish State from popping up. Turkey also would like some influence over the governments in Syria, Iraq, Iran etc, and also wants to be the heart of the Sunni world. At first Turkey achieved its aims in Syria via its proxy “FSA” forces, but when the US suddenly propelled the creation of the Kurdish federation project “Rojava” Ankara injected its regular Army all the way up to al-Bab.
• Iran, which feels it has a debt to pay to Syria after its support during the Saddam Hussein era in Iraq, wants to keep Assad in power and ensure the stability and territorial integrity of the Syrian State. The main reason for this policy is known to all – to fend off Israel and Wahhabism. Hezbollah also falls under this category too.
• Russia is acting in the Middle East both on behalf of and along with all nations who refuse to tolerate Anglo-Saxon aggression but are unable to combat it directly – either because of a lack of firepower or financing. Whether it is through the use of Sukhois, MiGs, T-90s, S-400s, Kornets, Tochkas – Russia will not allow the Syrian State, which was loyal to the USSR for so long, fall into the dirty hands of anti-Humanity and its western sponsors.
• USA wants to partition and reconfigure the Middle East according to the desires of neocons. The means and ways of achieving this aim have chopped and changed throughout the war, but the general theme of “temporary business partners” hasn’t changed at all.

And then there are the Kurds. Their aims and objectives, at least from the perspective of the outside world, have changed considerably: before the battle of Aleppo they seemed happy to help out Assad and to work with Syrian military volunteers in order to cleanse the land from ISIS. Russia even opened up a Kurdish representative office in Moscow, and Putin insisted on retaining good relations with the Kurds. But then the latter became impudent, and launched an attack on Al-Hasakah, ousting the Syrian Army from the town. This served as the Kurdish “heel turn”, as is known in professional wrestling, and ultimately resulted in Ankara and Moscow agreeing on a plan to jointly curtail the energy of the Kurds, which seemed to be focused on joining the North East of Syria to the North West for the purposes of building an autonomous State.

But today, after the liberation of Aleppo and now Mosul, and after the Syrian war has reached its last but longest phase – a settlement between all the belligerents, has the plan of the Kurds changed? Well, it would appear that not only have they not changed, but they have acquired an even more worrisome character than one could have perviously imagined. What does this mean?

Thus, the reader is advised to now spend some time reading this article written by Elijah Magnier, who compiled his own primary research, the sources of which are based in the command rooms in Syria/Iraq/Iran/Kurdistan.

Do you – the reader – notice a theme? Other than Israel (or the pre-1948 founders of the “promised land” concept) seemingly being behind most projects that aim to partition the Middle East and remove undesirable-for-them leaders, what should immediately jump out from historical memory is the similarities between the Kurds in 2017 and the arab tribes in 1918.

Besides being involved in removing the Kaiser, who wanted to build a railway trade network from Berlin to Baghdad and beyond, the British Empire also had its eye on the vast oil riches in the Middle East. In 1916 Britain signed a diplomatic accord with France, Italy, and Tsarist Russia. This is indeed known as the “Sykes-Picot” Agreement, which was nothing other than the looting of Mesopotamia’s resources. In order to implement this plan, Britain transferred over 1,500,000 troops from the European front to the vicinity of the Ottoman Empire. London justified this move with the excuse “we need to ensure the transfer of Russian grain through the Dardanelles and more manpower in general”.

By 1918 the British troops were still stationed in the Eastern theatre, and this temporary transfer was starting to look like a permanent occupation. As the British landed blow after blow on the Turkish Empire, the French felt betrayed by this move, as it weakened their ability to fight the Kaiser. One million killed and two million wounded troops later, and Paris began to look like total pushovers. Following the Russian revolution of 1917, the details of this once secret “Sykes-Picot” Agreement were revealed, and it became known that France had negotiated concessions with Britain in the form of a slice of the occupied Ottoman lands (area “A” of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which is modern day Syria and Lebanon). The assigned role of land protectorate to France hoped to dupe the arab tribes in the region into compliance in exchange for “independence” from Turkey. Area “B” of the Agreement – modern day Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan – was supposed to be given to Britain. Italy and Tsarist Russia would promised other peripheral areas, such as the Turkish coast and islands.

After World War 1 the notorious “Lawrence of Arabia”, who was tasked with gaining the external support of the Hashemite Emir of Mecca for London’s land grab, admitted that Britain indeed planned to dupe not only the French troops, but also the leaders of arab tribes in the region into fighting for the British crown in order to usurp the Ottoman ruling power:

“I risked the fraud on my conviction that Arab help was necessary to our cheap and speedy victory in the East, and that better we win and break our word, than lose … The Arab inspiration was our main tool for winning the Eastern war. So I assured them that England kept her word in letter and spirit. In this comfort they performed their fine things; but of course, instead of being proud of what we did together, I was continually and bitterly ashamed.”

Thomas Edward Lawrence, “Seven Pillars of Wisdom”. London: Cape, 1935, page 24.

After the plans were revealed and were no longer secretive, a new French-British declaration was issued, which strived for 

“the complete and definite emancipation of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks, and the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations”.

In 2017 the Kurdish people are willing to fall for the same trick used in 1918.

As is said – the rest is history. And it would appear that not only does history repeat itself, but with each repetition the consequences become more and more grave. In 2017 the Kurdish people are willing to fall for the same trick used in 1918. The use of the expression “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” may seem harsh in this context, as it is unfair to bracket all Kurdish people with the leadership of the YPG and PKK, but do the Kurds really expect the magic “Rojava” paradise to drop from the heavens just because America and friends sent their butchers to further carve up the already carved up Middle East? Is becoming cannon fodder for yet another illegal US military base the future the 20+ million Kurds envisaged? If so, then they can’t say that they weren’t warned…

Ollie Richardson is a Paris-based geopolitical analyst.

The case surrounding the approval of genetically modified (GM) mustard in India is coming to a head on the back of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) recommending approval. The final decision now rests with Harsh Vardhan, minister of the environment. As India’s first commercial GM food crop, the concern is that it is in effect a Trojan horse crop and an unlawful attempt to impose GM food crops on the country. At present, the only GM crop planted in India is cotton.

The government has stated that it would await the verdict of a case currently before the Supreme Court (SC), although given how things are moving, this seems doubtful. As the lead petitioner Aruna Rodrigues has petitioned the SC to acquire “a moratorium on the release of any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment pending a comprehensive, transparent and rigorous biosafety protocol in the public domain conducted by agencies of independent expert bodies, the results of which are made public.” No such protocols are currently in place.

Dr. Harsh Vardhan (Source: Dr. Harsh Vardhan)

If GM mustard is approved, it would involve the side-lining of four high-level reports advising against the adoption of these crops in India:

• the ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ of February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal;
• the ‘Sopory Committee Report’ [August 2012];
• the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee’ [PSC] Report on GM crops [August 2012];
• and the ‘Technical Expert Committee [TEC] Final Report’ [June-July 2013]).

Rodrigues contends that the processes surrounding the testing, assessment and now approval of GM mustard have been based on outright scientific fraud and regulatory delinquency and have been subverted as a result of serious conflicts of interest. There is much concern about why GM mustard is being pushed through in such a manner, especially as it is not wanted or needed in the first place.

On 27 May, some public sector scientists, fellows of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) in India, sent a letter to Prime Minister Modi “complimenting” the GEAC for approving mustard based on “comprehensive deliberations and stringent appraisal of scientific data”, urging him to lend his weight to the required approval by the central government of herbicide tolerant (HT) mustard (hybrid) DMH 11.

Their letter is little more than pro-industry corporate-inspired spin. There have been no stringent appraisal or comprehensive deliberations. Data has been hidden, deliberations have been kept from the public and the science has been manipulated. Aruna Rodrigues has submitted an additional affidavit to the SC contending that the letter is most unfortunate and disquieting, given that the facts based on hard data and science have not just been ignored but twisted round to present the opposite case.

In their letter, the scientists argue that genetic engineering is essential to high output agriculture. They assert that this technology will be vital for ensuring sustainable higher yields, improved nutritional quality and resilience in the face of climate change.

It is alleged that GM crops have helped to alleviate poverty and conserve biodiversity. In India, they argue that Bt cotton has been a resounding success, with pesticide use having decreased and cotton production having doubled. They advocate this ‘success story’ must be repeated with other crops, not least mustard.

They also argue about the need to increase oil seed production to decrease the import bill in the face of what they argue is the slow and sluggish yields of oil seed crops in India.

The letter is a blend of wishful thinking, misrepresentations and spin. Each one of the assertions made has already been challenged and shown to be bogus (see this, this and this). The lawyer Prashant Bhushan has expressed deep anxiety about the opaque and unscientific regulatory oversight of GM mustard. He has outlined the flawed approval for commercialisation by the GEAC.

The need for this mustard has not been proven, and, both as a GMO and a herbicide tolerant crop, it will pose serious dangers to people, soil and biodiversity. Bhushan argues that the type of regulatory delinquency (mirroring what happened in the previous case of GM brinjal) we have witnessed is not merely due to slippages, oversight or human error but is indicative of collusion of the worst kind: gross cover-up and misconduct.

GM mustard clears hurdle in India but more remain (Source: Investing.com)

Bhushan also dismisses the assertion that this GM mustard will displace imported edible oil seeds in a significant way (and reduce the oil seeds bill). Such an assertion is ludicrous, entirely lacking any semblance of logic. Moreover, the nearest equivalent to Indian mustard (brassica juncea) is rape-seed oil (canola), imported from Canada (which is essentially GMO) and represents just 2% of India’s edible oil imports.

He concludes that the stated regulatory intent is to deregulate HT DMH 11 as a policy agenda, based on no science, and to convert India’s mustard agriculture in a massive and dangerous experiment to (GM) HT hybrid mustard, (variants of DMH 11).

Professor P C Kesavan has written to the president of the NAAS outlining his concerns about its resolution to approve the commercialisation of this mustard, which underpinned its letter to the PM.

The NAAS presently comprises 625 fellows. It is noted that the resolution was adopted at the Annual General Body Meeting of the Academy on 5 June 2017.

Kesavan writes:

“There are two pertinent points: the first is that I was not informed of this important resolution that was planned by NAAS and presumably the other members were not informed either and second, how many fellows happened to attend this meeting and were a party to the resolution? I would appreciate your reply to these two points.”

In his letter to NAAS, Kesavan then proceeds to address the points raised. As far as the much-touted ‘success’ of Bt cotton is concerned, he provides a great deal of data to debunk the claim that it has been a success in India (see this as well). He states:

“I am therefore somewhat surprised that the failure of Bt cotton to perform in yield and sustainability is being converted, somehow, into a myth of its great success.”

Is the NAAS deliberately attempting to mislead the PM and political leaders? As Kesavan points out, political leaders understandably accept the authority of scientific institutions like NAAS. In other words, they would hope to receive valid information and not be misled.

Kesavan then debunks the claim that GM crops are a sustainable technology by drawing on various sources. He notes the emergence of weed resistance (superweeds), the increasing use of herbicides and a treadmill of even more toxic herbicides. He adds that glufosinate (DMH11 is designed to be resistant to this chemical) is a neurotoxin that is banned in the EU. Moreover, he states that HT crops are unsuitable in a country like India with its smallholder farming.

Apparently, such concerns are to be brushed aside. According to food and trade policy analyst and agricultural scientist Devinder Sharma:

“The GEAC has also denied that the GM Mustard is actually a herbicide-tolerant crop in disguise. It was shocking to know that some GEAC members had even told a group of civil society representatives that they know DMH-11 will push in herbicides but since the chemicals are expensive they expect farmers will refrain from purchasing the herbicides. If this is a scientific explanation, please tell me what is unscientific?”

To anyone who has been following this case, they will be aware that Kesavan is not the first to have raised these concerns. Previous submissions to the SC by Aruna Rodrigues have presented a good deal of evidence to support these assertions. Numerous other points are raised which again have been addressed by others, not least the fact that contamination of India’s mustard germ plasm is a real concern: India is a centre of genetic diversity for mustard.

Kesavan refers to the experience with the Bt brinjal biosafety dossier (Bt brinjal – what would have been India’s first GM food crop – eventually failed to make it to market). He says international experts critiqued different aspects of the raw data. Their critiques exposed deep incompetence, including regulatory incompetence and a lack of basic understanding of genetically engineered crops.

So, what should we expect from a still secret biosafety dossier on GM mustard, asks Kesavan? It’s a dossier kept out of the public domain and the critical gaze of independent scientists. The promoters of this crop have not even established the first step of need.

The NAAS’s impassioned plea to Modi to approve GM mustard gives “a wink and a nod to the regulatory delinquency that denies transparency is in contempt of the constitution, democratic polity and SC court orders,” says Keshavan, who concludes

“It is quite simply a false notion bereft of agri sense and science that we should even consider that India’s mustard agriculture be converted to hybrid DMH II and its variants.”

It might seem perplexing that the current Modi-led administration seems to be accelerating the drive for GM given that the BJP manifesto stated:

 “GM foods will not be allowed without full scientific evaluation on the long-term effects on soil, production and biological impact on consumers.”

Yet none of this has occurred.

See this to access the author’s numerous articles on the issue of GM mustard in India.

Featured image from Scientific India Magazine

The case surrounding the approval of genetically modified (GM) mustard in India is coming to a head on the back of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) recommending approval. The final decision now rests with Harsh Vardhan, minister of the environment. As India’s first commercial GM food crop, the concern is that it is in effect a Trojan horse crop and an unlawful attempt to impose GM food crops on the country. At present, the only GM crop planted in India is cotton.

The government has stated that it would await the verdict of a case currently before the Supreme Court (SC), although given how things are moving, this seems doubtful. As the lead petitioner Aruna Rodrigues has petitioned the SC to acquire “a moratorium on the release of any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment pending a comprehensive, transparent and rigorous biosafety protocol in the public domain conducted by agencies of independent expert bodies, the results of which are made public.” No such protocols are currently in place.

Dr. Harsh Vardhan (Source: Dr. Harsh Vardhan)

If GM mustard is approved, it would involve the side-lining of four high-level reports advising against the adoption of these crops in India:

• the ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ of February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal;
• the ‘Sopory Committee Report’ [August 2012];
• the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee’ [PSC] Report on GM crops [August 2012];
• and the ‘Technical Expert Committee [TEC] Final Report’ [June-July 2013]).

Rodrigues contends that the processes surrounding the testing, assessment and now approval of GM mustard have been based on outright scientific fraud and regulatory delinquency and have been subverted as a result of serious conflicts of interest. There is much concern about why GM mustard is being pushed through in such a manner, especially as it is not wanted or needed in the first place.

On 27 May, some public sector scientists, fellows of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) in India, sent a letter to Prime Minister Modi “complimenting” the GEAC for approving mustard based on “comprehensive deliberations and stringent appraisal of scientific data”, urging him to lend his weight to the required approval by the central government of herbicide tolerant (HT) mustard (hybrid) DMH 11.

Their letter is little more than pro-industry corporate-inspired spin. There have been no stringent appraisal or comprehensive deliberations. Data has been hidden, deliberations have been kept from the public and the science has been manipulated. Aruna Rodrigues has submitted an additional affidavit to the SC contending that the letter is most unfortunate and disquieting, given that the facts based on hard data and science have not just been ignored but twisted round to present the opposite case.

In their letter, the scientists argue that genetic engineering is essential to high output agriculture. They assert that this technology will be vital for ensuring sustainable higher yields, improved nutritional quality and resilience in the face of climate change.

It is alleged that GM crops have helped to alleviate poverty and conserve biodiversity. In India, they argue that Bt cotton has been a resounding success, with pesticide use having decreased and cotton production having doubled. They advocate this ‘success story’ must be repeated with other crops, not least mustard.

They also argue about the need to increase oil seed production to decrease the import bill in the face of what they argue is the slow and sluggish yields of oil seed crops in India.

The letter is a blend of wishful thinking, misrepresentations and spin. Each one of the assertions made has already been challenged and shown to be bogus (see this, this and this). The lawyer Prashant Bhushan has expressed deep anxiety about the opaque and unscientific regulatory oversight of GM mustard. He has outlined the flawed approval for commercialisation by the GEAC.

The need for this mustard has not been proven, and, both as a GMO and a herbicide tolerant crop, it will pose serious dangers to people, soil and biodiversity. Bhushan argues that the type of regulatory delinquency (mirroring what happened in the previous case of GM brinjal) we have witnessed is not merely due to slippages, oversight or human error but is indicative of collusion of the worst kind: gross cover-up and misconduct.

GM mustard clears hurdle in India but more remain (Source: Investing.com)

Bhushan also dismisses the assertion that this GM mustard will displace imported edible oil seeds in a significant way (and reduce the oil seeds bill). Such an assertion is ludicrous, entirely lacking any semblance of logic. Moreover, the nearest equivalent to Indian mustard (brassica juncea) is rape-seed oil (canola), imported from Canada (which is essentially GMO) and represents just 2% of India’s edible oil imports.

He concludes that the stated regulatory intent is to deregulate HT DMH 11 as a policy agenda, based on no science, and to convert India’s mustard agriculture in a massive and dangerous experiment to (GM) HT hybrid mustard, (variants of DMH 11).

Professor P C Kesavan has written to the president of the NAAS outlining his concerns about its resolution to approve the commercialisation of this mustard, which underpinned its letter to the PM.

The NAAS presently comprises 625 fellows. It is noted that the resolution was adopted at the Annual General Body Meeting of the Academy on 5 June 2017.

Kesavan writes:

“There are two pertinent points: the first is that I was not informed of this important resolution that was planned by NAAS and presumably the other members were not informed either and second, how many fellows happened to attend this meeting and were a party to the resolution? I would appreciate your reply to these two points.”

In his letter to NAAS, Kesavan then proceeds to address the points raised. As far as the much-touted ‘success’ of Bt cotton is concerned, he provides a great deal of data to debunk the claim that it has been a success in India (see this as well). He states:

“I am therefore somewhat surprised that the failure of Bt cotton to perform in yield and sustainability is being converted, somehow, into a myth of its great success.”

Is the NAAS deliberately attempting to mislead the PM and political leaders? As Kesavan points out, political leaders understandably accept the authority of scientific institutions like NAAS. In other words, they would hope to receive valid information and not be misled.

Kesavan then debunks the claim that GM crops are a sustainable technology by drawing on various sources. He notes the emergence of weed resistance (superweeds), the increasing use of herbicides and a treadmill of even more toxic herbicides. He adds that glufosinate (DMH11 is designed to be resistant to this chemical) is a neurotoxin that is banned in the EU. Moreover, he states that HT crops are unsuitable in a country like India with its smallholder farming.

Apparently, such concerns are to be brushed aside. According to food and trade policy analyst and agricultural scientist Devinder Sharma:

“The GEAC has also denied that the GM Mustard is actually a herbicide-tolerant crop in disguise. It was shocking to know that some GEAC members had even told a group of civil society representatives that they know DMH-11 will push in herbicides but since the chemicals are expensive they expect farmers will refrain from purchasing the herbicides. If this is a scientific explanation, please tell me what is unscientific?”

To anyone who has been following this case, they will be aware that Kesavan is not the first to have raised these concerns. Previous submissions to the SC by Aruna Rodrigues have presented a good deal of evidence to support these assertions. Numerous other points are raised which again have been addressed by others, not least the fact that contamination of India’s mustard germ plasm is a real concern: India is a centre of genetic diversity for mustard.

Kesavan refers to the experience with the Bt brinjal biosafety dossier (Bt brinjal – what would have been India’s first GM food crop – eventually failed to make it to market). He says international experts critiqued different aspects of the raw data. Their critiques exposed deep incompetence, including regulatory incompetence and a lack of basic understanding of genetically engineered crops.

So, what should we expect from a still secret biosafety dossier on GM mustard, asks Kesavan? It’s a dossier kept out of the public domain and the critical gaze of independent scientists. The promoters of this crop have not even established the first step of need.

The NAAS’s impassioned plea to Modi to approve GM mustard gives “a wink and a nod to the regulatory delinquency that denies transparency is in contempt of the constitution, democratic polity and SC court orders,” says Keshavan, who concludes

“It is quite simply a false notion bereft of agri sense and science that we should even consider that India’s mustard agriculture be converted to hybrid DMH II and its variants.”

It might seem perplexing that the current Modi-led administration seems to be accelerating the drive for GM given that the BJP manifesto stated:

 “GM foods will not be allowed without full scientific evaluation on the long-term effects on soil, production and biological impact on consumers.”

Yet none of this has occurred.

See this to access the author’s numerous articles on the issue of GM mustard in India.

Featured image from Scientific India Magazine

President Donald Trump is 71 and Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un is 33 [35 according to DPRK sources], but if they ever met, would there be a grown-up in the room?

One of them knows full well that North Korea is not a threat to world peace and is not even a serious threat to South Korea. The one who knows that is not Donald Trump. Or if he does know it, he’s choosing to inflate the North Korean “threat” even more than some of his predecessors.

But wait, didn’t North Korea just fire a missile in the general direction of the United States? Yes indeed, and like every other North Korean missile (except the ones that blew up on launch), it hit smack dab in the Sea of Japan, unpleasantly for aquatic life but a danger to no one else. This is, after all, exactly what the US does periodically to the Pacific Ocean from California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base, generally causing yawns around the world.

Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work witnessed just such a US test (the 15th or so in five years) in February 2016, after telling reporters the purpose was to demonstrate an effective US nuclear arsenal to Russia, China, and North Korea:

That’s exactly why we do this. We and the Russians and the Chinese routinely do test shots to prove that the operational missiles that we have are reliable. And that is a signal … that we are prepared to use nuclear weapons in defense of our country if necessary.

Not only is that perspective less than comforting, it includes a major tell. For reasons that may be obvious but unspoken, North Korea is not allowed to do what the US, Russia, and China do. That’s the price of being a member of the US-determined Axis of Evil. That may be a stupid foreign policy position (Exhibit A: Iraq), but it’s American stupidity, not Korean stupidity. The North Koreans are well aware that they do not have “operational missiles that … are reliable.”

Do as US says, not as US does

US-imposed rules forbid other countries like North Korea or Iran from following rational patterns of self-defense, even in the face of overt US threats. And when North Korea ignores US rules and hits the ocean with another rocket, the US ratchets up the hysteria as if the North Korean launch were a hostile act while the Vandenberg launches are only benign peace-keeping splashes. The US framing of the world is clearly nuts, but we’re so used to it we hardly notice anymore.

Not only does North Korea pose no serious threat now, its hypothetical future threat is largely imaginary. Whatever military might North Korea has is unlikely to be used outside its own country unless the US or someone else attacks it first. That might well lead to all hell breaking loose, but it’s the only thing that will as far as North Korea is concerned. Washington is baffled: What doesn’t North Korea understand about its duty to do what the US tells it to do?

Fear-mongering over North Korea hasn’t worked — ever

Assessed objectively, North Korea’s missile tests demonstrate a missile program proceeding haltingly, with frequent failures as well as “terrifying” successes. What terrified Washington about the July 3 North Korean missile launch is the presently imaginary threat that the Independence Day ICBM prototype could deliver a nuclear warhead to the United States. It can’t. That’s a pure future threat, if it’s a threat at all.

Capturing the widely proclaimed fear with merely modest hype, Business Insider led its report on the new North Korean missile with this: “North Korea claims that it has launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, which experts say could have the ability to reach Alaska.” (Reuters upped the ante, reporting that “some experts believe [the missile] has the range to reach Alaska and Hawaii and perhaps the U.S. Pacific Northwest.” As with other reports, these experts go unnamed and unchallenged.)

Unpack all that and what do you have?

A North Korean claim, inflated by anonymous experts, selling a worst-case scenario. The North Koreans also claimed that the missile could hit any location on the planet. So nobody’s even trying to tell the truth here. The missile actually went about 580 miles, which isn’t even close to qualifying as an ICBM. The nearest point in Alaska (not target, just rocks) is about 3,000 miles away. Any point on the planet is 12,000 miles away, give or take a few thousand.

But the North Koreans have nuclear weapons. Yes they do, maybe even 20 of them, all smaller than the one the US dropped on Hiroshima. At this point there’s no evidence North Korea can deliver its nuclear weapons anywhere by any technology much more advanced than donkey cart. By comparison, the US nuclear arsenal, which was once over 31,000 warheads, is now down to 4,000, with about 1,900 methods of delivery to anywhere on the planet, and almost all those warheads are many times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. For all that some worry about aging nuclear weapons, the US is not even close to being an inviting target to attack with impunity.

Not to minimize nuclear weapons of any sort, but seriously, some sense of proportion is expected of mature leadership. Chicken Little cluckings of impending doom is not mature leadership.

Isn’t 64 years long enough to get a peace treaty?

The Korean War began June 27, 1950, when North Korea invaded the south. The armistice was signed July 27, 1953, ending hostilities, but not the war. There is a cease-fire but no peace treaty. The US entered the war under UN auspices. Congress never declared war, but supported the war with appropriations. Currently, some in Congress are seeking legislation to prevent the president from taking any military action against North Korea without explicit permission from Congress. That hardly seems to matter.

The new president of South Korea wants to negotiate with North Korea, but that hardly seems to matter either. South Korea engaged in perennial massive war games with the US that North Korea deems threatening, as would any neighboring country facing the same reality. Worse, the US has introduced anti-missile weapons into South Korea without telling the South Korean president.

And President Trump publicly blames China for not bringing North Korea to heel, as if China had either that responsibility or ability. China has increased trade with North Korea by a reported 40 percent, which should be a stabilizing factor, especially over the long term. But the US is demanding short-term results.

What could the world community do to reverse this growing threat, real or imagined, from North Korea? It would help to allow North Korea to feel safe and unthreatened, maybe even as safe and unthreatened as Vermont. That, as Korea expert Christine Ahn argued on Democracy NOW, would require President Trump to do what he claims to be good at: negotiating, making a deal. Something very like this view was formally articulated to President Trump in a June 28 letter from such policy experts as former secretary of state George Schultz, former defense secretary William Perry, and former senator Richard Lugar:

As experts with decades of military, political, and technical involvement with North Korean issues, we strongly urge your administration to begin discussions with North Korea…. Talking is not a reward or a concession to Pyongyang and should not be construed as signaling acceptance of a nuclear-armed North Korea. It is a necessary step to establishing communication to avoid a nuclear catastrophe. The key danger today is not that North Korea would launch a surprise nuclear attack. Kim Jong Un is not irrational and highly values preserving his regime. Instead the primary danger is a miscalculation or mistake that could lead to war. [emphasis added]

A more colloquial way of saying much the same thing might be that you don’t control a bratty child by burning down the house, unless you’re another bratty child yourself, and you don’t really care all that much about the house.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Featured image from Medium

In its reporting on a dubious lawsuit alleging Iranian meta-involvement in 9/11, the New York Times badly misunderstood the case and maintained for more than three years, in the paper of record, that the government of Iran “sponsored” the September 11, 2001, attacks. The belated correction, issued late Wednesday night on two widely spaced articles on the topic, unceremoniously noted that Iran did not, in fact, help commit the 9/11 attacks.

The correction came after a report about a lawsuit last week mistakenly claimed that Iran sponsored 9/11, something that had not been alleged in the suit. The article (6/29/17,archived) originally read:

The government has agreed to distribute proceeds from the building’s sale, which could bring as much as $1 billion, to the families of victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks, including the September 11 attacks.

That 9/11 was an “Iranian-sponsored terrorist attack” is a spectacular claim, and one that would radically alter the official narrative of 9/11, just casually thrown into an article by the Times. In fact, it isn’t even something the lawsuit alleged. The case in question was a class action lawsuit for families of all terrorism victims, and since Iran was a “state sponsor of terrorism,” they were held generically responsible. (The US State Department maintains that Iran is a “state sponsor of terrorism” chiefly because of its support for militant groups like Hezbollah and Iraq’s Kata’ib Hizballah, whose attacks have been mainly directed at other combatants.)

Even if this had been what the lawsuit was alleging, it’s remarkable that reporter Vivian Wang simply took this as fact: No “alleged,” no “lawsuit claims”—Iran’s guilt was simply asserted. And that assertion stood for a week until someone, evidently, got word it was grossly wrong. Late Wednesday night (6/29/17, correction updated 7/5/17), the Times quietly added this correction to the piece:

Correction: July 6, 2017 An article on Friday about a jury’s decision to let the federal government seize a Midtown Manhattan skyscraper it says is controlled by Iran overstated Iran’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks. While a federal court found that Iran had some culpability for the September 11 attacks as a state sponsor of terrorism, it has not been established that Iran sponsored the attacks, which were planned and executed by Al Qaeda. (A similar error occurred in a September 25, 2013, article in the Times.)

It’s as if the editors at the Times just got the memo about who was responsible for 9/11. But the week it took to correct this massive error was nothing compared to the close to four years it took to update the very same claim the paper made in September 2013. The original article, by Julie Satow (9/26/13, original archived), read:

Proceeds from a sale would probably be used to pay some of the $6 billion in damages claimed by family members of victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, including victims of the 9/11 attacks.

This article, published in the first year of Obama’s second term, finally got corrected this week (9/26/13, correction updated 7/5/17), with basically the same correction that ran on last week’s story:

Correction: July 5, 2017 An article on Sept. 25, 2013, about the federal government’s efforts to seize a Midtown Manhattan skyscraper it says is controlled by Iran overstated Iran’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks. While a federal court found that Iran had some culpability for the September 11 attacks as a state sponsor of terrorism, it has not been established that Iran sponsored the attacks, which were planned and executed by Al Qaeda.

The corrections, belated as they were, minimized the defamation of the original articles in a  lawyerly manner, conceding only that “it has not been established that Iran sponsored the attacks.” It has also not been established that Israel or Saudi Arabia or the Bush administration sponsored 9/11, but imagine the New York Times framing allegations against those actors this way. It’s unthinkable but, because Iran is an Official Enemy of the United States, it is not subject to the same editorial standards as those in good standing with the US State Department.

Source: FAIR

Per the North Korea Law of Journalism—which states that “editorial standards are inversely proportional to a country’s enemy status”—the Times can casually smear Iran as sponsoring  the deadliest act of terror on US soil, and it’s not taken seriously by anyone. Just thrown into an article, forgotten about and only corrected—with no special note by the paper—almost four years later.

One would be curious what the New York Times public editor would say about such a glaring error but the paper eliminated the position a month ago (FAIR.org, 6/1/17). Perhaps the Times’ in-house media analyst, Jim Rutenberg, who spends much of his time hand-wringing over “fake news” and RT, could spare a column on how this happened. This is unlikely, since with an Official Enemy, no amount of libel—no matter how egregious—merits a meaningful response from the paper of record.

Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org.

Featured image: Thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed in recent months by imprecise bombings by the U.S.-led coalition in Mosul. (Source: arif_shamim/Flickr/cc)

As Iraqi forces celebrate their victory over the Islamic State (ISIS) in Mosul, a damning new report by Amnesty International sheds light on the killing of Iraqi civilians at the hands of the U.S.-led coalition which “may constitute war crimes”—and demands that the coalition acknowledges the loss of civilian life and takes steps to lessen non-military casualties.

Thousands of civilians have been killed in Mosul and millions have been displaced since ISIS took control of the city in June 2014. The crimes of the group have been well documented by Amnesty International and other human rights groups. The report notes that ISIS deliberately put thousands of civilians in harm’s way, using them as human shields in the city’s conflict zones, and killing people who attempted to escape.

The report also focuses on the human cost of the U.S.-led coalition’s actions in Mosul. Amnesty interviewed 150 witnesses, experts and analysts about dozens of attacks, and focused on a pattern of attacks that took place between January and July 2017.

“The horrors that the people of Mosul have witnessed and the disregard for human life by all parties to this conflict must not go unpunished,” says Lynn Maalouf, Amnesty’s director of research for the Middle East. “Entire families have been wiped out, many of whom are still buried under the rubble today. The people of Mosul deserve to know, from their government, that there will be justice and reparation so that the harrowing impact of this operation is duly addressed.”

The coalition’s attacks were largely carried out with Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions (IRAMs), explosives with unsophisticated targeting abilities, which “wreaked havoc in densely-populated west Mosul and took the lives of thousands of civilians,” according to the report. Air strikes by U.S. planes were also frequent during this time period, and the report says the coalition did little to protect civilians from these attacks.

“They did air-drop leaflets into [ISIS]-controlled areas of the city, instructing civilians to stay away from [ISIS] or to hang children’s clothes on the roof to mark civilian homes. These warnings, however, took little account of the realities of living under [ISIS]. Staying away from [ISIS] was impossible for west Mosul residents and fighters would execute anyone caught with a flyer in their hands. Houses with children’s clothes on the roof were still hit by air strikes.”

“ISIS’s use of people as human shields does not lessen the legal obligation of pro-government forces to protect civilians,” says Maalouf. “Military planners should have taken extra care in the manner in which they used their weapons to ensure that these attacks were not unlawful.”

Amnesty International is demanding that Iraqi forces and the U.S.-led coalition limit the use of IRAMs in the fight against ISIL; it says the weapons “should never be used in densely populated civilian areas.” It also joins other human rights groups in calling for an urgent increase in funding for humanitarian assistance for those who have fled the fighting in Mosul.

Mosul: “The fighting may be over, but the humanitarian crisis is not”#ChildrenUnderAttack need food, water, shelter & medicine @UNICEFiraq pic.twitter.com/c87i3f0G3o

— UNICEF (@UNICEF) July 10, 2017

The report also notes that the coalition must publicly acknowledge the human cost of the fighting in Mosul. In his official statement on the retaking of Mosul by the Iraqi forces, President Donald Trump made no mention of civilian deaths that resulted from coalition attacks, instead acknowledging only the Iraqis who have been killed and displaced by ISIS.

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

The “liberation” of Mosul, Iraq, needs to be understood within a context of historical and present-day facts.

The first fact is that the West is committing a holocaust in Iraq which began well in advance of the illegal Anglo-American invasion in 2003.

Dr. Gideon Polya explains that

“(h)olocaust is the destruction of a large number of people and 9 million Iraqi deaths from Anglo-American violence or violently-imposed deprivation certainly constitutes an Iraqi Holocaust.”[1]

The second fact is that the terrorists occupying Mosul, Iraq (and Syria) are the West’s strategic assets/proxies. They help to commit and perpetuate the holocaust.

The end result, therefore, is not the liberation of Mosul, but rather the destruction of Mosul for the perceived benefit of criminal, genocidal, imperial warmongers who hide their crimes beneath the Big Lies of the “War on Terror” and “Humanitarian Invasions”.

The warmongers successfully de-populated and destroyed Iraq’s second largest city. The terrorists (the supposed enemies) — all armed and supported by the West [2]—and the terror bombing [3], including the use of illegal, weaponized white phosphorus munitions, and carpet bombing – achieved their criminal objectives.

The Western-imposed warfare murdered countless civilians and displaced over 800,000 people [4].

The big picture is chaos and destruction, and genocide. Iraq is being partitioned and destroyed. “Creative Chaos” [5], a term coined by neo-con Condoleeza Rice equals holocaust and genocide.

This is the evidence-based reality.

Notes

[1] Dr. Gideon Polya, “An Iraqi Holocaust, 2.7 Million Iraqi Dead From Violence Or War-imposed Deprivation.” “ICH”, March 27, 2015, (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41378.htm) Accessed July 09, 2017.

[2] DilyanaGaytandzhieva, “350 diplomatic flights carry weapons for terroristsAzerbaijan’s Silk Way Airlines transports weapons with diplomatic clearance for Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Congo.” July 2, 2017, (https://trud.bg/350-diplomatic-flights-carry-weapons-for-terrorists/) Accessed July 11, 2017. 

[3] Stephan Lendman, “Mosul Raped and Destroyed, Not Liberated.” Global Research, July 1, 2017, (http://www.globalresearch.ca/mosul-raped-and-destroyed-not-liberated/5597026) Accessed July 11, 2017.

[4] Report from UN High Commissioner for Refugees, “Iraq Situation: UNHCR Flash Update – 9 July 2017.” July 9, 2017, (http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraq-situation-unhcr-flash-update-9-july-2017) Accessed July 11, 2017.

[5] Mark Taliano, “Creative Chaos” and the War Against Humanity. US-NATO Supports ISIS.” Global Research, May 29, 2017, (http://www.globalresearch.ca/creative-chaos-and-the-war-against-humanity-us-nato-supports-isis/5592499) Accessed July 11, 2017.

Featured image from Murica Today

The military situation in Syria took a significant step for the worse on 19 June 2017 when an American fighter jet shot down a Syrian fighter jet carrying out operations against ISIS. That was the latest in a series of foolhardy moves by the Americans which have included the bombing of Syrian army forces in south eastern Syria causing more than 100 casualties, and the shooting down of an Iranian drone in the same region.

The Russian Defence Ministry immediately announced it was suspending cooperation with US forces, and that henceforth all kinds of airborne vehicles, including aircraft and UAVs of the international coalition detected to the west of the Euphrates River will be tracked by the Russian SAM systems as air targets.” The obvious inference is that they will at risk of being shot down. David Wroe, defence correspondent for the Fairfax media wrote (SMH 21 June 2017) that the shoot down “triggered a belligerent response from Russia.” His article was entitled “RAAF halts air strikes after Russian threat.”

As is almost invariably the case with Australian reporting of the Syrian war, inappropriate language and a failure to report accurately on the issues is more often than not the case. Wroe’s article and other western media reports of the American action and the Russian response illustrate the point.

US General Joseph Dunford referred to the incident as justified under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, (AUMF) a resolution passed in 2001 following the “9/11” events in Washington and New York of that year.

Dunford also used the term “collective self defence of partnered forces.” That neither the AUMF nor the term collective self-defence are remotely applicable to the war in Syria is never discussed in the Australian media. Their default position appears to be that if the Americans claim it, then it must be correct. There is similarly no discussion at all as to the right of the Americans or their coalition allies, including Australia, to even establish a base on Syrian soil.

The “collective self defence “ justification was also used by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop when she was asked on ABC National Radio in late 2015 to explain the legal basis for Australia’s announced intention of intervening in the Syrian war. Her answer then was identical to that of Dunford. Neither of them was correct.

Article 51 of the UN Charter does provide for collective self-defence in tightly defined circumstances. The ICJ has stipulated what those circumstances are. It requires as a minimum that a State is attacked by another State, and that the party being attacked requests assistance. It does not apply in the case of attacks by non-state actors.

Manifestly, neither applies to either the US or Australia in the case of Syria. The legitimate sovereign government of Syria has not sought the help of either country. Both are operating in Syria in contravention of international law. Both the US and Australia are quick to invoke the ‘rule of law’ or the ‘rules based international order ‘ when it suits them but are singularly incapable of applying those same principles to their own conduct.

The absurdity of the US led coalition’s position is further seen in the US claim that they were defending a self declared “deconfliction zone” in south eastern Syria at the confluence of the Jordan, Syria and Iraq borders.

Russia, Turkey, Syria and Iran had in fact agreed upon the establishment of deconfliction zones within Syria, which the US has failed to acknowledge or even participate in the negotiations. They are now citing a wholly illegitimate zone of their own as theirs to defend while they train the so-called moderate terrorists. That they neither sought nor obtained the consent of the Syrian government to these activities is simply ignored by the western media. That the Americans should attack Syrian forces that are themselves attacking terrorists is beyond irony. The profound hypocrisy of the US and Australian position was never more obvious than in south-eastern Syria.

The area around al Tanf in south-eastern Syria the Americans are defending extends for 50km from the town. The significance of this area is not that the Americans are combatting terrorism as the media would have us believe, but that is a critical part of the logistics flow between Iran and Syria. At al Tanf and elsewhere the Americans are more than willing to intervene on behalf of the ISIS proxies, as senior US military personnel have acknowledged for some time.

This is also illustrated in the specific case of the military base the Americans and their coalition allies have set up at al Tanf on the Syrian side of the border. The militants being trained there by the Americans and others belong to a group known as Maghawir al Thawra. Video footage shows these militants driving around in new Toyota land cruisers identical to those supplied by Saudi Arabia to ISIS and other terror related groups.

One of their spokesmen, Abu al Atheer has said that the goal of the US forces they are being trained by is to take the Syrian city of Deir Ezzor. As Syrian government forces hold that city, it is difficult to see a benevolent rationale behind the desire of militants to take control of the city.

In truth, Maghawir al Thawra is no more than yet another of the multiple terrorist proxy forces being used by the Americans. Their rebranding of such terror groups as “moderates” is no more than a cynical exercise to conceal the fact that the US and its allies are waging an illegal war in pursuit of their overriding objective of regime change in Syria.

The shooting down of a Syrian fighter in this context clearly marked a red line for the Russians. Quite simply, they have had enough and their announcement of tracking and potentially shooting down Coalition planes was the least that could be expected. If one were the apply Wroe’s terminology of a “bellicose reaction” to the Syrian situation then the US and its loyal acolyte Australia are much stronger contenders.

Commentators such as Wroe seem completely unable to understand that the Americans are pursuing much wider objectives. Apart from the aforementioned regime change, a major secondary goal is the blocking of Chinese, Russian and Iranian access to the eastern Mediterranean. These three countries are cooperating in much more than preventing Syria from joining the lengthy list of failed States that have suffered from decades of US geopolitical ambitions. That cooperation manifests itself in the increasingly important Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the massive Belt and Road Initiative that is transforming the geopolitical structure of Eurasia.

Syria and Iran are key states in the development of these peaceful alternative to the perpetual war model preferred by the Americans and their allies. What Pepe Escobar accurately calls ‘blood on the tracks of the New Silk Roads reflects the determination of the US to cling to its unipolar ambitions. What is currently being played out in Yemen, Qatar, Syria, Iraq and Iran are symptoms of that ambition.

One faint glimmer of hope is that President Trump is endeavouring to keep a door open to negotiations with Russia. The blatant violations of international law that characterises American behaviour in Syria suggests that the neocon element in US foreign policy is doing all it can to sabotage any Trump initiatives (as confused and weak as they are) for a peaceful resolution of the Syrian conflict. That may be crediting Trump with more goodwill than is justified.

In the light of the Russian warning, Australia prudently chose to cease its illegal military activities in Syria. One would hope that such prudence is the beginning of a greater wisdom about the true costs of unthinking adherence to failed policies. Again however, judging by Australian political statements on the Syrian conflict, and the quality of journalistic commentary cited above, that also may be a vain hope.

James O’Neill, an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image from New Eastern Outlook

Featured image: A businessman walks by the 666 Fifth Avenue skyscraper owned by Kushner Companies in New York on March 29, 2017. (Source: The Intercept)

NOT LONG BEFORE a major crisis ripped through the Middle East, pitting the United States and a bloc of Gulf countries against Qatar, Jared Kushner’s real estate company had unsuccessfully sought a critical half-billion-dollar investment from one of the richest and most influential men in the tiny nation, according to three well-placed sources with knowledge of the near transaction.

Kushner is a senior adviser to President Trump, and also his son-in-law, and also the scion of a New York real estate empire that faces an extreme risk from an investment made by Kushner in the building at 666 Fifth Avenue, where the family is now severely underwater.

Qatar is facing an ongoing blockade led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and joined by Egypt and Bahrain, which President Trump has taken credit for sparking. Kushner, meanwhile, has reportedly played a key behind-the-scenes role in hardening the U.S. posture toward the embattled nation.

Jared Kushner

That hard line comes in the wake of the previously unreported half-billion-dollar deal that was never consummated. Throughout 2015 and 2016, Jared Kushner and his father, Charles, negotiated directly with a major investor in Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, known as HBJ for short, in an effort to refinance the property on Fifth Avenue, the sources said.

Trump himself has unsuccessfully sought financing in recent years from the Qataris, but it is difficult to overstate just how important the investment at 666 Fifth Avenue is for Kushner, his company, and his family’s legacy in real estate. Without some outside intervention or unforeseen turnaround in the market, the investment could become an embarrassing half-billion-dollar loss. It’s unclear precisely how much peril such a loss would put Jared’s or his family’s finances in, given the opacity of their private holdings.

HBJ, a former prime minister of Qatar who ran the country’s $250 billion sovereign wealth fund, is a billionaire and one of the world’s richest men. He owns a yacht worth $300 million called Al Mirqab, the same name he gave to the private investment firm that Kushner pitched. The former emir of Qatar summed up HBJ’s power with a quip:

“I may run this country, but he owns it.”

HBJ ultimately agreed to invest at least $500 million through Al Mirqab, on the condition that Kushner Companies could raise the rest of a multibillion refinancing elsewhere. The negotiations continued long after the election, carried out as recently as this spring by Charles Kushner. “HBJ basically told them, we’re good for 500, subject to a lot of things, but mainly subject to you being able to raise the rest,” said one source in the region with knowledge of the deal. The talks were confirmed by two additional sources with knowledge of the talks. One of those sources claimed that the potential deal was not contingent on the rest of the money being raised and that the HBJ investment was on hold as the overall structure of the financing was reconsidered. None of the sources would agree to talk on the record about a private financial transaction that has until now remained a secret.

After the election, Kushner Companies found many more suitors interested in doing business, one of the sources, who is U.S.-based, said. One of the investors taking the deal more seriously in late 2016 and early 2017, the U.S. source said, was “Hamid bin what’s-his-name,” referring to HBJ. Top executives at Kushner Companies, the source said, “are dumb enough to not know that why they want to deal with them has nothing to do with the real estate. Around the New Year they were like, ‘LPs” — industry slang for limited partners, or investors — “are engaging more!’ It’s like, I wonder why?”

Or, perhaps, they know quite well what’s going on. The $500 million still left the Kushners far short, and to try to fill the financing hole, the company turned to China. An insurance firm there with close ties to the country’s ruling elite had been pursued for months, but, like the other investors, wasn’t truly interested in the deal until after the election. (A source familiar with the dealmaking said that the Kushners had been in discussions with HBJ since before Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015. When a potential deal with Anbang was first reported by the New York Times in January 2017, company spokeswoman Risa Heller said the talks began “well before the president-elect’s victory,” right around when he officially sealed the Republican nomination.)

White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks referred questions to Kushner Companies; a spokesman there declined The Intercept’s request for comment. HBJ declined to comment.

In March, the details of the talks between Kushner and the firm, Anbang, became public. Anbang would invest $400 million in the project and the Kushners would put up $750 million, and additional investors, of which The Intercept’s sources say HBJ was to be one, would contribute a total of almost $2 billion more, according to a document being shown to investors that was shared with Bloomberg. The investment would have fit a trend of increasing Qatari investment in New York City real estate: Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund, which HBJ used to run, has increased its investment in New York City real estate in recent years, and HBJ has a number of property investments in London and New York.

Anbang’s $400 million, plus $100 million from other investors, would flow to the Kushners, meaning the family would recoup the entirety of their initial $500 million investment, a startling turnaround given that the New York Times’s detailed analysis of the building’s woes found the Kushners’ investment was now essentially worthless.

Crucially, in addition to the cash investment, the deal called for Anbang to take out a $4 billion loan to finance the demolition of the current building and the construction of an 80-story Zaha Hadid-designed residential and retail tower in its place. (The total cost for the project would be around $7.5 billion.) Only a handful of companies in the real estate business, such as Blackstone and Brookfield, are big enough to secure a loan of that size, and to date they appear unwilling to take on the level of scrutiny the deal would bring, never mind offer terms as favorable as Anbang’s. Additionally, any borrower would have to get their loan from somewhere, and one dynamic stymying the deal may be that any bank that underwrote such a loan would face just as much scrutiny for their financial and political judgment as the investor they gave it to.

Anbang pulled out after the deal was criticized as a conflict of interest, given Kushner’s role in the White House. With Anbang, and its ability to secure a $4 billion construction loan, out, the Qatari condition wasn’t met, and the Gulf deal fizzled, according to a source in the region. That chain of events was disputed by a source who said the deal between HBJ and the Kushners wasn’t dead, but on hold as the deal’s mix of loans and equity was reconsidered.

The revelation of the half-billion-dollar deal raises thorny and unprecedented ethical questions. If the deal is not entirely dead, that means Jared Kushner is on the one hand pushing to use the power of American diplomacy to pummel a small nation, while on the other his firm is hoping to extract an extraordinary amount of capital from there for a failing investment. If, however, the deal is entirely dead, the pummeling may be seen as intimidating to other investors on the end of a Kushner Companies pitch.

THE CRISIS DATES to May, when President Trump visited Saudi Arabia and met with regional leaders there, laying his hands on the now-famous orb. The Emir of Qatar met with Saudi King Salman, a high-level Qatari source told The Intercept, and it went well.

“The Emir was in Jeddah before the summit, had a meeting with King Salman. King Salman did not bring up any subject about differences with Qatar,” he said. “After the summit, the Saudis and the Emirates, they thought, after signing all these contracts, they can have the upper hand in the region and they don’t want any country not to be in the same line.”

Whatever the reasoning, on June 5, a diplomatic crisis broke out, as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, along with Egypt and Bahrain, downgraded ties with Qatar, citing Qatar’s funding of terrorist organizations. Weeks earlier, the same countries blocked a number Qatari-backed media outlets citing derogatory public comments by the Emir, which Qatar insisted were fabricated and the result of a hack.

On June 6, President Trump took sides, taking credit for the moves by the Gulf nations.

During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar – look!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

…extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

On June 9, after Saudi Arabia and the UAE had begun to blockade Qatar, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson sought to calm nerves, calling for mediation and an immediate end to the blockade.

Within hours, Trump, at a White House ceremony, contradicted Tillerson, slamming Qatar again and claiming it had “historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.”

Trump’s White House remarks, Tillerson came to believe, had been written by UAE Ambassador Yousef Al-Otaiba and delivered to Trump by Jared Kushner.

The blockade continued. At a private fundraiser in late June, he aimed at Qatar again, this time mocking the pronunciation of the country’s name.

“We’re having a dispute with Qatar — we’re supposed to say Qatar. It’s Qatar, they prefer. I prefer that they don’t fund terrorism,” he quipped, according to an audio recording of his speech obtained by The Intercept.

THE KUSHNERS’ PURCHASE of 666 Fifth Avenue for a record-breaking $1.8 billion in 2007 was a capstone to an era marked by high prices and reckless amounts of debt. The Kushners invested $500 million in the building, and took out debt to cover the rest. But even at the height of a bubbling New York real estate market, there were clear signs that the price was too high and the debt was too much. The Kushners paid $1,200 a square foot, twice the previous per square foot record of $600, while records show that even with the building initially almost fully rented out, revenue only covered about two-thirds of the family’s debt costs.

When the financial crisis hit, rents went down, vacancies went up, and the Kushners were short on cash to pay their debts. They sold off the Fifth Avenue retail space for $525 million and used the proceeds to pay off non-mortgage debt on the building. Then, in 2011, the Kushners sold off just under 50 percent of the building’s office space to Vornado, as part of a refinancing deal with the publicly traded real estate giant.

The $1.2 billion interest-only mortgage is due in February 2019. The office space is worth less than its mortgage and “there is no equity value” left in the office section of the building, Jed Reagan of Green Street Advisors told the New York Times in April. (Because they sold the retail space to make payments on other debt tied to the building, the office space is the only part of the tower the Kushners still have a stake in.) As a result, the family’s initial $500 million investment, once heralded as an example of Jared’s emergence as a brash real estate star, has for now effectively been wiped out. A massive refinancing and construction of a new tower that dramatically increases the building’s value is one way to try to get out of that hole.

The Kushners are also looking for loans totaling $250 million to pay off debt used to build an apartment building in Jersey City, Bloomberg first reported in June. The tower, called Trump Bay Street, was financed in part by Chinese investors. Those investments were made through the E5-B visa program, which gives green cards to wealthy foreigners in exchange for investments in the U.S. The family also owes CIT Group $140 million, which it must repay by September. A company spokesman later confirmed to the New York Times that it was indeed seeking the $250 million loan.

The Kushners came under fire in May when the New York Times reported that Jared’s sister Nicole Meyer had pitched her family’s ties as part of a roadshow to raise money for another Jersey City building under the same pay-for-residency visa program. After the report, the family backtracked and said they would not take part in the roadshow going forward.

Meanwhile, the water is rising on the Fifth Avenue investment. And the blockade continues.

Had the Qataris known where things were heading diplomatically, said the source in the region, they’d have happily ponied up the money, even knowing that it was a losing investment.

“It would have been much cheaper,” he said.

It is one of the great ironies that the United States, a land mass protected by two broad oceans while also benefiting from the world’s largest economy and most powerful military, persists in viewing itself as a potential victim, vulnerable and surrounded by enemies. In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.

And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so they U.S. has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation.

Also, I would characterize international terrorism as a faux threat at a national level, though one that has been exaggerated through the media and fearmongering to such an extent that it appears much more dangerous than it actually is. It has been observed that more Americans are killed by falling furniture than by terrorists in a year but terrorism has a particularly potency due to its unpredictability and the fear that it creates. Due to that fear, American governments and businesses at all levels have been willing to spend a trillion dollars per annum to defeat what might rationally be regarded as a relatively minor problem.

So if the United States were serious about dealing with or deflecting the actual threats against the American people it could first of all reduce its defense expenditures to make them commensurate with the actual threat before concentrating on three things. First, would be to establish a solid modus vivendi with Russia and China to avoid conflicts of interest that could develop into actual tit-for-tat escalation. That would require an acceptance by Washington of the fact that both Moscow and Beijing have regional spheres of influence that are defined by their interests. You don’t have to like the governance of either country, but their national interests have to be appreciated and respected just as the United States has legitimate interests within its own hemisphere that must be respected by Russia and China.

Second, Washington must, unfortunately, continue to spend on the Missile Defense Agency, which supports anti-missile defenses if the search for a modus vivendi for some reason fails. Mutual assured destruction is not a desirable strategic doctrine but being able to intercept incoming missiles while also having some capability to strike back if attacked is a realistic deterrent given the proliferation of nations that have both ballistic missiles and nukes.

Third and finally, there would be a coordinated program aimed at international terrorism based equally on where the terror comes from and on physically preventing the terrorist attacks from taking place. This is the element in national defense that is least clear cut. Dealing with Russia and China involves working with mature regimes that have established diplomatic and military channels. Dealing with terrorist non-state players is completely different as there are generally speaking no such channels.

It should in theory be pretty simple to match threats and interests with actions since there are only a handful that really matter, but apparently it is not so in practice. What is Washington doing? First of all, the White House is deliberately turning its back on restoring a good working relationship with Russia by insisting that Crimea be returned to Kiev, by blaming Moscow for the continued unrest in Donbas, and by attacking Syrian military targets in spite of the fact that Russia is an ally of the legitimate government in Damascus and the United States is an interloper in the conflict. Meanwhile congress and the media are poisoning the waters through their dogged pursuit of Russiagate for political reasons even though nearly a year of investigation has produced no actual evidence of malfeasance on the part of U.S. officials and precious little in terms of Moscow’s alleged interference.

Playing tough to the international audience has unfortunately become part of the American Exceptionalism DNA. Upon his arrival in Warsaw last week, Donald Trump doubled down on the Russia-bashing, calling on Moscow to “cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes including Syria and Iran.” He then recommended that Russia should “join the community of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and in defense of civilization itself.”

The comments in Warsaw were unnecessary, even if the Poles wanted to hear them, and were both highly insulting and ignorant. It was not a good start for Donald’s second overseas trip, even though the speech has otherwise been interpreted as a welcome defense of Western civilization and European values. Trump also followed up with a two hour plus discussion with President Vladimir Putin in which the two apparently agreed to differ on the alleged Russian hacking of the American election. The Trump-Putin meeting indicated that restoring some kind of working relationship with Russia is still possible, as it is in everyone’s interest to do so.

Fighting terrorism is quite another matter and the United States approach is the reverse of what a rational player would be seeking to accomplish. The U.S. is rightly assisting in the bid to eradicate ISIS in Syria and Iraq but it is simultaneously attacking the most effective fighters against that group, namely the Syrian government armed forces and the Shi’ite militias being provided by Iran and Hezbollah. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that at least some in the Trump Administration are seeking to use the Syrian engagement as a stepping stone to war with Iran.

As was the case in the months preceding the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003, all buttons are being pushed to vilify Iran. Recent reports suggest that two individuals in the White House in particular have been pressuring the Trump administration’s generals to escalate U.S. involvement in Syria to bring about a war with Tehran sooner rather than later. They are Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek Harvey, reported to be holdovers from the team brought into the White House by the virulently anti-Iranian former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times that “wants to use American spies to help oust the Iranian government,” a comment that reflects complete ignorance, both regarding Iran and also concerning spy agency capabilities. His partner in crime Harvey, a former military officer who advised General David Petraeus when he was in Iraq, is the NSC advisor on the Middle East.

Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force, an opportunity described by Foreign Policy magazine as having developed into “a pivotal moment that will determine whether Iran or the United States exerts influence over Iraq and Syria.” Other neocon promoters of conflict with Iran have described their horror at a possible Shi’ite “bridge” or “land corridor” through the Arab heartland, running from Iran itself through Iraq and Syria and connecting on the Mediterranean with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar sees “unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration” towards Iran and notes “cherry-picking” of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America’s number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf.

The problem with the Trump analysis is that he has his friends and enemies confused. He is actually supporting Saudi Arabia, the source of most of the terrorism that has convulsed Western Europe and the United States while also killing hundreds of thousands of fellow Muslims. Random terrorism to kill as many “infidels and heretics” as possible to create fear is a Sunni Muslim phenomenon, supported financially and doctrinally by the Saudis. To be sure, Iran has used terror tactics to eliminate opponents and select targets overseas, to include several multiple-victim bombings, but it has never engaged in anything like the recent series of attacks in France and Britain. So the United States is moving seemingly inexorably towards war with a country that itself constitutes no actual terrorist threat, unless it is attacked, in support of a country that very much is part of the threat and also on behalf of Israel, which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.

Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America’s armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go. Saudi financing and Washington’s propensity to go to war and thereby create a deep well of hatred just might be the principal causative elements in the rise of global terrorism. Do I think that Donald Trump’s White House has the courage to take such a step and change direction? Unfortunately, no.

Featured image from The Unz Review

At approximately 11AM on July 7, 2017, following a recorded vote of 122 states in favor, 1 opposed (Netherlands in opposition, on behalf of all NATO states), and 1 abstention (Singapore), Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gomez, Costa Rican Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, and President of the “United Nations Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, Leading Towards their Total Elimination,” announced the adoption of this treaty, which had been awaited for 70 years, the legally binding norm prohibiting nuclear weapons. 

Following Ambassador Whyte’s announcement, the entire assembly of ambassadors, other delegates and non-government organizations in Conference Room 1 immediately stood, many embraced and all 122 States in support exultantly applauded this historic and long overdue achievement by the majority of member states of the United Nations, none of whom possess nuclear weapons, and all of whom are unified in seeking to end the reign of terror imposed on the world by certain of the states possessing nuclear weapons.

Excerpts from the preamble to this landmark treaty state:

“The States Parties to this Treaty,

PP1:  Determined to contribute to the realization of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

PP2:  Deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons, and recognizing the consequent need to completely eliminate such weapons, which remains the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances,

PP4:  Cognizant that the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons cannot be adequately addressed, transcend national borders, pose grave implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security and the health of current and future generations, and have a disproportionate impact on women and girls, including as a result of ionizing radiation,

PP5:  Acknowledging the ethical imperatives for nuclear disarmament and the urgency of achieving and maintaining a nuclear-weapon-free world, which is a global public good of the highest order, serving both national and collective security interests,

PP9:  Basing themselves on the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, in particular the principle that the right of parties to an armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited, the rule of distinction, the prohibition against indiscriminate attacks, the rules on proportionality and precautions in attack, the prohibition on the use of weapons of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, and the rules for the protection of the natural environment,

PP10: Considering that any use of nuclear weapons would be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, in particular the principles and rules of international humanitarian law,

PP11:  Reaffirming that any use of nuclear weapons would also be abhorrent to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience,

PP14:  Concerned by the slow pace of nuclear disarmament, the continued reliance on nuclear weapons in military and security concepts, doctrines and policies, and the waste of economic and human resources on programmes for the production, maintenance and modernization of nuclear weapons,”

The 24 paragraphs of the preamble set forth incontestable reasons for the imperative and immediate adoption of this treaty by all member states of the United Nations. Reference to the full text of this treaty makes this imperative explicit, and in great detail.

The operative section of the treaty includes 20 Articles. Article 1, entitled “Prohibitions” states:

“1.   Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:

• Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

• Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly;

• Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly;

• Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

• Assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;

• Seek or receive any assistance, in any way, from anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;

• Allow any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any place under its jurisdiction or control.”

Although none of the states possessing nuclear weapons participated in the negotiations leading to the adoption of this treaty, it is, nevertheless a major achievement of the United Nations, and a fulfillment of one of the most important sections of the United Nations Charter. It is the expectation of those member states who participated in this long and grueling process culminating in the successful adoption of this treaty, that the very establishment of this treaty provides a legal norm which will exert significant pressure upon the states possessing nuclear weapons, and places the nuclear weapons states in de facto violation of international law. This newly adopted United Nations based legal norm stigmatizes the nuclear weapons states precisely for their possession of these ultimate weapons of mass destruction.

During the September 26, 2016 meeting calling for this treaty, it was emphasized that there are treaties prohibiting the possession and use of biological weapons, there are treaties prohibiting the possession and use of chemical weapons, but at that time there was absolutely no legal prohibition against the possession and use of the most devastating and horrific of all weapons of mass destruction ever devised by the human species, nuclear weapons. At that time powerful calls for this just adopted treaty were made by many states, in particular, forceful and eloquent speeches by South Africa, Sweden and numerous others.

On October 27, 2016 the UN General Assembly voted on Resolution L.41, to convene negotiations in 2017 on a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.” It is of great significance that, alone among the states possessing nuclear weapons, only the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea voted “yes,” in support of these negotiations to create a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons,” which is powerful and virtually incontestable evidence that North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons is purely and exclusively defensive.

The Press Statement by the US, UK, and France

At 12:51 AM on July 7, a joint press statement was issued by the Ambassadors of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, and reads:

“France, the United Kingdom and the United States have not taken part in the negotiation of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it.”

The statement then comments, irrationally, and absurdly, that the new treaty will create “even more divisions at a time when the world needs to remain united in the face of growing threats, including those from the DPRK’s ongoing proliferation efforts.

This treaty offers no solution to the grave threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear program.” No sane person would consider that the tiny number of defensive nuclear weapons allegedly possessed by the  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea could possibly be a threat in any way comparable to the more than 15,000 advanced, sophisticated nuclear weapons possessed by the US, the UK and France, a nuclear arsenal capable of obliterating all life on earth. The exploitation of the DPRK’s tiny defensive weapons as a cynical justification for retaining the gargantuan arsenals possessed by the authors of this press statement also reveals dangerous paranoia by the most militarily powerful nations on earth. Indeed, even The New York Times, on July 9, page 10 acknowledges that:

“During the Korean War, North Korea was hit with thousands of tons of American bombs. The conflict technically continues, and North Korea claims it needs a robust defense program to protect itself in case of a renewed American attack.”

It is surprising that the U.S., the U.K. and France have issued a statement flaunting their violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty: they are required by Article 6 of that treaty “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,” which is precisely what the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons constitutes.

The authors of this press statement evidently consider themselves above international law, and not beholden to any legal restrictions on their use of force. With this press statement, the US, the UK and France have forfeited moral legitimacy, and as permanent members of the Security Council are divested of any authority to sanction North Korea. Further, they should themselves be sanctioned for their violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Their indifference to this new treaty’s basis in international humanitarian law, one of the treaty’s pillars, gives the lie to their pretense of concern for humanitarian considerations which they frequently cite, deceptively, during their speeches at the Security Council.

But July 7, 2017 will remain a pivotal date in the history of the United Nations, the day on which the majority of countries of the developing world, and many of the responsible and mature nations of the “developed world” have confronted the nuclear states with the uncivilized character of their possession of nuclear weapons, and the moral and practical imperative of divesting themselves of these insane instruments of horror.

Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y.

Featured image: A B-1B Lancer with wings swept full forward (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

In a menacing move as leaders gathered at the G20 summit in Germany, the US Air Force flew two B1-B strategic bombers over the Korean Peninsula on Friday and unleashed inert bombs as part of a joint military exercise involving US and South Korean fighter aircraft.

US Air Force commander in the Pacific, General Terrence O’Shaughnessy, branded North Korea as a threat to the US and its allies.

“If called upon we are trained, equipped and ready to unleash the full lethal capability of our allied air forces,” he warned.

General Terrence J. O’Shaughnessy is Commander, Pacific Air Forces; Air Component Commander for U.S. Pacific Command (Source: U.S. Air Force)

The US bombers then flew with Japanese fighters over the East China Sea before returning to Guam. Just the day before, two US B1-B bombers provocatively flew over the South China Sea in a so-called freedom of navigation operation to challenge Chinese territorial claims in the disputed waters.

North Korea denounced the US-South Korean bombing drill as a “reckless military provocation” and warned that the US was pushing “the risk of a nuclear war on the [Korean] peninsula to a tipping point.”

The bombing practice follows massive joint US-South Korean war games earlier this year involving more than 300,000 personnel, along with warships, military aircraft and other sophisticated weaponry. On Wednesday, the South Korean and US militaries carried out missile drills aimed against North Korea.

The Trump administration has exploited the test launch last Tuesday of what was claimed to be a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) to ramp up tensions on the Korean Peninsula and put pressure on the G20, particularly China, to take tougher action against Pyongyang.

The US efforts to put North Korea on the G20 agenda were effectively blocked by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Backed by China and Russia, she insisted that the summit was concerned with economic matters.

Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Saturday on the sidelines of the G20 summit in a bid to pressure China to impose crippling sanctions on North Korea to force it to abandon its nuclear arsenal. During the brief public portion of the meeting, the US president declared “something has to be done” about North Korea and warned “there will be success in the end, one way or the other.”

Source: South China Morning Post

As well as the B1-B flights, the US has taken provocative steps in recent weeks, including a major arms sale to Taiwan, two “freedom of navigation operations” in the South China Sea, and sanctions on two Chinese companies over trade with North Korea. These moves are, in effect, threats of further action if Beijing does not carry out Washington’s bidding.

Trump, who left the G20 meeting without giving a press conference, claimed in a tweet that he had just finished “an excellent meeting on trade and North Korea” with Xi. No details were provided, however.

Briefing the media, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin described the discussion as “very direct.” He continued:

“I think there were substantive discussions about the financing of North Korea, we had substantive discussions about ways of dealing with North Korea together.”

The reference to financing is significant. Mnuchin announced a ban on a Chinese bank just over a week ago for allegedly breaching US sanctions on North Korea. The Trump administration is demanding that all countries, particularly China, cut North Korea off from the global financial system and threatening secondary sanction against countries and companies that fail to do so.

Trump’s upbeat tweet after meeting Xi is in marked contrast to previous remarks indicating that Trump had given up on China as the means for compelling North Korea to submit to US demands. Just last week, he issued another tweet alleging a 40 percent increase in trade between China and North Korea.

“So much for China working with us—but we had to give it a try!” he declared.

Xi’s comments following his meeting with Trump were low-key. According to the state-run Xinhua news agency, he told Trump China had already stated its position on North Korea multiple times. Before the G20 meeting, Xi with the support of Russian President Vladimir Putin, reiterated Beijing’s proposal that North Korea freeze its nuclear and missile tests if South Korea and the US halt their military exercises, opening the way for talks.

Speaking to the media at the G20 meeting last Friday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson declared Washington was not interested in the Chinese and Russian proposal about freezing North Korea’s “very high level of capability.” Instead, he insisted, any talks with Pyongyang must be about charting a course “to cease and roll back” its nuclear program.

Xi also repeated China’s opposition to the US deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile battery in South Korea. While the THAAD installation is nominally directed against North Korea, its powerful X-band radar can look deep inside Chinese territory and undermines China’s ability to retaliate against a US nuclear attack.

The bitter disagreements over the THAAD system highlight the fact that the US military build-up in Asia, on the pretext of the alleged threat posed by North Korea, is primarily aimed against China, which the US regards as the main obstacle to its supremacy in the Asia Pacific.

Following the US lead, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull used their meetings with Xi at the G20 summit to press for tougher Chinese penalties against Pyongyang. The US has already foreshadowed a new UN Security Council resolution to block finance and oil for North Korea, among other sanctions.

If crippling sanctions fail to bring the North Korean regime to heel, the US B1-B bomber flight is the latest reminder that “all options are on the table,” including pre-emptive military attacks.

Last Friday, US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis declared that while the US focus was “diplomatic and economic efforts,” North Korea’s missile test last week was “a very serious escalation.” He warned Pyongyang that any attempt to start a war would lead to “severe consequences.”

Saudi Arabia has unleashed a good deal of power against Qatar since the very suspicious incident of emails being leaked to the media. The Qatari national news website was hacked and had emails allegedly from the government showing links to terrorist groups and growing ties to Iran. With these “revelations” the Saudis have pounced on the opportunity to carry out hostile actions against them. Many believe that this is an attempt to force Qatar back to its client state status from decades ago.

It should not be seen as a coincidence that this hacking and the resultant hostilities come as Qatar has lifted its moratorium on the development of the North Field natural gas region back in April. In 2005 the government halted development after they decided they needed to study the effects on the reservoir that would develop as a result of increased output.

Thirteen demands were made of Doha by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) spearheaded by the Saudis. They include cutting ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, scaling back cooperation with Iran, and shutting down the state broadcaster Al-Jazeera. Qatar has dismissed them as ‘unrealistic’. Qatar is under no obligation to bow to the demands of the GCC who have no legal basis for threatening them.

Since the diplomatic row between Qatar and its neighbors, Doha has suffered from an economic blockade. The Saudis have been able to do this because they control the only land connection Qatar has. As it is, Qatar imports 80% of the food it consumes. 40% of that comes across the land border with the Saudis. Qatar was also importing $5 billion worth of goods from the blockading countries Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain.

They, however, have not been left without support. In the absence of these goods, alternative sources of milk, eggs, and cheese have been offered by other countries. Most notably, Turkey and Iran. The irony is that, as they’ve demanded Qatar pull away from Iran, they have only moved closer out of necessity.

Despite the impact of the economic war on Qatar, there has been little real damage to the economy. The central bank currently has a huge foreign currency exchange reserve which it can use to support its currency. As of 2016, Qatar’s Foreign Exchange Reserves as a percent of their GDP was reported at 19.79%. They’ve also made it clear that additional liquidity will be made available to anyone who requires it.

Qatar has the power to withstand a Saudi financial assault.

When demands were made by the Saudis, Qatar took a moment to think them over, using up the time that they were given to answer. Their response was a casual dismissal that told them that their demands were unrealistic. The almost off-handed manner with which they replied must have irked the Saudis something fierce. Few states in the region wield the significant political capital to do such a thing. This says something very important about how Qatar views their chances in further hostilities.

The Saudis have certainly underestimated the tenacity of the Qatari government. They’ve also underestimated the willingness of other Arab states to assist them during this time. Perhaps they have had a free hand by US imperialism for so long that they’ve forgotten what the situation in the Middle East is like. Materially and politically we’ve seen other countries step up and give support for the Qatari government. The Saudis thought they would have them over a barrel unable to defend themselves. They have most certainly been proven incorrect.

Many are concerned that the tensions between the two countries could break out into a war. The prospect is very unlikely. As it is the Saudis are already bogged down in a vicious struggle in Yemen. The rest of their military capacity is focused on controlling terrorist forces in Syria and Iraq. There isn’t really any forces to speak of left to carry out a campaign on their northern border. The manpower simply isn’t available to them. The recent low gas prices also begs the question as to whether they have the budget for it as well. The Saudis cannot carry out any kind of military action against Qatar on a large scale.

It’s also very unlikely that Qatar will launch a military campaign against the Saudis. Qatar’s air power alone is quite modest in comparison to Saudi Arabia’s. Qatar is not a large spender when it comes to its military. Qatar’s defence expenditures were a total of $1.913 billion, about 1.5% of the national GDP, as of 2010. By contrast, Saudi Arabia spent $63.7 billion, about 10% of the national GDP, as of 2010. It should be noted that the Saudis are the fourth largest military spenders in the world.

The Saudis must have thought themselves gods. They have attempted to manipulate the entire region to their whims. Every time they have struggled to dominate someone, they have encountered significant resistance. The region, it seems, is unwilling to kowtow to the Saudi Royal family. It also looks as though the Qataris will be no different in their resistance.

Jason Unruhe is a contributor to PressTV and long time blogger and amateur journalist on YouTube.

Featured image from Strategic Culture Foundation

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon,

Allow me to skip any statements and monologues. You have seen and heard everything, a great deal. Let us get straight to questions.

Go ahead, please.

Question: Mr President, both experts and ordinary people, some of whom are rampaging near this building now, are known to have different opinions on the usefulness of G20 summits. At this summit, for example, there was more talk about your meeting with Mr Trump. And yet which of the issues discussed by the G20 is most relevant for Russia? Thank you.

We agreed on determining global economy sustainability principles, and this is vitally important for working along the same standards.

Then we continued with the issue which in fact had been launched in St Petersburg: money laundering and everything connected with tax havens and tax evasion. It is a crucial matter with practical implications.

Next, no less important and also connected with the economy, a related but very important issue – the fight against terror, tracking money flows to prevent the funding of terrorism.

Finally, a very big and very sensitive issue is climate change. I think in this respect the Federal Republic of Germany chairing the G20 has managed to reach the best compromise in a difficult situation the chairing nation has found itself in, namely due to the US quitting the Paris Climate Agreement. An agreement was reached, a compromise, when all the countries have recorded that the United States pulled out of the agreement but they are ready to continue cooperating in certain areas and with certain countries on addressing climate change challenges. I think this is a positive result in itself, which can be credited to Chancellor Merkel.

There are other issues we looked into. For example, digital economy. Here we proposed adopting common rules in the area of digital economy, defining cyber security and designing a comprehensive system of behaviour rules in this sphere.

We said today – the President of the South African Republic spoke very convincingly about it; in fact, this issue was touched upon in practically everyone’s speech and in some way it is reflected in the final documents – that we must be ready for the release of the labour force, we must make joint efforts, we must figure out what should be done with the workers who have lost their jobs, how to arrange retraining, what the deadlines are and what rules should be put in place.

Among other things I drew attention to the fact that trade unions will have to be engaged because they will protect not only the workers but also the self-employed individuals operating in the digital economy, and the number of such jobs is increasing. This is connected in one way or another with women’s rights and education for girls. This is being discussed at many forums but we talked about it today in the context of digital economy.

Overall, this forum is definitely effective, and I believe it will play a role in stabilising the global economy in general.

Question: Mr President, I would like to follow up on my colleague’s topic. Even though there were many political issues at the summit, they keep on surfacing at the G20 summits more and more often, yet you listed economic issues, which remain the priority anyway. Many speakers, ministers from different countries responsible for the economy, said that 2017 could become the year of global economic growth. How feasible is that and will this growth be seen in Russia in view of the current unfavourable trends – sanctions, restrictions and other factors?

Vladimir Putin: We have not seen any unfavourable trends so far, or they have almost disappeared at any rate. Certain factors are having a negative impact on economic development, including in the global economy, the economy in the Euro zone and in Russia, those same illegitimate restrictions you have mentioned. We call for lifting any restrictions, for free trade, for working within the World Trade Organisation, in line the WTO rules. By the way, one of the topics discussed here was free trade and countering protectionism. This is also one of the crucial areas that should be mentioned.

On the whole, there is some progress. However, the initial optimistic growth forecasts have been downgraded. Nevertheless, there is growth, and it is apparent, including in Russia.

I said recently and repeated it here that Russian economic growth is tangible, the Russian economy, and we can say this with certainty, has recovered from the recession. We have been growing for the third quarter in a row, and soon it will be the fourth quarter in a row. Growth exceeded 3 percent in May: it was 3.1 percent. I think we will have an average of 2 percent in 2017. This is also a significant contribution to the global economic growth.

Let me remind you that we also have low unemployment of 5.2 percent, our reserves are growing, including the reserves of the Central Bank and the Government. The Central Bank reserves have already reached $412 billion. The federal budget revenues grew by 40 percent, and all this is happening against the background of fairly low inflation of 4.4 percent. All this taken together certainly gives us optimism; however, one cannot say with certainty that this is a long-term trend. We must take care to sustain this growth trend. I have every reason to believe that we will manage to do it.

Question: Mr President, your meeting with President Trump was literally the focus of everyone’s attention at the summit. How do you access the results of this meeting? It is no secret that US President had voiced a rather tough rhetoric in Poland, and there had even been unfriendly statements from US media in the run-up to the summit. Did Mr Trump ask you directly about Russia’s interference in the US [presidential] election? Did you like him personally? Do you think you will get along?

Vladimir Putin: The US President asked me this question directly, and we discussed it. And this was not a single question, there were many, and he gave much attention to this issue. Russia’s stance is well-known and I reiterated it. There is no reason to believe that Russia interfered in the US election process.

But what is important is that we have agreed that there should not be any uncertainty in this sphere, especially in the future. By the way, I mentioned at the latest summit session that this directly concerns cyberspace, web resources and so on.

The US President and I have agreed to establish a working group and make joint efforts to monitor security in the cyberspace, ensure full compliance with international laws in this area, and to prevent interference in countries’ internal affairs. Primarily this concerns Russia and the United States. We believe that if we succeed in organising this work – and I have no doubt that we will – there will be no more speculation over this matter.

As regards personal relations, I believe that they have been established. This is how I see it: Mr Trump’s television image is very different from the real person; he is a very down to earth and direct person, and he has an absolutely adequate attitude towards the person he is talking with; he analyses things pretty fast and answers the questions he is asked or new ones that arise in the course of the discussion. So I think that if we build our relations in the vein of our yesterday’s meeting, there are good reasons to believe that we will be able to revive, at least partially, the level of interaction that we need.

Question: To follow up on of your answer, could you please say if President Trump has accepted your denial of Russia’s involvement, Russia’s interference in the US election?

Vladimir Putin: I repeat, he asked many question on this matter. I answered all of his questions as far as I could. I think he took note and agreed. But it would be better if you asked him about what he thinks about it.

Question: One more question about the domestic policy, if I may. Actually, it is unrelated to the G20 but the question is about Russia’s domestic policy. I would like to ask what you think of Alexei Navalny and his activities. And why you do not say his name and surname when you answer questions about him.

Vladimir Putin: I think we can engage in dialogue, especially at the level of the President or the Government, with the people who propose a constructive agenda, even if they voice criticism. But if the point is to attract publicity, this does not encourage dialogue.

Question: Earlier this morning you had a meeting with the French President and the German Chancellor. I assume you had an in-depth discussion on the situation in Ukraine. Did a new vision emerge, and is there any hope that Donbass will come out of the ordeal gripping it right now? Can the discussion of the issue launched with the US President play its role, or do the interests of Russia and the United States still diverge in Ukraine, or may be even oppose each other in some matters? Which, by the way, can be presumed from the background of the US diplomat who was appointed special envoy.

Vladimir Putin: The interests of Russia and Ukraine, the interests of the Russian and Ukraine people – and I am fully and profoundly confident of this – coincide. Our interests fully coincide. The only thing that does not coincide is the interests of the current Ukrainian authorities and some of Ukraine’s political circles. If we are to be objective, of course, both Ukraine and Russia are interested in cooperating with each other, joining their competitive advantages and developing their economies just because we have inherited much from the Soviet era – I am speaking about cooperation, the unified infrastructure and the energy industry, transport, and so on.

But regrettably, today our Ukrainian colleagues believe this can be neglected. They have only one ”product“ left – Russophobia, and they are selling it successfully. Another thing they are selling is the policy of dividing Russia and Ukraine and pulling the two peoples and two nations apart. Some in the West like this; they believe that Russia and Ukraine must not be allowed to get closer in any areas. That is why the current Ukrainian authorities are making active and successful efforts to sell this ”product.“

But I think this will eventually come to an end. Russia, at any rate, wants for this situation to be over as soon as possible.

As regards the United States’ involvement in settling the situation in Ukraine, President Trump and I have talked about this and we agreed – and actually, this has already been done – that a special representative of the administration would be appointed to handle this issue on a permanent basis and to be in constant contact both with Russia and Ukraine, with all the parties interested in settling this conflict.

Question: Mr President, I have a question about the Middle East, which is seething at the moment: Syria, Qatar and other countries. You must have had discussions on Syria at the G20 Summit. How do you assess the prospects for the Syrian settlement after those discussions and after the recent meeting in Astana? Has the stance of the new US Administration on this issue changed or become more constructive, especially in view of yesterday’s agreements?

And also about Qatar, if I may. How do you assess the situation? Was it discussed at the G20 Summit?

And one more question, if I may…

Vladimir Putin: I will have to make a full report to you. (Laughter.)

Question: Well, one does not often get this chance. On the terrorism issue: as far as I know, agreeing on the Statement on Countering Terrorism was a difficult process. If it is not a secret, what were the major contradictions?

Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I am not aware of the difficulties, you had better ask the Sherpa. In my view, there were no basic objections from anyone. Maybe some of the wording. But, to be honest, I am not aware of that. I know that the text was agreed on. At any rate, at the level of delegation heads, heads of state, there were no problems or tensions. Everyone admits that this is a common threat and everyone states their readiness to fight this threat.

As for Qatar, the problem was not discussed. It is a fairly burning regional issue, and can impact certain processes, by the way, including in the economy, in the energy area and in terms of security in the region, but I did not discuss this issue with anybody during the Summit.

About Syria. Yes, we discussed this issue with almost all of my interlocutors. As for whether the US stance has changed or not – I would say it has become more pragmatic. It does not seem to have changed in general, but there is an understanding now that by combining efforts, we can achieve a lot. Yesterday’s deal on the southern de-escalation zone is clearly the result of this change. You know, others may react as they like, but I can tell you, this is one of the breakthroughs we have made in our work with President Trump. This is a real result of cooperation, including with the United States. Jordan has joined in the effort, and so have several other countries in the region. We have held consultations with Israel and will continue them in the near future. Still, this is a very good result, a breakthrough of a kind. Therefore, if we move the same way in other directions, towards other de-escalation areas…

We have discussed this very thoroughly with the President of Turkey today. This does not entirely depend on us, of course, as much has to do with the controversy between the countries in the region. Everyone has their own concerns, everyone has their own preferences, their own interests, I mean legitimate interests, so this is the way we must treat these – as their legitimate interests; we need to look for compromises.

You know, sometimes we find them. In any case, the fact that active military operations have ceased, the fact that we are now discussing de-escalation zones is a huge step forward.

Now we need to agree on the exact boundaries of these zones, and how security will be ensured there. This is a painstaking, even tedious effort, and it is extremely important and responsible work. Based on the recent positive experience, relying on the good will of Iran, Turkey, and of course, the Syrian Government and President al-Assad, we can take further steps.

The most important thing is – we have actually reaffirmed this, also in the documents establishing this zone in the south on the border with Jordan, and the area that borders on the Golan Heights – the most important thing is to ensure Syria’s territorial integrity, eventually, so that these de-escalation zones become the prototype of regions that could cooperate with each other and with the official Damascus. If we manage to do this, we will lay the groundwork, create the prerequisites for resolving the entire Syrian problem by political means.

Question: We have already talked about interfering in the elections but we have new elections coming up in Germany.

Vladimir Putin: Here in Germany?

Question: These days we say “we have elections in Germany” in September. Is Russia planning to interfere in them? Did you notify Angela Merkel about how we are going to do it? Maybe you will give me a hunch as well? (Laughter in the audience.)

Vladimir Putin: You are asking rather provocative questions. But I told you that we had not interfered in the United States either. Why should we make trouble here as well? We have very good relations with the Federal Republic. It is our largest trade and economic partner in Europe country-wise, one of our leading trade partners in the world. We have large joint projects on the agenda that we support, for example, Nord Stream 2. There are a lot of tales being told about it, arguments and even resistance but it is absolutely evident that it is in the interests of the European economy and in the interests of the German economy, which wants to abandon nuclear power.

Why would we do it? Interfering in domestic political processes is the last thing we would wish to do.

If you look at the press, the German press or the European press in general, the French press, it is they who keep on interfering in our domestic affairs. But we are not concerned about it because we feel confident.

Question: Thank you very much, Mr President, for the opportunity to ask you a question on behalf of my television network. We meant to ask you about your meeting with President Trump, but my colleague has already asked the same question. And you said we should ask President Trump about what had happened.

Vladimir Putin: No, I did not. You should ask him about how he sees it, what he thinks about my answers. As to what happened – nothing happened, we did not interfere.

Remark: Unfortunately, the White House offers practically no information about what is going on.

Vladimir Putin: We will give them a piece of our minds. (Laughter.)

Remark: Could you just share what President Trump said during your meeting when you told him that Russia had not interfered in the political process?

Vladimir Putin: He started asking probing questions, he was really interested in some details. I gave him fairly detailed answers as much as I could. I told him about my dialogues with the previous administration, including with President Obama. But I do not feel that I have the right to give details of my conversations, say, with President Obama, it is not an accepted practice at this level. I think it would not be quite appropriate of me to give details of our conversation with President Trump. He asked me and I answered him. He asked probing questions, and I offered explanations. I think he was satisfied with those answers.

Remark: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: You are welcome.

Question: Going back to the issue of boosting economic growth, to the measures that could be taken, the Government has already drafted a plan, and as far as we know, you have read it but for some reason the plan is classified. We know some parts of it from what you said about them.

Vladimir Putin: Let me explain. As you must know, we have several groups working on this issue: a group headed by Mr Titov with the involvement of the business community, and a group headed by Mr Kudrin, who has gathered a large number of respected experts. The Government is also working. But we should make a plan that will be acceptable, optimal for the next steps to be taken in the economy starting in 2018. And we must review all the proposals, assess them and in the end, make the final decision.

It may not be one of the proposals submitted; it may be something based on all three proposals. But work is currently underway, and we do not talk about it in advance.

But the Government has certainly done a great deal in this area, and we will rely largely on the Government’s proposals. We cannot ignore the results of Mr Kudrin’s work, and Mr Titov also has some sensible suggestions. This is why we are working at present to decide what the final variant will be out of the proposals for the development of the Russian economy from 2018 onward.

That is all. There are no secrets. What is the point? The point is that it is wrong to announce what has not been adopted yet. We could just send the wrong signals to the economy, and that is it. It all comes down to that.

Question: I have a question about domestic policy. I have learned that you have been briefed on the [limo] car of the Cortege project, which is to be used at the 2018 presidential inauguration.

Vladimir Putin: You seem to know this better than me: this is the first time I have heard about it.

Question: Have you thought of going for a drive in this car at the official event, that is, at the inauguration?

Vladimir Putin: No, I have not, because the car is not ready yet. You can go for a drive in it yourself, I will see how it goes, and later we can test it out together.

Question: You have spoken about the meeting with Mr Erdogan. Could you please elaborate – when you touched upon the issue of the first zone, the northern one, did you discuss the issue of the Kurds and particularly the territory of Afrin, where representatives of the Russian Centre for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides are present? The Turkish media are already preparing the ground for the Turkish army’s intervention to this area. Also, did you discuss the future of [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad with Mr Trump and Mr Erdogan? For instance, Mr Tillerson said yesterday that this person has no future in the Syrian politics. He did not say how and when, but that was what he said.

Vladimir Putin: Let me answer the second question first. Mr Tillerson is a well-regarded man, he received the Russian Order of Friendship, and we feel great respect for him and we like him. But he is not a Syrian citizen, and the future of Syria and President al-Assad as a political figure has to be determined by the Syrian people.

As regards the Kurdish issue, this is a very big and complicated problem. We keep in contact with many Kurdish groups and make no secret of this. But with regard to military support of their activities, here our US colleagues are far ahead of the game; they are making much greater efforts in this regard.

Our servicemen – not advisers – who are monitoring the ceasefire are indeed present in many regions of Syria, where the truce agreement has been reached. But speaking of the regions you have mentioned, there are one or two of them there, they are not military units. They are performing the task that everyone is interested in fulfilling. But so far, we are not witnessing any preparations for military action; quite the opposite, we expect that our preliminary developments on establishing the de-escalation zones in several regions – in the Idlib area, in the north – will be accomplished. And this cannot be done without Turkey’s support.

Question: My colleagues here have already recalled the words President Trump said in Warsaw. He made yet another statement about the United States being ready to begin direct supplies of liquefied natural gas to Poland and Central Europe. What do you think of these plans, especially in the context of our plans for the Nord Stream? What if gas becomes a new cause of tension in US-Russian relations?

Vladimir Putin: I view these plans highly positively because healthy competition is good for everyone. We support an open market and healthy competition.

The US President said yesterday during the discussion that the United States stands for open, fair competition. And, by the way, when I spoke, I supported his point. So, we are absolutely all right with this; if it is so, if there is open and fair competition, no political motives or political resources involved, it would be quite acceptable for us. Because to date, it is an obvious fact that any specialist would tell you: the cost of production and delivery of liquefied natural gas from the United States is much higher than our LNG – even LNG – and is not even comparable to Russian pipeline gas. So, there is no doubt that we have an absolute competitive advantage. But to keep it, our market participants must work hard. They need to retain these competitive advantages.

Let us wrap this up. Go ahead, please.

Question: After the first meeting with President Trump, do you think it would be possible to gradually pull Russian-US relations out of deep crisis they are in, or is it difficult to say anything at all yet?

Vladimir Putin: I very much hope so, and it seems to me that we have built certain prerequisites for this.

Thank you very much. All the best.

All images in this article are from the original source.

Featured image: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley. (Source: Flickr/Creative Commons/U.S. Mission Photo/Eric Bridiers)

I went to a meeting the other night with some Donald Trump supporters who, like me, had voted for him based on expectations of a more rational foreign policy. They were suggesting that the president’s attempts to move in that direction had been sabotaged by officials inside the administration who want to maintain the current warfare state. Remove those officials and Trump might just keep his pledge to leave Bashar al-Assad alone while improving relations with Russia.

I was somewhat skeptical, noting that the White House had unilaterally initiated the April 7 cruise missile attack on a Syrian airbase as well as the more recent warning against an alleged “planned” chemical attack, hardly moves that might lead to better relations with Damascus and Moscow. But there are indeed some administration figures who clearly are fomenting endless conflict in the Middle East and elsewhere.

One might reasonably start with Generals James Mattis and H.R. McMaster, both of whom are hardliners on Afghanistan and Iran, but with a significant caveat. Generals are trained and indoctrinated to fight and win wars, not to figure out what comes next. General officers like George Marshall or even Dwight Eisenhower who had a broader vision are extremely rare, so much so that expecting a Mattis or McMaster to do what falls outside their purview is perhaps a bit too much. They might be bad choices for the jobs they hold, but at least they employ some kind of rational process, based on how they perceive national interests, to make judgments. If properly reined in by a thoughtful civilian leadership, which does not exist at the moment, they have the potential to be effective contributors to the national-security discussion.

But several other notable figures in the administration deserve to be fired if there is to be any hope of turning Trump’s foreign policy around. In Arthur Sullivan’s and W. S. Gilbert’s The Mikado, the Lord High Executioner sings about the “little list” he is preparing of people who “never will be missed” when he finally gets around to fulfilling the requirements of his office. He includes “apologetic statesmen of a compromising kind,” indicating that the American frustration with the incompetence of its government is not unique, nor is it a recent phenomenon.

My own little list of “society’s offenders” consists largely of the self-described gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy “experts.” Unfortunately, the neocons have proven to be particularly resilient in spite of repeated claims that their end was nigh, most recently after the election of Donald Trump last November. Yet as most of the policies the neocons have historically espoused are indistinguishable from what the White House is currently trying to sell, one might well wake up one morning and imagine that it is 2003 and George W. Bush is still president. Still, hope springs eternal, and now that the United States has celebrated its 241st birthday, it would be nice to think that in the new year our nation might be purged of some of the malignancies that have prevailed since 9/11.

Number one on my little list is Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who is particularly dangerous as she is holding a position where she can do bad things. Haley has been shooting from the lip since she assumed office and, it has become clear, much of what she says goes without any vetting by the Trump administration. It is never clear whether she is speaking for herself or for the White House. That issue has reportedly been dealt with by having the State Department clear in advance her comments on hot button issues, but, if that is indeed the case, the change has been difficult to discern in practice.

Haley is firmly in the neocon camp, receiving praise from Senators like South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham and from the Murdoch media as well as in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard. Her speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg. Haley sees the United Nations as corrupt and bloated, in itself not an unreasonable conclusion, but she has tied herself closely to a number of other, more debatable issues.

As governor of South Carolina, Haley became identified as an unquestioning supporter of Israel. She signed into law a bill to restrict the activities of the nonviolent pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, the first legislation of its kind on a state level. Haley has also stated that

“nowhere has the UN’s failure been more consistent and more outrageous than in its bias against our close ally Israel.”

On a recent visit to Israel, she was applauded by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stating

“You know, all I’ve done is to tell the truth, and it’s kind of overwhelming at the reaction…if there’s anything I have no patience for, it’s bullies, and the UN was being such a bully to Israel, because they could.”

But Haley sometimes goes far beyond trying to “tell the truth.” In February, she blocked the appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United Nations because he is a Palestinian. In a congressional hearing this past week, she was asked about the decision:

“Is it this administration’s position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the UN are mutually exclusive?”

Haley responded yes, that the administration is “supporting Israel” by blocking any Palestinian from any senior UN position because Palestine is not recognized by Washington as an independent state.

At various UN meetings Haley has repeatedly and uncritically complained of institutional bias towards Israel, asserting that the “days of Israel bashing are over,” without ever addressing the issue that Israeli treatment of the Palestinians might in part be responsible for the criticism leveled against it. Her description of Israel as an “ally” is hyperbolic and she tends to be oblivious to actual American interests in the region when Israel is involved. She has never challenged the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as well as the recent large expansion of settlements, which are at least nominally opposed by the State Department and White House.

Haley is inevitably a hardliner on Syria, reflecting the Israeli bias, and consistently hostile to Russia. She has said that regime change in Damascus is a Trump administration priority. Her most recent foray involves the White House warning that it had “identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime.” Haley elaborated in a tweet,

“…further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people.”

Earlier, on April 12, after Russia blocked a draft UN resolution intended to condemn the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, Haley said,

 “We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that brutally terrorizes its own people.”

Haley’s analysis of who is doing what to whom in Syria is certainly questionable at a minimum. And her language is hardly supportive of possible administration diplomatic attempts to mend fences with the Russians and can also be seen as quite dangerous as they increase the likelihood of an “accidental encounter” over the skies of Syria as both sides harden their positions and seek to expand the areas they control. She has also said that,

“We’re calling [Russia] out [and] I don’t think anything is off the table at this point. I think what you’re going to see is strong leadership. You’re going to continue to see the United States act when we need to act.”

Regarding Moscow’s role on the UN Security Council, she complained that,

“All they’ve done is seven times veto against Syria every time they do something to hurt their own people. And so Russia absolutely has not done what they’re supposed to do.”

Regarding Ukraine, Haley has taken an extreme position that guarantees Russian hostility. In February, she addressed the UN Security Council regarding the Crimean conflict, which she  appears not to understand very well. She warned that sanctions against Russia would not be lifted until Moscow returned control over the peninsula to Kiev. On June 4, she doubled down, insisting that the United States would retain “sanctions strong and tough when it comes to the issue in Ukraine.”

Haley is also increasingly highly critical of Iran, which she sees as the instigator of much of the unrest in the Middle East, again reflecting the Israeli viewpoint. She claimed on April 20, during her first session as president of the UN Security Council, that Iran and Hezbollah had “conducted terrorist acts” for decades within the Middle East, ignoring the more serious terrorism support engaged in by U.S. regional allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She stated last week that the Security Council’s praise of the Iran Nuclear Agreement honored a state that has engaged in “illicit missile launches,” “support for terrorist groups,” and “arms smuggling,” while “stok[ing] regional conflicts and mak[ing] them harder to solve.” All are perspectives that might easily be challenged.

Haley is also much given to rhetoric reminiscent of George W. Bush during his first term. Regarding North Korea, on May 16 she told reporters that,

“We have to turn around and tell the entire international community: You either support North Korea or you support us,” echoing George W. Bush’s sentiment that, “There’s a new sheriff in town and you’re either with us or against us.”

So Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives’ dream ambassador to the United Nations–full of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington’s preemptive right to set standards for the rest of the world. That does not necessarily make her very good for the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens of imperial hubris. Nor is her tendency to overstate her case a plus for the Trump administration itself, which is clearly seeking to work its way through Russiagate–and just might be considering how to establish some kind of modus vivendi with Vladimir Putin.

If Donald Trump really wants to drain the Washington swamp and reduce interference in other nations, he might well continue that program by firing Nikki Haley. He could then appoint someone as UN ambassador who actually believes that the United States has to deal with other countries respectfully, not by constant bullying and threats. In the lyrics of Gilbert and Sullivan, she’s on my list and “she will never be missed.”

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

Featured image: African Union First Ladies’ Commission at 29th Summit on July 3-4, 2017

On July 3-4 the African Union (AU) held its 29th Annual Summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia while the continent is faced with monumental challenges from Cairo to Cape Town.

Held under the theme of “Harnessing the Demographic Dividend through Investment in Youth”, the gathering recognized the necessity of economic and social development to ensure a prosperous and sustainable future for Africa. A recent decline in commodity prices impacting the raw materials, energy and agricultural producing states illustrates the need to plan for an independent strategy of guaranteeing the health and well-being of over one billion people.

The two leading economic countries on the continent, South Africa and Nigeria, are both in recession. Unemployment is growing and the national currency of these states has fallen into precipitous decline. Bond rating agencies based in the United States are issuing reports which question the capacity of the ruling parties of each nation to engineer remedies that will make them more creditworthy to international finance capital.

South Africa and Nigeria encompass growing youth populations placing social and political pressure on their governments to address the need for accessible employment opportunities for all. Nonetheless, the dependence upon foreign markets for the export of natural resources and cash crops systematically undermines strategic planning within the present world division of labor and economic power.

Just three years ago western financial publications were hailing what they described as phenomenal growth in many African nations. The Federal Republic of Nigeria was proclaimed to have surpassed the Republic of South Africa as the leading power house of the region.

Countries such as Angola, Algeria, Gabon, Nigeria and Ghana experienced an influx of foreign direct investment largely due to the rising oil and natural gas prices. However, by 2015, the prices of oil, natural gas and other resources had declined by over 60 percent.

These factors compounded the social and political instability brought about as a result of the U.S. and NATO wars against the governments in Libya and Ivory Coast which resulted in the collapse of these societies fueling the migration from Africa across the Mediterranean and into Southern, Central and Eastern Europe.

Similar western interventions in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and the unresolved question of Palestine independence, has worsened the crisis of displacement. United Nations agencies have reported that the situation of dislocated persons domestically, as well as refugees and migrants, with estimates numbering 65-75 million people, easily surpasses any period since the conclusion of World War II.

In his opening address, AU Chairperson President Alpha Conde of the Republic of Guinea noted that the organization was:

“Aware of the importance of human capital, the AU has decided to harness the African youth, to find ways and means of developing the youth which constitute 70 percent of the total population. The holistic management of the challenges faced by the youth call on us to find alternatives to build economies that are resilient and capable of ensuring the space for the youth in our continent.” (Zimbabwe Chronicle, July 4)

If these issues are not the focus of AU policy the future painted by Conde would not be a desirable one. A region so rich in minerals and land could further deteriorate making conditions unlivable to even larger numbers of people across the continent.

Conde went on to emphasize that:

“It is imperative on us African leaders that if we don’t invest in the youth, we would have failed our duty and compromised dangerously the future of our youth. We would have condemned them to unemployment and immigration to become parasites and beggars.”

These observations are poignant in light of the hostility that African migrants are met with in Europe and the U.S. The migration issue is being utilized by the ultra-right wing neo-fascist groups and political parties as a wedge to win political power and advance policies which reinforce racism and national discrimination against people from the former colonial territories of Africa, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific.

Gender Equality, the Role of Youth and Economic Development

Although the AU mandated at its conception in 2002 the full integration of women within the governing structures of national and regional centers of power there is still considerable work to be done in this arena. In some countries women are represented in significant numbers within cabinet and parliamentary bodies, the civil service and professional fields. However, the onus of the declining economic situation, foreign intervention and internecine conflict falls upon the backs of women and youth.

The 19th Ordinary General Assembly of First Ladies of Africa (OAFLA) took place simultaneously with the overall AU Summit. H.E. Ms. Amira El Fadil Mohamed, who is the Commissioner for Social Affairs of the AU Commission stressed that there is a pressing need for a systematic and integrated strategy aimed at tackling all four areas of the thematic demographic dividend pillars. These areas include health and well being; employment and entrepreneurship; education and skills development and rights and good governance. Without adequate progress in all four areas there cannot be long lasting growth, social stability and genuine development.

According to a press release issued by OAFLA on July 4, it says:

“Sustainable and affordable access to maternal and child health care, HIV testing and counselling and immunization services, according to the Commissioner of Social Affairs, will ultimately result in young people meaningfully contributing to the socio-economic development of their society, thereby enabling them to make the right informed decisions about their health.” (Au.int.)

Ms. Mohamed said of the challenge that:

“The youth of our continent need to be guaranteed social and economic development if they are to contribute to their nations’ and continents’ economic development.”

Also H.E. Mrs. Roman Tesfaye emphasized:

“It is high time that African nations put in place favorable policies and increase youth targeted investments. We need to lift and break the barriers faced by African youth in accessing and utilizing reproductive health information and services.”

Pan-Africanism, Self-Reliance and National Liberation

Republic of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe followed through on a previous commitment when he served as AU Chairperson two years earlier. Mugabe presented a check for $1 million to the AU Foundation saying it was a “modest contribution” aimed at breaking the cycle of donor dependency.

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe presents fundraising check of $1 million to the AU Summit

Zimbabwe and other anti-imperialist states had criticized the AU’s readmission of the Kingdom of Morocco earlier this year absent of the resolution of the Western Sahara question. Now both the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) and their occupiers based in Rabat are members of the continental organization.

Morocco has carried out a diplomatic offensive among the AU member-states. Its offers of economic assistance have swayed numerous governments to agree on a compromised position on the inherent anti-colonial mission of the organization.

In the aftermath of the 29th Summit in Ethiopia, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the SADR, Mohamed Salem Ould Essalek, convened a press conference in the Algerian capital saying that the AU would however deploy a task force to explore solutions to the Western Sahara crisis. The UN has gone on record calling for an internationally-supervised referendum on the future of the SADR.

Nevertheless, Morocco continues to object to such an election claiming that the Western Sahara was an integral part of the Kingdom. During the early 1980s, the SADR was admitted as a full member of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the predecessor to the AU. These decisions prompted the withdrawal of Morocco from the OAU/AU which lasted over three decades.

Essalek highlighted the decision of the AU Summit during the press conference in Algiers saying:

“The AU will not accept the continuation of the conflict between the two states since Morocco has signed and adopted its constitutional charter whose articles 3 and 4 stipulate the imperative respect of the borders established at independence and peaceful dialogue between member countries.”

He went on to say the AU Summit had:

“Defeated the plan of the Morocco occupier attempting to repeal AU’s traditional decisions on the Saharawi cause.”

Essalek claims the decisions in Addis Ababa:

“reiterates and reinforces the positions of the AU after the accession of Morocco, a decision that frustrates Morocco. This is the first time the AU has taken such a decision since 1991.”

It will remain to be seen how vigorous the approach of the AU will be in regard to winning national liberation for the SADR. The resolution of this conflict and other border issues is essential in building the necessary political trust that can move the continent towards full social and economic integration.

Only a collective approach to genuine independence and sovereignty will lay the foundation for the realization of a functioning Pan-Africanism. Moreover, the AU member-states must transform their governing structures into truly representative institutions with the mandate of the workers, farmers and youth which can effectively break with the world capitalist system and move toward socialist reconstruction.

All images in this article are from the author.

The false reality constructed for Americans parallels perfectly the false reality constructed by Big Brother in George Orwells’ dystopic novel 1984.

Consider the constant morphing of “the Muslim threat” from al-Qaeda to the Taliban, to al-Nursra, to ISIS to ISIL, to Daesh with a jump to Russia. All of a sudden 16 years of Middle East wars against “terrorists” and “dictators” have become a matter of standing up to Russia, the country most threatened by Muslim terrorism, and the country most capable of wiping the United States and its vassal empire off of the face of the earth.

Domestically, Americans are assured that, thanks to the Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing, that is, flooding the financial markets with newly printed money that has driven up the prices of stocks and bonds, America has enjoyed an economic recovery since June of 2009, which must be one of the longest recoveries in history despite the absence of growth in median real family incomes, despite the growth in real retail sales, despite the falling labor force participation rate, despite the lack of high value-added, high productivity jobs.

The “recovery” is more than a mystery. It is a miracle. It exists only on fake news paper.

According to CNN, an unreliable source for sure, Jennifer Tescher, president and CEO of the Center for Financial Services Innovation, reports that about half of Americans report that their living expenses are equal to or exceed their incomes. Among those aged 18 to 25 burdened by student loans, 54% say their debts are equal to or exceed their incomes. This means that half of the US population has ZERO discretionary income. So what is driving the recovery?

Nothing. For half or more of the US population there is no discretionary income there with which to drive the economy.

The older part of the population has no discretionary income either. For a decade there has been essentially zero interest on the savings of the elderly, and if you believe John Williams of shadowstats.com, which I do, the real interest rates have been zero and even negative as inflation is measured in a way designed to prevent Social Security cost of living adjustments.

In other words, the American economy has been living on the shrinkage of the savings and living standards of its population.

Last Friday’s employment report is just another lie from the government. The report says that the unemployment rate is 4.4% and that June employment increased by 222,000 jobs. A rosy picture. But as I have just demonstrated, there are no fundamentals to support it. It is just another US government lie like Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people, Russian invasion of Ukraine, and so forth and so on.

The rosy unemployment picture is totally contrived. The unemployment rate is 4.4% because discouraged workers who have not searched for a job in the past four weeks are not counted as unemployed.

The BLS has a second measure of unemployment, known as U6, which is seldom reported by the presstitute financial media. According to this official measure the US unemployment rate is about double the reported rate.

Why? the U6 rate counts discouraged workers who have been discouraged for less than one year.

John Williams counts the long term discouraged workers (discouraged for more than one year) who formerly (before “reforms”) were counted officially. When the long term discouraged are counted, the US unemployment rate is in the 22-23 percent range. This is born out by the clear fact that the labor force participation rate has been falling throughout the alleded “recovery.” Normally, labor force participation rates rise during economic recoveries.

It is very easy for the government to report a low jobless rate when the government studiously avoids counting the unemployed.

It is an extraordinary thing that although the US government itself reports that if even a small part of discouraged workers are countered as unemployed the unemployment rate is 8.6%, the presstitute financial media, a collection of professional liars, still reports, in the face of the government’s admission, that the unemployment rate as 4.4%.

Now, let’s do what I have done month after month year after year. Let’s look at the jobs that the BLS alleges are being created. Remember, most of these alleged jobs are the product of the birth/death model that adds by assumption alone about 100,000 jobs per month. In other words, these jobs come out of a model, not from reality.

Where are these reported jobs? They are where they always are in lowly paid domestic services. Health care and social assistance, about half of which is “ambulatory health care services,” provided 59,000 jobs. Leisure and hospitality provided 36,000 jobs of which 29,300 consist of waitresses and bartenders. Local government rose by 35,000. Manufacturing, once the backbone of the US economy, provided a measly 1,000 jobs.

As I have emphasized for a decade or two, the US is devolving into a third world workforce where the only employment is available in lowly paid domestic service jobs that cannot be offshored and that do not pay enough to provide an independent existence. This is why 50% of 25-year olds live at home with their parents and why there are more Americans aged 24-34 living with parents than living independently.

This is not the economic profile of a “superpower” that the idiot neoconservatives claim the US to be. The American economy that offshoring corporations and financialization have created is incapable of supporting the enormous US debt burden. It is only a matter of time and circumstance.

I doubt that the United States can continue in the ranks of a first world economy. Americans have sat there sucking their thumbs while their “leaders” destroyed them.

In 1951, as the Cold War was intensifying, the CIA decided to see how Voice of America radio broadcasts into Eastern Europe compared with Soviet efforts. In a remarkably candid document, the Agency critically assessed the similarities and differences between U.S. and Soviet propaganda.

Today, VOA claims that it was founded during the Second World War to provide “Unbiased and accurate information.” The CIA officers assessing VOA in 1951, though, saw the service as essentially similar to Soviet propaganda, going so far as saying that most Americans would be surprised by the similarities between the two.

The document proposes that similarities could be the result of opposing countries imitating the propaganda put out by their rivals, and even posits the existence of an “international propagandists culture” that tended to produce similar techniques.

The document includes a list of 33 main similarities between Soviet and American propaganda, including the “impression of objectivity,” “avoiding obvious lying on tangible facts,” blurring distinctions within enemy camp,” and “not dignifying opponent’s position by quoting it.”

However, it was in identifying where the two styles differed that the Agency saw the most strategic value.

Some of the differences that the CIA identified included “Soviet Conflict-Mindedness” …

which was directly opposed to “Greater American Fact-Mindedness”

Changes in the National Defense Authorization Act this year ignited fears that VOA could be marketing itself to an American audience. If it does, the American public may get a direct demonstration of exactly what the “international propagandists culture” looks like today.

Read the complete report here.

Featured image from United Artists

Featured image: Leopoldo Lopez speaking to a crowd. (Source: Zfigueroa / Wikimedia Commons)

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

In September 2015, anti-Bolivarian fascist coup plotter Leopoldo Lopez was sentenced to nearly 14 years in prison for inciting months of violence and related crimes against the state.

They resulted in 43 deaths, many injuries and destruction of public property. Lopez got off lightly. In America, he’d likely have been prosecuted and convicted of sedition, sentenced to decades or life in prison.

At the time, President Nicolas Maduro compared him to the 2002 coup plotters – calling him “the face of fascism.”

Along with co-conspirators, he launched a US-supported La Salida (the Exit) campaign, openly calling for ousting Venezuela’s government, inciting street violence to replace Bolivarian social democracy with fascist rule.

The Obama administration supported his criminality. His State Department irresponsibly called Venezuela’s “judicial process and verdict” politically motivated – “to suppress and punish government critics.”

The NYT, neocon/CIA-connected Washington Post and other media commented as expected – blasting Maduro for “persecuting” Lopez, claiming he acted in “desperation.”

Why he was released to house arrest is unclear. He’s free through cohorts to incite continued violence and other seditious acts – though his activities will likely be closely monitored, risking re-imprisonment if he steps too far out-of-line.

Commenting on his release, The NYT lied calling him a “political prisoner,” ignoring his high crimes, falsely claiming his transfer to house arrest is “a sign that the government was starting to buckle in the face of months of public demonstrations and growing diplomatic isolation.”

“This is a step toward freedom, not just Leopoldo’s, but also a step that brings all Venezuelans closer to freedom,” opposition fascist lawmaker Freddy Guevara blustered.

Lopez’s lawyer Jared Genser said

“(n)ow is the time for sustained pressure on Maduro,” claiming his client’s release to house arrest “confirms that the relentless pressure is working” – a highly disputable comment.

In a statement released by Genser, Lopez said

“I am not willing to give up my fight for the freedom of Venezuela. And if that means that I must return to a cell in Ramo Verde, I am willing to do so.”

If he resumes his criminality, he’ll likely end up back where he belongs, along with other insurrectionist elements.

Venezuela’s Supreme Court called his transfer to house arrest a “humanitarian gesture,” citing unexplained health issues.

Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Lopez said his release is evidence of Bolivarian “tolerance and dialogue.”

The move comes at a time of likely US-orchestrated street violence since April, leaving scores dead, many others injured and hundreds arrested.

In June, US Senate legislation authorized $20 million for regime change in Venezuela, another $10 million for so-called “democracy building” Washington abhors.

Before taking office as secretary of state, Rex Tillerson said he’ll “seek a negotiated transition to democratic rule in Venezuela” – code language for regime change.

Dark forces in Washington are likely plotting their next moves, aiming to replace Bolivarian fairness with fascist rule serving there interests – eliminating Venezuelan sovereign independence and gaining control over its immense oil reserves.

That’s what years of US hostility toward the country is all about under Chavez and Maduro.

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

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

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

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

In early March 2011, right before the carefully calculated and planned imposed war and invasion in Syria, Vogue Magazine published a surprisingly positive article titled: Asma al-Assad: A Rose in the Desert.

“Asma al-Assad is glamorous, young, and very chic—the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies. Her style is not the couture-and-bling dazzle of Middle Eastern power but a deliberate lack of adornment. She’s a rare combination: a thin, long-limbed beauty with a trained analytic mind who dresses with cunning understatement. Paris Match calls her “the element of light in a country full of shadow zones.” “She is the first lady of Syria”.

Asma Al-Assad with students (Source: The Rabbit Hole) 

The article gave readers an inside view of what life was like for the Assad’s In Syria. It didn’t exaggerate, or misrepresent information and had a seemingly unbiased tone.

“Back in the car, I ask what religion the orphans are. “It’s not relevant,” says Asma al-Assad. “Let me try to explain it to you. That church is a part of my heritage because it’s a Syrian church. The Umayyad Mosque is the third-most-important holy Muslim site, but within the mosque is the tomb of Saint John the Baptist. We all kneel in the mosque in front of the tomb of Saint John the Baptist. That’s how religions live together in Syria—a way that I have never seen anywhere else in the world. We live side by side, and have historically. All the religions and cultures that have passed through these lands—the Armenians, Islam, Christianity, the Umayyads, the Ottomans—make up who I am.”

“Does that include the Jews?” I ask. “And the Jews,” she answers. “There is a very big Jewish quarter in old Damascus.”

Also included in the article is some background information on the first lady. Asma Akhras was born in London in 1975 to a Syrian-born cardiologist and his wife, a diplomat who had served as first secretary at the Syrian embassy. She went to Queen’s College a private school, graduated from King’s College London, and worked for some time at JP Morgan in Manhattan. She was accepted into the prestigious ivy league school Harvard but instead of attending she accepted a marriage proposal from President Bashar in 2000 after secretly dating for some time.

The article detailed some other information as well, but nothing that would strike the knowledgeable reader as pretentious, over the top, or propaganda material. The response however from other publications written by disgruntled journalists was outrageous. They spoke as if they had more knowledge about conditions in Syria than a journalist that actually went to Syria and wrote about the experience.

Soon after the Vogue article was published the war in Syria began, with a staged uprising in Daraa. Another war against Vogue Magazine and this article, in particular, was waged by many publications, in particular, those that had ties or were sympathetic to the illegal state of Israel.

These publications shamed, insulted, belittled and demanded that this story be retracted or changed to fit the demonization campaign that spawned in mainstream media.

A few years prior in 2009 The Huffington Post published a slide show entitled, “Asma Al Assad: Syria’s First Lady And All-Natural Beauty.”

In 2010 the Harvard Arab Alumni Association’s website promoted an event featuring Asma by praising her as an avid supporter of “a robust, independent and self-sustaining civil society.” Asma convened a conference for the Syria Trust for Development about “the emerging role of civil society in development.”

As reported in Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs website, The First Lady

“…opened the conference by declaring that the state wanted to open more space for civil society to work, develop and partner with the government in designing and implementing development-oriented policies. We will learn from our mistakes, she said, and a law will be passed soon — after consultations with civil society — to provide non-governmental organizations the safeguards they need to operate effectively. She challenged them, for their part, to rise to the occasion and achieve higher levels of efficacy and professionalism. Her overall theme of partnership reflected a realization that the government alone could not provide all the expertise or services needed to develop the country at the pace that its citizens expect.“

Syria hosted a conference of Harvard Arab Alumni with Asma leading the event.

The website was enthusiastic about Mrs. Assad’s role in Syrian national life and the connection between her work and that of her husband’s:

‘‘In her role as Syria’s first lady, Her Excellency Asma al-Assad applies her experience, energy, and influence to her country’s social and cultural development. Her role reflects the significant economic, political and social change that is happening in Syria today. Asma al-Assad’s work supports that of President Bashar al-Assad by fostering the emergence of a robust, independent and self-sustaining civil society.’’

Harvard Arab Alumni met in Damascus, “Under the Patronage of H.E. Mrs. Asma al-Assad, The First Lady of Syria.” “We are honored that Harvard Vice Provost for International Affairs, Prof. Jorge Dominguez, will be joining us in Damascus to deliver the Harvard Guest Address.“

In 2010, French Elle voted Asma “the most stylish woman in world politics,” and Paris Match called her “an eastern Diana,” a “ray of light in a country full of shadow zones.”

Even US Politicians appreciated and admired the Assads before this war bloody war was waged on the sovereign nation. Paying them visits and speaking about them in positive and affirmative tones.

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stood on Syrian soil in April 2007 and famously declared that “the road to Damascus is a road to peace.” During her visit, Pelosi had an enjoyable shopping tour through Damascus markets.

Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bought the Assad-is-a-reformer narrative, telling CBS News on March 27, 2011:

“There is a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”

Senator John Kerry, President Obama’s former informal envoy to Syria. Kerry feverishly pushed to revive diplomatic engagement with the Assad regime. Indeed, he was a frequent guest of Bashar’s; the two men and their wives were known to dine together in Damascus and discuss bilateral relations. He delivered a speech in Washington that heaped praise on Assad for the generosity he personally extended to the former Democratic presidential candidate during his many visits to Damascus.

All seemed well in Syria according to politicians and media alike. Was that all just a front? Were they all lying? Or were they dubbed into believing something that wasn’t true? Maybe they were tricked? Could it be that the Assad’s had put them all under a spell? No, no, no.

They were not handed a memo yet that going forward they would be limited to derogatory terms and hate speech however ridiculous or nonsensical it may be when speaking about the Assad’s. It was a requirement or else they would face ridicule much like what happened to Vogue Magazine after they published their article on the first lady.

They needed to quickly recant their support, respect, and admiration in order to fit with the new script. New terminology would replace the old, regime and dictator instead of government and president. Also, going forward all mainstream media outlets are required to mention barrel bombs, chemical weapons, and how the US will protect and save poor syrians who are being bombed by their “brutal dictator” by well.. bombing them. Wait.. what?

Why this sudden change in March 2011?

Simply because mainstream media completely flipped it’s scripted and started to demonize this “Rose in the Desert” along with her husband President Dr. Bashar Al Assad in an all-out propaganda campaign that fit the US/NATO “regime change” narrative. Asma Al-Assad never was nor is she evil. President Bashar Al Assad is not a ruthless dictator but instead they both are very much loved and respected in THEIR country by their people which is all that should matter.

Before this invasion took place in 2011 and over 300,000 foreign mercenaries came in from over 80 countries, Syria was one of the safest countries in the world, and the only secular, nonsectarian and united country in the Middle East. For the first ten years of his presidency there were no major issues, no bombings, beheadings by terrorists, none of that so how is this something that President Bashar brought to the country? That is a huge misconception, one of many that the western media has helped instill in the minds of gullible people who have completely refused to use logic and critical thinking or to even question what they are being told.

The agenda in most mainstream media outlets globally soon became to destroy the first Assad’s image by any means possible, with a proliferation of lies and negative press. The same demonization that was used previously by imperialist nations in pursuit of destabilizing yet another country in the region. The modus operandi was the same, create an over the top propaganda media campaign to win the public’s sympathy and wage a “humanitarian intervention” in order to save the people of a country from their corrupt “dictatorship” run government by ousting the elected president, installing a puppet president approved by the US/NATO, stealing their resources, and establishing a long-term military base on the pretense that they are helping to rebuild the nation they themselves unapologetically destroyed. Much like they did with other countries they were “spreading democracy” in prior such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya etc.

The plethora of articles one will find by doing a simple google search that reek of propaganda and are filled to the rim with bias, sectarian hate speech, and outright lies is profound. For the knowledgeable reader, they are simply infuriating to read.

I have included one such propaganda spewing article below published by The Guardian and some interesting information I found about the author as well.

“Asma al-Assad is a cheerleader for evil. Her UK citizenship should be revoked” was written by Nadhim Zahawi.

In this poorly written and utterly pathetic excuse for an article, Zahawi states

“The Assad regime has a seemingly infinite capacity for evil, and an inability to be touched by compassion. At the very best he is dangerously deluded about what is happening, and the atrocities he has ordered. But most likely he is a monster.” Even though his article was supposedly about Asma Al-Assad he took whatever invalid and fact-deprived hits that he could at her husband as well.

Interestingly enough Mr. Zahawi a Kurdish Iraqi politician who visited Syria in 2011 and resides in the U.K. also had this to say “Removing Mrs. Assad’s citizenship is not illegal, because she is also a citizen of Syria. The home secretary has the power to do so when she believes it would be “conducive to the public good”. Asma al-Assad should never be welcome in our country again.” On that note, I hope Mr. Zahawi is forbidden to return to Syria as well.

After looking into Mr. Zahawi a little further I found that he is the vice-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Kurdistan Region in Iraq, which receives secretarial support from Gulf Keystone Petroleum International, an oil company of which Zahawi is Chief Strategy Officer. Concerns have been raised about how MPs’ independence might be compromised by such links between APPGs and private companies, and specifically about how Zahawi’s connections with the oil industry affect his role as MP. Zahawi has been co-chair or vice-chair of this APPG since it was established in 2008/9.

Also worth noting, in November 2013 Zahawi “apologized unreservedly” after The Sunday Mirror reported that he had claimed £5,822 expenses for electricity for his horse riding school stables and a yard manager’s mobile home.[19] Zahawi said the mistake arose because he received a single bill covering both a meter in the stables and one in his house. He would repay the money though the actual overcharge was £4,000.[20] An article in The Independent also drew attention to the number of legitimate but “trivial” items on Zahawi’s expenses.

In January 2011, Zahawi appeared in the Commons debate discussing the end of the Education Maintenance Allowance scheme wearing a musical tie which proceeded to play during his contribution. The Deputy Speaker advised him to be more selective when choosing ties to avoid a musical accompaniment to debate in the chamber.

An investigation by the Guardian has revealed close links between a Conservative MP and two companies based in a tax haven. Nadhim Zahawi has financial ties to Balshore Investments and Berkford Investments, which operate from a lawyer’s’ office in Gibraltar. He does not declare a connection to either company on the MPs’ register of interests.

The same script in mainstream media is used repeatedly yet people still fall for it. Isn’t it time for the masses to recognize this repetition and bring an end to these bankers wars based on lies? We are all of one race, the human race and we need to end these countries destructive imperialist driven plots. World domination by the elite is not in the best interest of humanity.

The United States has been practicing this destructive behavior in toppling sovereign nations for their own benefit since 1898. New imperial influence of U.S. (1898-1917): New territories gained in Spanish American War: Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, Philippines. Up until present day with Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, the Philippines etc. At some point, this bloodshed has to end. Sovereignty has to be preserved. Cultures and customs need to be protected against greedy nations who only have their own best interest at heart. Whether it be neo-colonialism, imperialism, economic imperialism, etc. These ruthless regimes will do whatever it takes to complete their bloody missions.

Antikrieg TV -In 2010, the Syria’s First Lady Asma al-Assad talked to diplomats and intellectuals at the Paris Diplomatic Academy. She spoke without notes, about Syria’s history and how that heritage informs daily life.

“Some often ask me how then can Syria remain stable, moderate and influential in a region that is increasingly being surrounded by extremism, ideologism (sic), sectarianism and all other forms of negative perceptions in our society,” she told the gathering. “The typical answer I get is because of military, political, security reasons. Again, I believe I have a different view.

“It’s the very essence of our culture. It’s what our history teaches us of openness and engagement,” she said. “It’s the sense of identity and pride that we have knowing who we are in the world and knowing what we’ve contributed to the world over thousands of years that give us that sense of stability and that sense of moderation.

“Some of you might think I am talking politics. … Trust me, I have no interest in politics,” she continued. “My interests are elsewhere. But living in the region for as long as I have, I realize that politics affects every facet of our lives.”

Many people who have never heard of Syria before it became front page news after this imposed war was launched by outside forces on it’s land, think they have the right to speak ill about a nation that people like myself are originally from. Their profound arrogance is matched by their ignorance. What they may not realize is that they are indirectly contributing to the bloodshed by spreading this false propaganda. It would be better for them to never speak about Syria than for them to carelessly spread information that is nothing more than dirty gossip that they heard on their T.V. If they truly care, they need to educate themselves by reading and watching alternative media sources and listening to independent journalists, that do not have a vested interest in seeing Syria crumble and fall into the hands of the vultures in the West and their allies.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. Her articles can be read at the Rabbit Hole.

Donald Trump came to the White House with a reputation as a top notch businessman. He built an international real estate empire and is worth billions. He then went into reality television, where his signature line as he dismissed incompetent potential employees was, “you’re fired!”

On Friday, President Trump held a long-awaited face-to-face meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The meeting was scheduled to be a brief, 30 minute meet and greet, but turned into a two-plus hour substantive session producing a ceasefire agreement for parts of Syria and a plan to continue working together in the future.

After the extended session, which was cordial by all accounts, President Trump said the meeting was “tremendous.”
President Trump indicated that the issue of Russian interference in the US elections came up in conversation and that Putin vehemently denied it. It obviously was not a make or break issue in the conversation. President Trump’s latest statement on the issue is that “we don’t know for sure” who was behind any meddling.

Later on Friday, President Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, said of the Syria agreement that,

“I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria.”

On Sunday, President Trump Tweeted in praise of the Syria ceasefire agreement, adding that,

“now it is time to move forward in working constructively with Russia!”

It suddenly appeared that the current reprise of a vintage 1950s US/Soviet face-off in relations had turned the corner back to sanity. Perhaps we will be pulling back from the edge of WWIII with thermonuclear weapons!

Then President Trump’s Ambassador to the United Nations, the notorious neocon Nikki Haley, showed up on the weekend talk shows.

To CNN’s Dana Bash, she directly contradicted her boss, Donald Trump, and undermined his official position regarding Russian involvement in the US election.

Said Ambassador Haley of Trump’s meeting with Putin:

One, he wanted to basically look him in the eye, let him know that, yes, we know you meddled in our elections. Yes, we know you did it, cut it out. And I think President Putin did exactly what we thought he would do, which is deny it. This is Russia trying to save face. And they can’t. They can’t. Everybody knows that Russia meddled in our elections.

As The Hill correctly pointed out,

“Haley’s description runs counter to the versions offered by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Trump himself.”

But Hurricane Haley was not finished. She poured ice water on President Trump’s agreement with President Putin to work together on cyber-security, telling CNN,

“[w]e can’t trust Russia, and we won’t ever trust Russia. But you keep those that you don’t trust closer so that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check.”

It is absolutely clear that hyper-neocon Nikki Haley has gone rogue and is actively undermining the foreign policy of her boss and President, Donald Trump. From her embarrassing, foaming-at-the-mouth tirades in the UN Security Council to this latest bizarre effort to sabotage President Trump’s first attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to find a way to get along better with Russia, President Trump’s own Ambassador has become the biggest enemy of his foreign policy.

Surely the President — who as an enormously successful businessman has hired and fired thousands — can see the damage she is doing to his Administration by actively undermining his foreign policy.

President Trump needs to reprise his signature television line. He needs to pick up the phone, ask for Nikki, and shout “you’re FIRED!” into the telephone.

Featured image from Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

In an obscure interview back in 1956, the entertainer Elvis Presley was quoted as saying: “Don’t criticize what you don’t understand, son. You never walked in that man’s shoes.” But But none of Elvis’s many song-writers ever wrote a song that included that wonderful truism.

However, Bob Dylan, in his iconic “The Times They Are A-Changing” (1962), immortalized the phrase. It is not likely that Dylan stole the phrase from one of Presley’s songs because Elvis once admitted: “I’ve never written a song in my life.”

Dylan’s poetic truism has always stayed with me. To remind readers of its power, here is the fourth verse of that song:

“Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’.

There is a surge of anti-intellectualism and anti-science belief systems in the United States. People who know nothing about climate science are ridiculing altruistic climate scientists who know what they are talking about.

Respected, unbiased scientists (those who are not in the back pockets of the fossil fuel and coal industries) are fulfilling their moral duty to warn the rest of us about the imminent danger of potentially unstoppable – and catastrophic – warming of the planet, a reality that could easily make the planet unlivable for animal life in the near future (like the gradually expanding Sahara Desert has been exhibiting for us for years).

Unbiased geological scientists, scholars and assorted well-informed citizen activists (at least those who have not been hired and thus co-opted by Big Mining) understand the potentially catastrophic dangers of sulfide mining that is threatening my home state of Minnesota. These altruistic scientists and citizen activists are being viciously demonized (even with death threats) by some folks who happen to live in the boom-and-bust (non-sulfide) iron ore country that now has commercially-viable copper sulfide ore deposits in the water-rich part of the state.

Truly unbiased geological scientists know what they are talking about when they try to explain to the uninformed that copper appears in nature as a copper sulfide ore which, when ground into the fine powder (that is an essential part of the extraction process) leaves behind many highly poisonous waste metals (including the toxic metals lead, arsenic, cadmium, vanadium, antimony, manganese and mercury) PLUS sulfuric acid when the liquid mine slurry is pumped into the permanently toxic tailings ponds (which will be stored for an eternity in nearby dumps that are just waiting for the inevitable deluge of rain that could melt and burst the earthen dams and permanently destroy the watershed, lakes and inhabited river communities downstream.

Sulfuric acid, it needs to be understood, is inevitably formed when waste sulfide tailings are exposed to water and air, thus making any abandoned sulfide mining open pit poisonous to every living thing, especially humans, fish and water birds.

(http://duluthreader.com/articles/2016/12/14/8500_lessons_from_the_most_toxic_open_pit_copper_mine)

And then there is the pure science that is coming from truly unbiased scientists (pharmacological, chemical, medical, neuroscientists, etc) who know what they are talking about when it comes to the obvious dangers of America’s over-vaccination agendas for vulnerable babies, children, soldiers and the elderly.

And here is where the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, the IOM, the WHO and various trade associations and Big Pharma lobbying groups (like the AAP, the AMA, the AAFP and even the OB-GYN trade groups) are involved. Whereas these groups hide their financial and professional relationships with Big Pharma, they feel obligated to also hide the many reasons that their unholy alliances with corporate elites have been doing so much damage to their patients, to whom they have pledged to “first do no harm.”

So the common denominator for the examples listed above (and below) is that those politicians and cunning special interest groups – who have been co-opted and/or duped by well-funded front groups that are denying the unbiased, provably true science and are “criticizing what they don’t understand”.

Below are a number of other recent publications outlining examples from non-corporate-controlled medical journals that never gets aired in the largely corporate-controlled mainstream print media or discussed in a fair and balanced manner on the largely corporate-controlled television or radio stations.

Any true scientist (or person with an open mind and no conflicts of interest) who values the Precautionary Principle, the Hippocratic Oath and the principle of Fully Informed Consent will surely pause to consider the veracity of the following journal articles that validate (AGAIN) the testimony of the hundreds of thousands of vaccine-injured or vaccine-killed American children and soldiers (especially the parents who now have understandably lost any trust in the medical profession, certain governmental agencies and the pharmaceutical industry).

Also validated are the many researchers that know (and are trying to warn patients) about the many neurotoxic ingredients and contaminants that are in all of the cocktails of intramuscularly-administered infant vaccines – inoculations which are causing (or at least contributing to) the epidemics of childhood and young adult neurodevelopmental disorders that were uncommon prior to America’s over-vaccination era that began with a vengeance after the Reagan administration in 1986 made it illegal for the parents of vaccine-were responsible.

And thus, any ethical medical profession, which claims to value the Hippocratic Oath and the Informed Consent principle, should be immediately ordering a moratorium on the current over-vaccination schedules so vigorously promoted and defended by the CDC, the FDA, the AMA, the IOM, and the AAP – until the evidence is fully re-examined by unbiased investigators. Any such re-assessment should obviously involve no Big Pharma shills’ no CDC or FDA or AAP ”experts”; no co-opted pediatricians who benefit financially from over-vaccinating their patients; no academic physicians with financial ties to Big Pharma; no lobbyists;, no politicians who have taken campaign bribes from Big Pharma; no journalists who write pro-vaccine articles;, AND no Big Pharma-paid trolls (such as those that blog at sciencebasedmedicine.org, scienceblogs.com, snopes.com, retractionwatach.com, sciencemag.org, skeptic.com, etc, most of whom seem to be given preferential positions on the first two pages of Google’s search engine when Big Pharma is threatened by unwelcome truth.

It is a near certainty that the AMA, the AAP, the IOM – and the recent critics of this column’s statements of scientific fact regarding the many dangers of the neurotoxicity of America’s over-vaccination programs – have little or no knowledge of the following research studies that totally debunk their claims that all vaccines are both safe and effective and that Big Medicine and Big Pharma can be trusted to implement their over-vaccination agendas, even to the point of forcibly vaccinating people against their wills.

***

Dirty Vaccines: New Study Reveals Prevalence of Contaminants

Every Human Vaccine Tested Was Contaminated by Unsafe Levels of Metals and Debris Linked to Cancer and Autoimmune Disease, New Study Reports

By Celeste McGovern

Go to: http://medicalveritas.org/dirty-vaccines-new-study-reveals-prevalence-of-contaminants/

(Ed note: This article is a commentary on: the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination Vol 4 Issue 1, 2017, which was entitled: “New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nano-contamination”. The author of the study was Antonietta Gatti, PhD and it was published on Jan 23, 2017. The original article can be found at: http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.pdf

Researchers examining 44 samples of 30 different vaccines found dangerous contaminants, including red blood cells in one vaccine and metal toxicants in every single sample tested – except in one animal vaccine.

Using extremely sensitive new technologies not used in vaccine manufacturing, Italian scientists reported they were “baffled” by their discoveries which included single particles and aggregates of organic debris including red cells of human or possibly animal origin and metals including lead, tungsten, gold, and chromium, that have been linked to autoimmune disease and leukemia.

In the study, published this week in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination, the researchers led by Antonietta Gatti, of the National Council of Research of Italy and the Scientific Director of Nanodiagnostics, say their results “show the presence of micro- and nano-sized particulate matter composed of inorganic elements in vaccine samples” not declared in the products’ ingredients lists.

Lead particles were found in the cervical cancer vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, for example, and in the seasonal flu vaccine Aggripal manufactured by Novartis as well as in the Meningetec vaccine meant to protect against meningitis C.

Samples of an infant vaccine called Infarix Hexa (against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis and haemophilus influenzae type B) manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline was found to contain stainless steel, tungsten and a gold-zinc aggregate.

Other metal contaminants included platinum, silver, bismuth, iron, and chromium. Chromium (alone or in alloy with iron and nickel) was identified in 25 of the human vaccines from Italy and France that were tested.

GSK’s Fluarix vaccine for children three years and older contained 11 metals and aggregates of metals. Similar aggregates to those identified in the vaccines have been shown to be prevalent in cases of leukemia, the researchers noted.

Many of the vaccines contained iron and iron alloys which, according to the researchers, “can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues”.

The researchers supply an image of an area in a drop of Sanofi Pasteur MSD’s Repevax vaccine (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio combined) “where the morphology of red cells – we cannot tell whether they are human or animal- is clearly visible” along with the presence of “debris” composed of aluminum, bromine, silicon, potassium and titanium.

Feligen, the only veterinary vaccine tested in the 44 total vaccines sampled, proved to be the only sample free from inorganic contamination.

***

From the Rom J Intern Med. 2014;52(3):189-91 

The Role of Heavy Metals in Autoimmunity 

(Ed note: This applies to the metals that are in many infant vaccines, whether intentional or inadvertant.) 

By M. COJOCARU; B. CHICOŞ

Go to: http://www.intmed.ro/attach/rjim/2014/rjim314/art09.pdf

Excerpts:

“The toxic metals cadmium, lead, mercury, and aluminum may interact metabolically with nutritionally essential metals. Iron deficiency increases absorption of cadmium, lead, and aluminum. Cadmium and aluminum interact with calcium. Lead replaces zinc on heme enzymes and cadmium has the potential to replace zinc.”

“…metals have the potential to induce or promote the development of autoimmunity in man. The molecular, biochemical, and cellular events involved in the induction of metal-induced autoimmunity are still unclear. Exposure to heavy metals may result in autoimmune responses to various self-antigens as well as autoimmune diseases.”

***

From the Journal of Translational Science (JTS) – April 24, 2017 

Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6- to 12-year old US Children

By Anthony R Mawson et al – April 24, 2017

Go to: http://oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U-S-children.php

Chronic Illness Excerpt:

Vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with the following chronic illnesses:

3.7-fold higher odds of any neurodevelopmental disorder (i.e., learning disability, ADHD, or ASD)

4.2-fold increase in Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”)

4.2-fold increase in ADHD

5.2-fold increase in learning disabilities

30.1-fold increase in allergic rhinitis

3.9-fold increase in other allergies

2.9-fold increase in eczema/atopic dermatitis

2.4-fold increase in any chronic illness

No significant differences were observed with regard to cancer, chronic fatigue, conduct disorder, Crohn’s disease, depression, Types 1 or 2 diabetes, encephalopathy, epilepsy, hearing loss, high blood pressure, inflammatory bowel disease, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, obesity, seizures, and Tourette’s syndrome.

http://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U-S-children.php#Article

A cross-sectional study of mothers of children educated at home was carried out in collaboration with homeschool organizations in four U.S. states: Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon. Mothers were asked to complete an anonymous online questionnaire on their 6- to 12-year-old biological children with respect to pregnancy-related factors, birth history, vaccinations, physician-diagnosed illnesses, medications used, and health services. NDD, a derived diagnostic measure, was defined as having one or more of the following three closely-related diagnoses: a learning disability, Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder, and Autism Spectrum Disorder. A convenience sample of 666 children was obtained, of which 261 (39%) were unvaccinated.

The vaccinated were less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDD. After adjustment, vaccination, male gender, and preterm birth remained significantly associated with NDD.

However, in a final adjusted model with interaction, vaccination but not preterm birth remained associated with NDD, while the interaction of preterm birth and vaccination was associated with a 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD (95% CI: 2.8, 15.5).

In conclusion, vaccinated homeschool children were found to have a higher rate of allergies and NDD than unvaccinated homeschool children. While vaccination remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples and stronger research designs is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.

***

Note in the following two American graphs that deaths from both measles and whooping cough had declined by 98% prior to either a measles or whooping cough vaccine being available, thus exposing the lie that vaccinations deserved the credit for eliminating the threats of childhood infectious diseases. Similar graphs are available for other childhood infectious diseases. The truth is that improved sanitation, nutrition, public health measures, refrigeration, safer drinking water, etc were responsible for the decline in mortality and not the vaccines.

***

From vactruth.com:

A Truthful Vaccination Informed Consent Form

(That No Aware Mother Would Sign)

Go to: http://vactruth.com/2015/05/25/truthful-vaccine-consent-form/

***

What to do if your child dies after a vaccination: A Parent’s Guide

By Norma Erickson and Catherine Frompovich – July 1, 2017

Go to: http://sanevax.org/a-parents-guide-what-to-do-if-your-child-dies-after-vaccination/

***

From VaccinationCouncil.org:

Vaccines and Brain Inflammation

By Harold E. Buttram, MD and Catherine J. Frompovich – June 1, 2011

Go to: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2011/06/01/vaccines-and-brain-inflammation/

***

From Greenmedinfo.com:

There are 271 New Vaccines in Big Pharma’s Pipeline: Into Whose Bodies Will They be Injected?

By Gary G. Kohls, MD – Posted August 25th 2015

Go to: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/roll-your-sleeves-folks-271-new-vaccines-big-pharma-s-pipeline

***

From http://blog.drbrownstein.com:

1) The AMA Further Besmirches its Once Honored Reputation in American Medicine and Science (by Scandalously Proclaiming that the Cocktails of Neurotoxic  [“Unavoidable Unsafe”] Vaccine Ingredients – Aluminum, Mercury and Live Viruses – Need NOT be Further Investigated by Independent Scientists)!!

By Dr David Brownstein (excerpts from his “AMA Opposes Vaccine Research – A Reply”)

– June 23, 2017

Go to: http://blog.drbrownstein.com

“The combined and cumulative effects of 55 shots, 209 vaccine antigens, 525 mcg of mercury and 13,425 mcg of aluminum that have been injected into a child by 18 years of age in accordance with the CDC’s 2017 childhood immunization schedule has never been examined. In fact, it has never even been questioned.” – David Brownstein, MD

The American Medical Association (AMA) has released a position statement that opposes the creation of a new federal commission on vaccine safety whose task is to study the association between autism and vaccines.

“The AMA fully supports the overwhelming body of evidence and rigorous scientific process used by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices which demonstrate vaccines are among the most effective and safest interventions to both prevent individual illness and protect the health of the public,” William E. Kobler, MD said in a statement. Dr. Kobler is a member of the AMA Board of Trustees.

(https://wire.ama-assn.org/ama-news/ama-backs-evidence-based-vaccine-policy-opposes-new-commission)

Here is Dr Brownstein’s response:

Autism is occurring at epidemic rates.  We now have over 1,000,000 U.S. children diagnosed with autism.  Something in our environment is responsible for causing the autism epidemic.  It is not due to genetics.  Could it be the increasing numbers of vaccines given to our children?  Why wouldn’t any rational person want to study this association?  A simple study comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated children could help decide whether vaccines are responsible for causing the autism epidemic.  But, the Powers-That-Be, like the AMA, do not want this study done as it may turn their world upside down.

In response to the AMA edicts supporting more vaccines and stating that no further research is needed, I and my colleagues have released a reply to the AMA letter.

Response to AMA’s Status Quo Vaccine Policy, Trumping Safety – 23 June 2017

Since 1996, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has led a concerted effort on driver safety. Its excellent results reduced highway fatalities by 50 percent, per 100,000 licensed drivers, from 23.21 down to 15.26 in 2014.(1)

Over the same period, autism cases per 100,000 have skyrocketed from 2.1 to 25.8 cases, or from 1 in 500 (1995) to 1 in 68 babies born in 2014, more than a seven-fold increase. (2)

If those statistics aren’t damning enough, for the first time since 1993, U.S. “life expectancy” has declined(3) and a HHS-sponsored study in 2011 reported that nearly 43% of US children (32 million) had at least 1 of 20 chronic health conditions (including the autoimmune epidemic), increasing to 54.1% when overweight, obesity, or being at risk for developmental delays are included.(4)

Of course, we are supposed to believe that the dramatic spike in childhood illness and cases of autism has nothing to do with tripling of the number of vaccines on the CDC’s Childhood Immunization Schedule between 1996 and 2017.(5,6) It should be obvious that such a powerful correlation should be examined. But it is not being investigated.

How can the FHWA get safety so right, but the three federal agencies tasked with the safeguarding of the health of U.S. citizens—the CDC, the NIH, and FDA—get safety so wrong?

That begs the question, where is the American Medical Association (AMA) demanding more research to determine why our children are suffering through an autism epidemic?

One answer: Big Pharma-funded professional organizations, like the AMA and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), have gone to great lengths to ensure that vaccine safety remain in the hands of policymakers (who are largely influenced, either financially by Big Pharma or because of professional loyalty to their subspecialty lobbying groups); they have systematically blocked the efforts of investigations by independent scientists.

Deep Flaws Within the Three Letter Agencies

The AMA’s view on vaccine safety—that the status quo is fine and needs no changes—runs counter to the evidence. None of the three-letter agencies are capable of ensuring vaccine safety. The entire system of checks and balances has been so upended that safety, quality control, and quality assurance within the U.S. immunization program has been completely compromised. The flaws are so deep and pervasive that nothing short of a total overhaul should be undertaken. Soon, the crumbling edifice of “vaccine safety” will collapse under its own weight. So how can the AMA condone “flawed science” and “political manipulation” at the CDC, the NIH, FDA, and within the IOM? Does the AMA believe the echolalia repetition of “safe and effective” is the same as “science-based evidence?” Why does the AMA continue to condone the CDC’s efforts, even after the domestic (Dr. William Thompson whistleblower(7) and international (Danish scientist Poul Thorsen(8,9) fraudulent science studies have been exposed?

Response to AMA’s Status Quo Position

On June 19, AMA News senior staff writer, Sara Berg, published an Opinion: “AMA backs evidence-based vaccine policy, opposes new commission.”

For many doctors, lawyers, professionals, advocates, and parents of autistic and chronically ill children, we stand against the AMA and the rest of our severely broken, corrupt system of government organizations. They have done nothing as an entire generation of children has spiraled down in a litany of debilitating illnesses, more than at any time in human history.

Vaccines are currently advocated for the elderly, the infirm, all adults, all pregnant women and their fetuses, and all children of all ages, including preemies and micro-preemies. The standards of vaccine safety must be closely examined. Vaccine trials are only interested in the development of an antibody after a muscle has been injected with foreign matter. The combined and cumulative effects of 55 shots, 209 vaccine antigens, 525 mcg of mercury and 13,425 mcg of aluminum that have been injected into a child by 18 years of age in accordance with the CDC’s 2017 childhood immunization schedule has never been examined. In fact, it has never even been questioned.

The AMA’s blathering that, “physicians remain concerned that the current federal administration may attempt to establish new vaccine policy based on unfounded and unscientific facts” is a red herring. It is meant to distract from the current state of poor health experienced by today’s children.

A new, fully transparent Vaccine Safety Commission must be formed. With nearly 250 vaccines in the developmental pipeline,⁽¹¹⁾ examining the safety of injections cannot be overstated. The three-letter agencies, which would subvert this effort, are clearly looking through tainted rose-colored glasses intent on protecting the status quo.

We call on Dr. Kobler and the AMA to a public discussion of, and if necessary, debate on vaccine safety issues.

Signatories:

David Brownstein, MD West Bloomfield, MI
Sherri Tenpenny, MD, DO, AOBNMM, ABIHM Cleveland, OH
James O. Grundvig, Journalist, New York, NY
Toni Bark, MD, MHEM, LEED AP
Christian Bogner, MD, Detroit, MI
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, Pittsburgh, PA

***

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, the area’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination regimens, and other movements that threaten the environment, prosperity, democracy, civility and the health and longevity of the planet and the populace. Many of his columns are archived at 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls; 

http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2; or at 

https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

***
Sources at 

http://blog.drbrownstein.com/ama-opposes-vaccine-research-a-reply/

1) https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

2) https://www.waisman.wisc.edu/news2014-autism-rates.htm

3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-life-expectancy-declines-for-the-first-timesince-1993/2016/12/07/7dcdc7b4-bc93-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html?utm_term=.cdd0f0160e56

4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21570014

5) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039897.htm

6) https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf

7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSlOOHGXssE

8) https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp

9) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01EEQ9BSM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

10) https://wire.ama-assn.org/ama-news/ama-backs-evidence-based-vaccine-policy-opposes-newcommission?&utm_source=BHClistID&utm_medium=BulletinHealthCare&utm_term=062017&utm_content=MorningRounds&utm_campaign=BHCMessageID

11) http://catalyst.phrma.org/new-report-highlights-more-than-250-vaccines-in-development

Scenes in the 2013 BBC Panorama special Saving Syria’s Children reveal that the award-winning team of reporter Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway OBE were embedded with jihadi group Ahrar al-Sham which, according to Human Rights Watch, had three weeks earlier worked alongside Islamic State (IS) and al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra as one of “the key fundraisers, organizers, planners, and executors” of an attack in which at least 190 civilians were killed. [1]

In its October 2013 report “You Can Still See Their Blood” – Executions, Indiscriminate Shootings, and Hostage Taking by Opposition Forces in Latakia Countryside Human Rights Watch identifies 190 civilian fatalities “including 57 women and at least 18 children and 14 elderly men” killed by opposition forces including Ahrar al-Sham on August 4, the first day of the 2013 Latakia Offensive. Over 200 civilian hostages were taken. [2]

Pannell and Conway began filming for Saving Syria’s Children on 23 August 2013 [3]. The programme professed to show Syria’s humanitarian crisis through the eyes of two British doctors, Rola Hallam and Saleyha Ahsan.

On the morning of 26 August, in order “to see what medical care is available for children closer to where the fighting is”, Hallam and Ahsan travel to a frontline clinic. Pannell states (10:18):

“Western journalists have been targeted in Syria, so I have to travel with my own security. The doctors are able to be more low key and take their own vehicles.” [4]

A number of vehicles are shown setting off in convoy, including a white pickup truck with a distinctive ornament and the Ahrar al Sham emblem on its bonnet:

White pickup truck in convoy transporting BBC reporter Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway on 26 August 2013 bears the former logo of Salafist militant group Ahrar al-Sham (Saving Syria’s Children, BBC1, broadcast 30 September 2013)

Stanford University’s Mapping Militants Project states that “Ahrar al-Sham worked with the Islamic State (IS) until January 2014″. The partnership would seem to be amply borne out by the scenes of Pannell and Conway’s entourage passing unmolested through an ISIS checkpoint at 11:00 in the programme. [5]

Ian Pannell and Darren Conway’s convoy approaches an ISIS checkpoint in Saving Syria’s Children

Armed ISIS checkpoint guard filmed from rear of white pickup truck, presumably by BBC cameraman Darren Conway, Monday 26 August 2013. Up until January 2014 an alliance existed between ISIS and Ahrar al-Sham, whose logo is visible on the pickup’s bonnet.

As the convoy passes through the checkpoint Pannell narrates:

“This is an ISIS group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. This is a group that’s affiliated with Al Qaeda.”

Pannell’s words belie the links between Al Qaeda and the very group within which he and his cameraman are embedded. Wikipedia notes:

[Ahrar al-Sham] aims to create an Islamic state under Sharia law, and in the past has cooperated with the al-Nusra Front, an affiliate of al-Qaeda.

Stanford University fleshes out the picture:

Ahrar al-Sham has been coordinating operations with its closest ally, former Al Qaeda (AQ) affiliate Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (Tahrir al-Sham), formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra (Al-Nusra), since late 2012, and both groups are part of the Jaysh al-Fatah umbrella organization.

Stanford also records that one of Ahrar al-Sham’s co-founders, Abu Khalid al-Suri, who was killed in 2014

acted as Al Qaeda’s (AQ) representative in Syria and was charged with facilitating reconciliation among regional Islamist militants.

The FDD’s Long War Journal website reported in 2013 that Spanish investigators had identified Al Suri – real name Mohamed Bahaiah – as “one of Osama bin Laden’s most trusted couriers”

Bahaiah is a longtime al Qaeda operative who worked as a courier for the terror network. Spanish authorities think he may have delivered surveillance tapes of the World Trade Center and other American landmarks to al Qaeda’s senior leadership in Afghanistan in early 1998.

In addition to being a senior member of Ahrar al Sham, Bahaiah today serves as [current al-Qaeda leader] Ayman al Zawahiri’s representative in the Levant.

At the wheel of Pannell’s convoy car in Saving Syria’s Children is the programme’s credited Fixer/Translator Mughira Al Sharif. On the same day Al Sharif posted an image to Instagram expressive of the camaraderie between the Panorama team and the Ahrar al-Sham “security” men who accompanied them. It is possible that these men were among those who had participated in the mass slaughter and kidnap of civilians in Latakia twenty-two days earlier. [6] [7]

(Above) Fixer/Translator Mughira Al-Sharif driving Ian Pannell’s convoy saloon car in Saving Syria’s Children. Pannell is second from right. (Below) Al Sharif poses with two of the Ahrar al-Sham men in an Instagram post of the same day, describing them as “friends”. The post was subsequently deleted.

Later the same day Pannell and Conway travelled with Hallam, Ahsan and Al Sharif to Atareb Hospital, Aleppo where they were on hand to record harrowing scenes of the alleged victims of an alleged incendiary attack in footage which formed the dramatic climax of Saving Syria’s Children. (See links below for discussion of these sequences).

In May 2017 it was announced that Ian Pannell was leaving the BBC to join ABC News [8] as a senior foreign correspondent, stationed in London. In a note to staff ABC News President James Goldston paid this tribute:

He has an uncanny knack of being in the right place at the right time…

Notes

[1] The five groups which Human Rights Watch identifies as primarily responsible for the August 4 attack are:

– Ahrar al-Sham

– Islamic State of Iraq and Sham

– Jabhat al-Nusra

– Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar

– Suquor al-Izz

[2] The report states:

Eight survivors and witnesses described how opposition forces executed residents and opened fire on civilians, sometimes killing or attempting to kill entire families who were either in their homes unarmed or fleeing from the attack, and at other times killing adult male family members, and holding the female relatives and children hostage.

[3] “Mr Pannell has confirmed that his “journey” began on 23 August 2103 [sic]. The visit to the frontline clinic occurred on the morning of 26 August”, BBC Editorial Complaints Unit Final Report, 19 May 2014 (p2 of PDF download). Full complaints correspondence with the BBC re: Saving Syria’s Children is logged here.

[4] Pannell’s narration in the sequence from 10:28 to 11:40 is as follows:

Western journalists have been targeted in Syria, so I have to travel with my own security. The doctors are able to be more low key and take their own vehicles.

The war in Syria is now in its third year. Sectarian differences and extremism have taken hold on both sides and the conflict threatens the stability of the region.

Travelling around Syria has never really been more dangerous, both foreign journalists and foreign aid workers have been targeted, some have been killed. We’re just going through a checkpoint now, put the camera down a bit.

Rival rebel factions now fight each other as well as the government. Lawlessness prevails and areas that were once safe can become dangerous almost overnight.

This is an ISIS group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. This is a group that’s affiliated with Al Qaeda. Increasing numbers of Jihadis have come into Syria, they’re setting up checkpoints so it means that any foreigners in particular travelling around the country, run the gauntlet of these checkpoints every few miles or so.

And the worst thing about driving around is that you’re never sure what lies behind the next corner.

[5] Despite Pannell’s assessment (10:47) that “travelling around Syria has never really been more dangerous” it would appear that Conway is able to hop between vehicles with impunity in the immediate vicinity of an ISIS checkpoint. At 10:55, seated in the rear of his saloon car, Pannell states “we’re just going through a checkpoint now” and instructs the cameraman – presumably Conway – to “put the camera down a bit”. Seconds later, in footage presumably also shot by Conway but filmed from the rear of another vehicle (the white pickup truck), we see an ISIS guard inspecting vehicles at a checkpoint.

Ian Pannell presumably instructing his colleague, cameraman Darren Conway, to “put the camera down a bit” on the approach to an ISIS checkpoint.

Scenes filmed from a different vehicle, ostensibly moments later, as the convoy passes through the ISIS checkpoint. The footage is presumably also shot by Saving Syria’s Children’s sole credited cameraman Darren Conway, seemingly indicating that he has moved freely between vehicles in an ISIS held area.

[6] In 2012 Al Sharif was photographed bearing the standard of the now defunct Idlib Martyrs Brigade:

Instagram, 13 August 2012 (subsequently deleted)

Another of Al Sharif’s Instagram photos is jarring when one considers that it was uploaded on 27 August 2013, the day after he had driven Pannell’s car through the ISIS checkpoint and, later, supposedly witnessed appalling carnage as dozens of child victims of an incendiary attack were rushed into Atareb Hospital:

Mughira Al Sharif uploaded this jocular image celebrating “the formation of the special battalions” one day after he had been present at Atareb Hospital, Aleppo, supposedly witnessing the aftermath of an incendiary attack on a nearby school playground in which scores of children had been killed or horrifically burned. https://www.instagram.com/p/dhg4o4GV5a/

These images and other material were submitted in a 2014 appeal to the BBC Trust which argued that Al Sharif’s involvement in Saving Syria’s Children breached BBC Editorial Guidelines. In rejecting the appeal the Trust’s Editorial Standards committee did not deign to address the point.

Some of Al Sharif’s more recent Instagram images demonstrate the prestigious connections he currently enjoys:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BP9-EEZA241/

https://www.instagram.com/p/BOfg2JHAyPH/

[7] The identity and/or role of other uniformed and/or armed or professionally equipped individuals filmed by Darren Conway and others at Atareb Hospital on 26 August 2013 remains unclear:

Militarily attired male with microphone headset (See https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/#european)

Two militants who transported a female alleged incendiary attack victim to Atareb Hospital. (See https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/#black-dress)

Yusuf Zou’a, formerly a commander of the Ansar Brigade and military commander of Jabhat al-Nusra ally Jaysh al-Mujahideen (Army of Mujahideen). Zou’a was killed circa August 2016. In this scene Zou’a refers to “seven martyrs and about 50 wounded from the religious college for women and girls”, in stark contrast to the scenes recorded by Darren Conway and screened in Saving Syria’s Children, in which the overwhelming majority of alleged victims are adolescent males. (See: https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/#Halabhttps://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/#_ftn21http://en.mehrnews.com/news/118834/Syrian-army-establishes-control-on-a-number-of-positions-in-Aleppo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1siwEfWixw&feature=youtu.be)

Male of European appearance carrying a camera. In other scenes (e.g. top right in montage immediately below) he can be seen using a walky-talky. Saving Syria’s Children editor Tom Giles has stated that he has “no idea” who this man is. (See: https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/western-male-filmed-at-atareb-hospital/)

At least seven individuals can be seen using walkie-talkies in scenes filmed at Atareb Hospital or at Urm al-Kubra, the location of the alleged incendiary attack. (See: https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/who-are-these-men/)

Individual bearing emblem of the Free Aleppo Governorate Council at 35:06 in Saving Syria’s Children. According to a 2014 MENASource blog post “The Council formed in March 2013 to provide services and administrative assistance for civilians living in free areas of Aleppo Province”.

[8] “ABC News is the news division of the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), owned by the Disney Media Networks division of The Walt Disney Company” – Wikipedia

All images in this article are from the author.

Drone Wars UK will be in court next week seeking to overturn the refusal of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to release how many of the UK’s fleet of ten armed Reaper drones are deployed and where they are located. The MoD currently releases such deployment details about its other armed aircraft, but has insisted since late 2014 that such information cannot be released about its armed drones.

The Information Tribunal, will take place in central London on 11th and 12th July, but will be partially heard behind closed doors with campaigners and the public excluded. Drone Wars will argue that given the ethical and legal concerns about the use of armed drones, it is in the public interest that there should be at least as much transparency about the deployment of armed drones as for the UK’s other armed aircraft.

During operations in Afghanistan, the UK MoD regularly detailed the number of armed Reaper drones deployed, as well as their location at Kandahar airport.  However it appears when the decision was made to continue to use armed drones beyond Afghanistan (the Reaper fleet was originally acquired under urgent operational requirement rules only for use in Afghanistan, and bypassed normal procurement procedures) the decision was also taken to refuse to give such details in the future.

The MoD regularly insists that armed drones are no different from other military aircraft.  However, in refusing to release the numbers and location of Reapers deployed on operations against ISIS while doing so for its other armed aircraft, drones are clearly being treated differently.  This would appear to be because the MoD wants to use them, or at the very least have the option to use them, on secret operations.  However, given the serious ethical and legal concerns about the use of armed drones, shrouding their  deployment in secrecy is a recipe for disaster.  Transparency will enable proper scrutiny and accountability, helping to ensure they are not deployed beyond the battlefield, and that the ability that drones give, to undertake remote air strikes with virtual impunity, does not erode international legal norms particularly around ‘last resort’.

Beyond Iraq and Syria?

While it is publicly knowledge that some of Britain’s fleet of ten armed Reapers have been deployed to the Middle East as part of Operation Shader (as the UK military deployment against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is named) it is not clear if all the UK’s armed drones are deployed there, or if some  have been deployed on operations elsewhere, or if some remain in storage in the UK. Without the release of basic deployment information, we simply cannot know. MP’s like Richard Burden, who have raised this issue in parliament, have simply been rebuffed.

In the dark: There should be as much information in the public domain about the deployment of armed drones as other warplanes

Since the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Britain’s Reapers have been used at least once outside of Operation Shader; to undertake the targeted killing of Reyaad Khan in August 2015.  While this strike took place in Syria, it was before parliament authorised the use of force there. The then PM, David Cameron, told the House of Commons that the strike was “the first time in modern times that a British asset has been used to conduct a strike in a country where we are not involved in a war.”  Senior military officers too acknowledged that the strike represented the ‘crossing of a Rubicon’ and the MoD insist in its FoI answers that the strike was not carried out as part of Operation Shader. Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has made it clear that the UK is prepared to carry out further such drone targeted killings.

Mainstream media as well as specialist defence press regularly name the Ali Al Salem air base in Kuwait as the base for UK Reaper operations in Iraq and Syria, although the MoD has never confirmed this officially. In May 2016, the MoD arranged visits to the location of the UK’s armed drones for a small, select group of media organisations: The Sun, Sky News, and Conservative US news site, The Daily Signal. While the location was not directly mentioned, there was enough information contained in the reports to confirm the previous reporting.

Public Interest

It may be that all the UK’s Reapers have not been deployed on operations and some are simply in storage in the UK (probably at RAF Waddington). If true, this is likely due to there not being enough crew to operate the Reaper fleet.  Both the RAF and USAF have had trouble recruiting and retaining drone crew partly due to the heavy workload. As a former Reaper pilot told Drone Wars in an interview last month, the UK’s drone operations have been “incessant”.

However it would be a particular matter of public interest if some of the UK Reapers were mothballed given that last December the government signed initial contracts to spend $1 billion acquiring up to 26 additional armed drones. There would be serious questions around this huge expenditure to expand the UK’s armed drone fleet given that it is not possible to keep the current fleet of ten in the air.

UK Responsibility and opportunity

The MoD’s perspective appears to be that that it is in the public interest that they should be able to operate these systems outside of public view and without the need for public accountability. From a wider international security perspective however, it is crucial, as more and more nations acquire armed drones, that there is a strong expectation and culture of transparency and public oversight of the deployment of armed drones.  As one of the few countries operating these systems beyond its own borders, the UK should recognise that it has both the responsibility and also the opportunity to set high standards internationally for such transparency. However if the UK refuses such basic details as the number of armed drones deployed, other nations acquiring such systems are likely to follow this lead.

The deployment of armed drones in particular needs to be carefully monitored as they have become the preferred means of undertaking extra-judicial targeted killings. Indeed it can be argued that the technology has hugely expanded the use of targeted killing. There is also growing concern – and evidence – that armed drones are lowering the threshold for use of force.

Details of other UK aircraft deployed on operations publicly released, but drone deployments kept secret

It has long been argued that there should be parliamentary authorisation for the British use of military force overseas. Currently it is a prerogative of the Crown within the hands of the PM. However in 2011 the Government acknowledged that a convention had emerged whereby the House of Commons should have the opportunity to debate and vote on the deployment of military forces except in the event of an emergency. It has been argued by all the main parties (when in opposition!) that this convention should be enshrined in a War Powers Act, though such calls are regularly dropped when parties get into power.

Asked by Tom Watson MP in June 2014 whether the government would seek approval for the deployment of armed drones after operations in Afghanistan, the then MoD Minister Mark Francois replied sarcastically that there was “no intention for parliamentary approval to be sought before decisions on deployment or redeployment of individual items of equipment are made.” Eighteen months later in January 2016 amid discussion of UK military intervention in Libya, Vice Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Drones, David Anderson MP, again asked the MoD if they would ensure that parliament had an opportunity to debate the deployment of UK Reapers outside of Syria and Iraq. Michael Fallon gave a dismissive, one word answer: “No”.

If following the lead of the United States, multiple nations begin to undertake strikes from remotely controlled drones without detailing, or even acknowledging such deployments, there will be a significant and damaging decrease in international security. The UK needs to recognise it has a global responsibility on this issue and take an important lead. It should set an important benchmark for transparency on this issue by releasing the number of its armed drones deployed overseas together with their general location, and commit to bringing the deployment of armed drones within the convention that parliament approves the deployment and use of military force overseas.

All images in this article are from the original source.

The Syrian Army and its allies have continued operation against ISIS in the countryside of Palmyra where government troops are advancing in the direction of the ISIS-held town of Sukhna. Government forces have captured a major part of the al-Haid gas fields and now are attempting to secure the area from ISIS attacks.

A group of self-propelled multiple rocket launcher systems, including MB-27 Uragan, have been spotted in the Arak gas field area. Summing up this and recent photo and video evidence showing artillery pieces and technical vehicles armed with various weapons arriving the area, it’s possible to suggest that the army and its allies will soon launch a major push in order to retake Sukhna from ISIS.

The Turkish military has allegedly deployed ATILGAN short-range air defense systems to the area of al-Bab in the province of Aleppo. The Erdogan government has been increasing its military presence in Syria since the start of the operation Euphrates Shield. According to pro-Kurdish sources, now, Turkey and its proxy forces are preparing for a military operation in order to retake Tall Rifat from YPG and YPJ. Kurdish militias are a core of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

The Kurdish political leadership represented by the Democratic Union Party (PYD) heavily relies on the US support. Recently, it has made a series of steps worsening its relations with Syria, Iran and Russia, thus, opening a window of opportunities for Ankara that seeks to clear the Syrian border area from militarized Kurdish organizations.
The Kurdish-Arab tensions are also growing in the area of Raqqah where the so-called Arab Elite Forces led by Ahmad Jarba have withdrawn from the battle of Old Raqqah as a result of disagreements with the SDF. In turn, pro-SDF sources argue that the SDF command has decided to do this because of the bad behavior of Arab fighters. The US-led coalition is trying to mediate the situation. In any case, this has already slowed won the advance against ISIS.

According to opposition sources, the United States agreed with Jaysh Maghawir al-Thawra, to establish a military base in Al-Shaddadi city in the southern Hasakah countryside. According to sources among Jaysh Maghawir al-Thawra members, the military base will become a foothold for the US-backed push towards the oil-rich province of Deir Ezzor.

On Sunday, a ceasefire was implemented in the provinces of Daraa and Quneitra as a result of another US-Russian deal over Syria. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the agreement includes

“securing access of humanitarian aids, establishing contacts between the opposition in the area and a monitoring center being established in the Jordanian capital”.

State Rex Tillerson said that

“I think this is the first indication that the United States and Russia can work together in Syria.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has arrived Mosul city to announce its liberation. Al-Abadi toured Mosul and congratulated the Iraqi soldiers, officers, and civilians, after Iraqi forces had liberated the entire Old Mosul area from ISIS. Al-Abadi held a meeting with commanders at the Federal Police HQ in western Mosul, and stressed the need to ensure security and stability in the city, to remove mines and explosives left by ISIS, and to protect civilians. However, according to local sources sporadic firefights between ISIS members and security forces are still ongoing in Old Mosul. Following the declaration of the liberation of Mosul, Iraqi forces will likely focus their efforts on liberation of Tal Afar.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi Air Force has carried out airstrikes on ISIS targets in the Syrian area of al-Mayadin. The Iraqi Air Force conducts airstrikes against ISIS in the Syrian border area in accordance to the agreement with the Syrian government.

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video above

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

All we know about Putin/Trump talks is what each side reported – Russia in some detail, the Trump administration offering little.

Most likely both leaders got along amicably, no comments from either suggesting otherwise. Their body language on camera was positive.

Moscow genuinely wants improved relations with Washington. Dark forces holding Trump hostage to their agenda have other ideas – irresponsibly calling Russia America’s main threat.

On Sunday, Rex Tillerson said US sanctions on Russia won’t be lifted unless it “reverses (its) actions” on Ukraine, falsely claiming they violated the country’s “territorial integrity.”

Nothing of the kind occurred – no so-called “Russian aggression,” no “annexation of Crimea,” no hostile, improper or illegal actions of any kind against Ukraine – the US-installed putschist regime, replacing its democratically elected governance.

In Kiev, meeting with its puppet president Poroshenko, Tillerson talked tough to please his host, cozying up to an illegitimate figurehead, reaffirming US support for his regime, disgracefully continuing unfounded anti-Russia accusations.

After meeting with Putin, Trump tweeted

“sanctions were not discussed,” adding “(n)othing will be done until the Ukrainian & Syrian problems are solved.”

In June, Senate members overwhelmingly approved tough new sanctions on Russia, targeting its intelligence and defense apparatus, its energy, railways and shipping industries – along with Russian officials wrongfully accused of corruption and human rights abuses.

House members have yet to act. It’s unclear if Trump will support the measure if it reaches his desk. It won’t matter if by a veto-proof margin as is likely.

Separately in June, deputy White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the Trump administration is committed to existing sanctions “until Moscow fully honors its commitments to resolve the crisis in Ukraine.”

America bears full responsibility, Russia wrongfully blamed for its criminality. Easing tensions between both countries toward improving relations remains an unattainable goal because neocons infesting Washington want Moscow remaining an adversary, not ally.

Days earlier, Tillerson appointed Kurt Volker as special envoy for helping to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. Russia’s good faith efforts since 2014 were undermined by Washington – perpetuating conflict, not ending it.

Irreconcilable differences between both countries remain. Nothing in prospect suggests remedying a bad situation.

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 from Investopedia

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)

*     *    *

Genetically Modified Bread Given Green Light by Vatican

By Julian Rose, July 10, 2017

This is not a criticism of these individuals. It is the institution which must be first to answer for its deviousness. All the evidence exposing institutional corruption is contained in cardinal Sarah’s proclamation that genetically engineered bread is acceptable – and gluten-free bread is not.

Why Palestine Is Still the Issue

By John Pilger, July 10, 2017

What enrages those who colonise and occupy, steal and oppress, vandalise and defile is the victims’ refusal to comply. And this is the tribute we all should pay the Palestinians. They refuse to comply. They go on. They wait – until they fight again. And they do so even when those governing them collaborate with their oppressors.

Trump Cannot Improve Relations with Russia When Trump’s Government and the US Media Oppose Improved Relations

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 10, 2017

President Trump has been contradicted by his own government, which has lined up against him in favor of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and the Russophobic Presstitute Media that serves the military/security complex and the neoconservatives.

Gaza: A Place Closer to Hell Than to Heaven

By Irwin Jerome, July 10, 2017

Sadly, this persecution now includes the Palestinian peoples themselves, caught in the grip, as they are, of a fatal death spiral as they viciously fight and squabble; as oppressed peoples predictably often do amongst themselves once their forced to ‘circle the wagons’ and then begin shooting each other over what few scraps of power and hegemony remain.

The Trump-Putin Meeting: Establishment of a Personal Relationship, “There was Positive Chemistry Between the Two”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 10, 2017

The Trump-Putin meeting is also a slap in the face for the Deep State Neocons and the US media –not to mention Hillary et al–, who continue to blame Moscow for having intervened in the 2016 US presidential elections while casually portraying Trump as a Manchurian candidate controlled by the Kremlin.

Featured image: Cardinal Robert Sarah (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

In what will surely to be considered a highly controversial statement, Vatican cardinal Robert Sarah, has stated that Catholic priests can use genetically modified bread during the Eucharist – but not ‘gluten-free’ bread. 

In an article in the Guardian online* Sarah is quoted as saying that guidance was needed now that Eucharist bread can be found in supermarkets and even over the internet.

Sarah had earlier reminded bishops that the bread should be made by people “distinguished by their integrity.” He also stated

“It is altogether forbidden to use wine of doubtful authenticity or provenance.”

The wine he is referring to is that taken with the bread during holy communion, which, quoting the Guardian

“Catholics believe turns bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.”

Somehow or other, in giving the OK to the use of GM unleavened bread, this statement encapsulates everything which is antithetical to basic, informed wisdom – never mind spiritual guidance. To deliberately distort the composition of the genetic code of life, is to go against the principle of reverence for the species. Doubly so since this is only undertaken to increase the profits of the corporations that patent the engineered plants.

The cardinal then states that such bread should only be made by  people “distinguished by their integrity.” Well, well, clearly the Vatican has a whole other concept of what ‘integrity’ means, than I do, and indeed millions of others. The article is capped-off by the statement citing Catholics’ belief that the bread and the wine issued to the congregation during communion, symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus.

Even to take this in a non literal sense, raises severe questions about the origins of this ritual. Nobody needs to imbibe the blood and body of Christ, even symbolically, in order to gain support from divine sources. Rather the opposite, to believe it is necessary to engage in a ritualistic form of cannibalism (however disguised) in order to receive divine blessing, places a block on the ability to see the sacred in everything. Rather it encourages a return to the dark ages of sacrificial worship.

I do not wish to cause offense to Catholics, especially those who follow their conscience, but the church has made it plain for all to see, that it is following a whole other doctrine than the one which supports nurturing an increase in spiritual awareness. We are witnessing a false dogma laid bare; and, in a sense, we should thank Sarah for so brazenly exposing this fact.

For the sake of brevity, I am going to resist going into every hypocritical nuance which the Vatican proclamation raises. Others have covered in depth, the prevalence of dark guidance which flows through this institution. But one cannot help but feel a shiver of horror when one links together the hundreds of cases of priestly pedophilia, the sacrilegious ingestion of symbolic body and blood and the promotion of GMO.

There is much more, but these three are quite sufficient in alerting all of us that it’s time to stand back and see the bigger picture.

A great swathe of the world’s activities are run from the Vatican, in its link-up with Washington DC and The City of London. None of which are government or citizen controlled. They are tax-free  ‘corporations’, boasting their own private police forces and independent status from the rest of society.

Here is where the hierarchical sudo-elite devise their ‘new world order’ ambitions. Their plans to take control over all aspects of planetary life. They work closely with the international banking cabal and with heads of state. They comprise the top end of the 0.2% pyramid elite whose ethos is to dominate within the construct of a totalitarian world, in which all those ‘below’ act as their minions.

There are many good and thoughtful individuals who follow the teachings of the church. Likewise there are priests performing valuable supportive efforts to those under repression all over the planet.

This is not a criticism of these individuals. It is the institution which must be first to answer for its deviousness. All the evidence exposing institutional corruption is contained in cardinal Sarah’s proclamation that genetically engineered bread is acceptable – and gluten-free bread is not.

Throughout the world 70 to 80% of individuals are against the use of GMO in the food chain. They perceive, in spite of mega bucks worth of corporate attempts to sell the GM message, that this laboratory inspired experiment is a dangerous and crass distortion of nature, with historical links to Nazi programmes promoting genocide. They also deeply distrust the agrichemical corporations trying to market it.

Who is right: the church and the corporations or the people?

It’s time to leave the dogma behind us and move on. A rise in human consciousness is not going to be achieved via regression into religious fanaticism. Humanity needs to break-free from all forms of institutional repression, and take inspiration directly from the true source of divine wisdom

*https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/09/gluten-free-bread-for-holy-communion-is-toast-says-vatican

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, a writer and international activist. He is currently President of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside. Julian is also the author of two acclaimed titles: ‘Changing Course for Life’ and ‘In Defense of Life’. You can purchase these books and read more at www.julianrose.info

TEHRAN (FNA)- A leading Egyptian newspaper released a number of documents proving that Saudi Arabia’s new Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his counterpart in Abu Dhabi Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan have long been supporting the ISIL and al-Qaeda terrorist groups’ global operations.

The documents also revealed the detailed activities and operations of the two Yemeni nationals in support of the al-Qaeda and the ISIL as well as Saudi Intelligence Chief Khalid bin Ali bin Abdullah al-Humaidan‘s financial support for them.

The documents were revealed after a new report released by a British think tank on Wednesday said that Saudi Arabia is the “foremost” foreign funder of Islamist extremism in the UK and other western countries.

The Henry Jackson Society — a right-wing think tank — said that overseas funding primarily from the governments and private charities of Persian Gulf countries has a “clear and growing link” to the onslaught of violence the UK and other western states.

The group estimated that the Saudi government and charities spent an estimated $4 billion exporting Saudi Arabia’s strict interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism (also practiced by ISIL and other terrorist groups), worldwide in 2015, up from $2 billion in 2007. In 2015, there were 110 mosques in the UK practicing Salafism and Wahhabism compared to 68 in 2007. The money is primarily funneled through mosques and Islamic schools in Britain, according to the report.

“Influence has also been exerted through the training of British Muslim religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, as well as the use of Saudi textbooks in a number of the UK’s independent Islamic schools,” the report said.

Although many Western countries, including the United States, have acknowledged the threat of foreign terrorist financing, Britain “has seen far less of a response from policy makers supporting moves to tackle the challenge of foreign-funded Islamist extremism,” the report said.

Featured image from Farsnews

When I first went to Palestine as a young reporter in the 1960s, I stayed on a kibbutz. The people I met were hard-working, spirited and called themselves socialists. I liked them.

One evening at dinner, I asked about the silhouettes of people in the far distance, beyond our perimeter.

“Arabs”, they said, “nomads”. The words were almost spat out. Israel, they said, meaning Palestine, had been mostly wasteland and one of the great feats of the Zionist enterprise was to turn the desert green.

They gave as an example their crop of Jaffa oranges, which was exported to the rest of the world. What a triumph against the odds of nature and humanity’s neglect.

It was the first lie. Most of the orange groves and vineyards belonged to Palestinians who had been tilling the soil and exporting oranges and grapes to Europe since the eighteenth century. The former Palestinian town of Jaffa was known by its previous inhabitants as “the place of sad oranges”.

On the kibbutz, the word “Palestinian” was never used. Why, I asked. The answer was a troubled silence.

All over the colonised world, the true sovereignty of indigenous people is feared by those who can never quite cover the fact, and the crime, that they live on stolen land.

Denying people’s humanity is the next step – as the Jewish people know only too well. Defiling people’s dignity and culture and pride follows as logically as violence. 

In Ramallah, following an invasion of the West Bank by the late Ariel Sharon in 2002, I walked through streets of crushed cars and demolished houses, to the Palestinian Cultural Centre. Until that morning, Israeli soldiers had camped there.

I was met by the centre’s director, the novelist, Liana Badr, whose original manuscripts lay scattered and torn across the floor. The hard drive containing her fiction, and a library of plays and poetry had been taken by Israeli soldiers. Almost everything was smashed, and defiled.

Not a single book survived with all its pages; not a single master tape from one of the best collections of Palestinian cinema.

The soldiers had urinated and defecated on the floors, on desks, on embroideries and works of art. They had smeared faeces on children’s paintings and written – in shit – “Born to kill”.

Liana Badr had tears in her eyes, but she was unbowed. She said,

“We will make it right again.”  

What enrages those who colonise and occupy, steal and oppress, vandalise and defile is the victims’ refusal to comply. And this is the tribute we all should pay the Palestinians. They refuse to comply. They go on. They wait – until they fight again. And they do so even when those governing them collaborate with their oppressors.

In the midst of the 2014 Israeli bombardment of Gaza, the Palestinian journalist Mohammed Omer never stopped reporting. He and his family were stricken; he queued for food and water and carried it through the rubble. When I phoned him, I could hear the bombs outside his door. He refused to comply.

Israel’s attack on Gaza in 2009 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Mohammed’s reports, illustrated by his graphic photographs, were a model of professional journalism that shamed the compliant and craven reporting of the so-called mainstream in Britain and the United States. The BBC notion of objectivity – amplifying the myths and lies of authority, a practice of which it is proud – is shamed every day by the likes of Mohamed Omer.

For more than 40 years, I have recorded the refusal of the people of Palestine to comply with their oppressors: Israel, the United States, Britain, the European Union.

Since 2008, Britain alone has granted licences for export to Israel of arms and missiles, drones and sniper rifles, worth £434 million.

Those who have stood up to this, without weapons, those who have refused to comply, are among Palestinians I have been privileged to know:

My friend, the late Mohammed Jarella, who toiled for the United Nations agency UNRWA, in 1967 showed me a Palestinian refugee camp for the first time. It was a bitter winter’s day and schoolchildren shook with the cold. “One day …” he would say. “One day …”

Mustafa Barghouti, whose eloquence remains undimmed, who described the tolerance that existed in Palestine among Jews, Muslims and Christians until, as he told me,

“the Zionists wanted  a state at the expense of the Palestinians.”

Dr. Mona El-Farra, a physician in Gaza, whose passion was raising money for plastic surgery for children disfigured by Israeli bullets and shrapnel. Her hospital was flattened by Israeli bombs in 2014.

Dr. Khalid Dahlan, a psychiatrist, whose clinics for children in Gaza — children sent almost mad by Israeli violence — were oases of civilization.

Fatima and Nasser are a couple whose home stood in a village near Jerusalem designated “Zone A and B”, meaning that the land was declared for Jews only. Their parents had lived there; their grandparents had lived there. Today, the bulldozers are laying roads for Jews only, protected by laws for Jews only.

It was past midnight when Fatima went into labour with their second child. The baby was premature; and when they arrived at a checkpoint with the hospital in view, the young Israeli soldier said they needed another document.

Fatima was bleeding badly. The soldier laughed and imitated her moans and told them, “Go home”. The baby was born there in a truck. It was blue with cold and soon, without care, died from exposure. The baby’s name was Sultan.

For Palestinians, these will be familiar stories. The question is: why are they not familiar in London and Washington, Brussels and Sydney?

In Syria, a recent liberal cause — a George Clooney cause — is bankrolled handsomely in Britain and the United States, even though the beneficiaries, the so-called rebels, are dominated by jihadist fanatics, the product of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and the destruction of modern Libya.

And yet, the longest occupation and resistance in modern times is not recognized. When the United Nations suddenly stirs and defines Israel as an apartheid state, as it did this year, there is outrage – not against a state whose “core purpose” is racism but against a UN commission that dared break the silence.

“Palestine,” said Nelson Mandela, “is the greatest moral issue of our time.”

Why is this truth suppressed, day after day, month after month, year after year?

On Israel – the apartheid state, guilty of a crime against humanity and of more international law-breaking than any other– the silence persists among those who know and whose job it is to keep the record straight.

The barrier between Israel and Palestine and an example of one of the Israeli-controlled checkpoints (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

On Israel, so much journalism is intimidated and controlled by a groupthink that demands silence on Palestine while honourable journalism has become dissidence: a metaphoric underground.

A single word – “conflict” – enables this silence. “The Arab-Israeli conflict”, intone the robots at their tele-prompters. When a veteran BBC reporter, a man who knows the truth, refers to “two narratives”, the moral contortion is complete.

 There is no conflict, no two narratives, with their moral fulcrum. There is a military occupation enforced by a nuclear-armed power backed by the greatest military power on earth; and there is an epic injustice.

The word “occupation” may be banned, deleted from the dictionary. But the memory of historical truth cannot be banned: of the systemic expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland. “Plan D” the Israelis called it in 1948.   

The Israeli historian Benny Morris describes how David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, was asked by one of his generals:

“What shall we do with the Arabs?” 

The prime minister, wrote Morris, “made a dismissive, energetic gesture with his hand”.

“Expel them!” he said.

Seventy years later, this crime is suppressed in the intellectual and political culture of the West. Or it is debatable, or merely controversial. Highly-paid journalists and eagerly accept Israeli government trips, hospitality and flattery, then are truculent in their protestations of independence. The term, “useful idiots”, was coined for them.

In 2011, I was struck by the ease with which one of Britain’s most acclaimed novelists, Ian McEwan, a man bathed in the glow of bourgeois enlightenment, accepted the Jerusalem Prize for literature in the apartheid state.

Would McEwan have gone to Sun City in apartheid South Africa? They gave prizes there, too, all expenses paid. McEwan justified his action with weasel words about the independence of “civil society”.

Propaganda – of the kind McEwan delivered, with its token slap on the wrists for his delighted hosts – is a weapon for the oppressors of Palestine. Like sugar, it insinuates almost everything today.   

Understanding and deconstructing state and cultural propaganda is our most critical task. We are being frog-marched into a second cold war, whose eventual aim is to subdue and balkanise Russia and intimidate China.

When Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin spoke privately for more than two hours at the G20 meeting in Hamburg, apparently about the need not to go to war with each other, the most vociferous objectors were those who have commandeered liberalism, such as the Zionist political writer of the Guardian.”

“No wonder Putin was smiling in Hamburg,” wrote Jonathan Freedland. “He knows he has succeeded in his chief objective: he has made American weak again.”

Cue the hissing for Evil Vlad.

These propagandists have never known war but they love the imperial game of war. What Ian McEwan calls “civil society” has become a rich source of related propaganda.

Take a term often used by the guardians of civil society — “human rights”.  Like another noble concept, “democracy”, “human rights” has been all but emptied of its meaning and purpose.

Like “peace process” and “road map”, human rights in Palestine have been hijacked by Western governments and the corporate NGOs they fund and which claim a quixotic moral authority.

So when Israel is called upon by governments and NGOs to “respect human rights” in Palestine, nothing happens, because they all know there is nothing to fear; nothing will change.

Mark the silence of the European Union, which accommodates Israel while refusing to maintain its commitments to the people of Gaza — such as keeping the lifeline of the Rafah border crossing open: a measure it agreed to as part of its role in the cessation of fighting in 2014. A seaport for Gaza – agreed by Brussels in 2014 – has been abandoned.

The UN commission I have referred to – its full name is the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia — described Israel as, and I quote, “designed for the core purpose” of racial discrimination.

Millions understand this. What the governments in London, Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv cannot control is that humanity at street level is changing perhaps as never before.

People everywhere are stirring and more aware, in my view, than ever before. Some are already in open revolt. The atrocity of Grenfell Tower in London has brought communities together in a vibrant almost national resistance.

Thanks to a people’s campaign, the judiciary is today examining the evidence of a possible prosecution of Tony Blair for war crimes. Even if this fails, it is a crucial development, dismantling yet another barrier between the public and its recognition of the voracious nature of the crimes of state power – the systemic disregard for humanity perpetrated in Iraq, in Grenfell Tower, in Palestine. Those are the dots waiting to be joined.

For most of the 21^st century, the fraud of corporate power posing as democracy has depended on the propaganda of distraction: largely on a cult of “me-ism” designed to disorient our sense of looking out for others, of acting together, of social justice and internationalism.  

Class, gender and race were wrenched apart. The personal became the political and the media the message. The promotion of bourgeois privilege was presented as “progressive” politics. It wasn’t. It never is. It is the promotion of privilege, and power.

Among young people, internationalism has found a vast new audience. Look at the support for Jeremy Corbyn and the reception the G20 circus in Hamburg received. By understanding the truth and imperatives of internationalism, and rejecting colonialism, we understand the struggle of Palestine.

Mandela put it this way:

“We know only too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

At the heart of the Middle East is the historic injustice in Palestine. Until that is resolved, and Palestinians have their freedom and homeland, and Israelis are Palestinians equality before the law, there will be no peace in the region, or perhaps anywhere.

What Mandela was saying is that freedom itself is precarious while powerful governments can deny justice to others, terrorise others, imprison and kill others, in our name. Israel certainly understands the threat that one day it might have to be normal.

That is why its ambassador to Britain is Mark Regev, well known to journalists as a professional propagandist, and why the “huge bluff” of charges of anti-Semitism, as Ilan Pappe called it, was allowed to contort the Labour Party and undermine Jeremy Corbyn as leader. The point is, it did not succeed.

Events are moving quickly now. The remarkable Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions campaign (BDS) is succeeding, day by day; cities and towns, trade unions and student bodies are endorsing it. The British government’s attempt to restrict local councils from enforcing BDS has failed in the courts.

These are not straws in the wind. When the Palestinians rise again, as they will, they may not succeed at first — but they will eventually if we understand that they are us, and we are them.

This is an abridged version of John Pilger‘s address to the Palestinian Expo 2017 in London. John Pilger’s film, ‘Palestine Is Still the Issue’, can be viewed at http://johnpilger.com/videos/palestine-is-still-the-issue

I – Poison Colonies

“Indian civilisation is based on gratitude, to our farmers and all beings who contribute to our food.” — Annadata Sukhibhava

5 Jul 2017 – We believe in  “Uttam – Kheti, Madhyam – Vyapar, Neech – Naukri.” India’s small farmers produce more diversity, more food and nutrition per acre than farmers in industrialised countries. Even today, they feed more than 1.3 billion people.

Then why are Indian farmers committing suicide today?

The root cause is the separation of agriculture from nutrition, and from ecology.

For 10000 years we have farmed to produce nourishment for the soil and society. The combination of the “Green Revolution” in Punjab (imposed in the 1960’s) and the corporate globalisation “reforms” (which started in the 1990’s) have created policies for “Annadata Dukhi Bhava”, undermining our 10,000 year civilisational heritage of Earth first and farmers first policies. The dominant policies of agriculture today, driven by global corporations, are corporate profits first, farmers last, the earth lost.

The consequence is a rapid unfolding of social and ecological non sustainability, threatening our farmers and the future of भारत as a living, life giving civilisation. Our agriculture is eroding, down to a toxic blueprint designed by the poison cartel. 3,18,000 farmers have committed suicide since 1995 – when globalisation of agriculture flagged off the hijack of our seeds, our agriculture, our food systems. The suicides continue.

Now farmers have started to wake the nation up, to the farming crisis, with the strike in Maharashtra and MP. Instead of gratitude and justice, they got bullets. This is not what democracy looks like, from any angle, with any filter, with or without spin. This is not the expression of our civilisational values.

The suicides are concentrated in regions where the Green Revolution has invaded agriculture – destroying diversity, destroying indigenous agriculture, destroying farmers self reliance, destroying soil and water. Suicides are taking place where globalisation policies have destroyed the diversity of crops and diversity of markets. Farmers are growing monocultures and are dependent on a single buyer – the government or a corporation – to buy what they grow, as a commodity for trading posts.

The Roots of the contemporary Agrarian Crisis lie in 50 years of the chemical intensive, capital intensive, monoculture based “Green Revolution”, and 20 years of corporate globalisation, which has transformed Indian Agriculture into a market for costly seed and chemical inputs and a supplier of cheap commodities. Continuing on the path shaped by global corporations and US interests will only make the crisis worse. Getting rid of the small farmer has been the intention of Industrial Agriculture. Getting rid of India’s small farmers has been the aim of every government since globalisation was forced upon us. It continues to be the main call after the farmers protests started in June 2017. Farming without farmers is the new slogan of industry. But this means farming with more fossil fuels, more chemicals. The end of farmers, is the end of real food, an end to producers; it is the rise of the processors.

We must change our agriculture from a chemical intensive, capital intensive, debt and dependency creating, path to a biodiversity intensive, ecologically intensive, zero external input system which rejuvenates the earth and farmers prosperity, and with it provides real food to citizens and creates true prosperity of a people and their nation.

The Green Revolution works against the Earth. It is based on war chemicals, and manifests as a war against the earth, against the farmers, our Annadatas, and against innocent citizens suffering from an epidemic of chronic diseases because they are being condemned to eat nutritionally empty, toxic commodities, instead of food.

Debt for purchase of costly non renewable seeds and unnecessary toxic inputs is the primary reason for farmers suicides and farmers protests. While the immediate short term measure is debt relief and higher MSP, the longer term, lasting solution to the agrarian crisis is a debt free internal input  ecological agriculture called by a variety of names – agroecology, organic, zero budget, permaculture, biodynamic, vedic krishi, natural farming etc etc.

The government – driven and controlled by MNCs – is planning to deepen this debt trap, to create more markets for costly seeds and chemicals. The 2017 budget has Rs 100,000 Crores allocated for agricultural credit, which means encouragement to farmers to get into more debt for more chemicals and more hybrid and GMO seeds from multinationals. This is a recipe for a deeper debt trap and an increase in the resulting suicides.

We have, across the country, success stories of farming without chemicals – producing more food, more nutrition, while increasing farmers incomes. Navdanya’s own experience has shown that chemical free biodiversity based farming produces more nutrition per acre and can feed two India’s. Farmers using their own seeds and their own ecological inputs, growing diverse and nutritious foods that people need and want, and creating their own markets without middlemen, can increase their incomes 10X to 100X.

There is absolutely no reason for a single farmer to commit suicide, nor for a single child to be wasted and stunted in our abundant Bharatvarsh.

Wherever farmers are practicing biodiverse ecological farming and participate in diverse markets they control, there is no debt, no farmers suicides. Suicides are taking place where farmers have become dependent on buying costly seeds and costly chemicals as inputs, they have been forced to  give up diversity, to grow a commodity crop which can only be sold to government or traders, or the corporations behind both. Buyers are driving prices down. Squeezed between ever increasing costs and falling prices, the farmers are trapped, and in hopelessness they are committing suicide.

The way out of the epidemic of farmers suicides:

LOWER COSTS : lower the costs of production to zero through natural, ecological, organic farming and saving, selecting, breeding, and exchanging indigenous open source seeds.

INCREASE NET INCOMES : increase net incomes by saving on unnecessary expenses for toxics, including toxic seeds , and growing diverse , healthy, nutritious, chemical free crops for diverse markets.

INCREASE CLIMATE AND MARKET RESILIENCE : In addition to high costs of chemical farming, chemical farming is making farmers vulnerable to climate change, and exposed to volatile money markets. Diversity creates resilience, both to an unpredictable climate and an exploitative market.

Small farmers are our Annadatas :They are the foundation of Bharat, her health, her prosperity. They produce more than large industrial farms.

There is a common myth – that small farms are unproductive and that an increasing population requires an increase in productivity, which in turn requires large farms, which in turn requires a concentration of land ownership. To feed the people, the industrial, empirical prerogative is to take away their land.

All the scientific evidence is showing that small farms are more productive than large farms.

The International Assessment of Agriculture Knowledge, Science and Technology (IAASTD ) has clearly shown that small agroecological farmers are more productive.

IAASTD’s Agriculture at a Crossroads report, vol. V

removed from

http://www.unep.org/dewa/agassessment/reports/subglobal/Agriculture_at_a_Crossroads_Volume%20V_Sub-Saharan%20Africa_Subglobal_Report.pdf

still available at

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/Investment/Agriculture_at_a_Crossroads_Global_Report_IAASTD.pdf

The UNCTAD Trade and Environment Review 2013 Titled “Wake Up Before it is Too Late”  stresses that a paradigm shift is needed – from chemical intensification to ecological intensification.

http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditcted2012d3_en.pdf

The United Nations Environment Programme in “Preventing Future Famines”  shows how small ecological farms enhance productivity through ecological functions.

https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2012-UNEP-Avoiding-Famines-Food-Security-Report.pdf

Lancet, the leading medical journal has recognised that only small farms have diversity, and diversity is vital for health.

https://www.google.co.in/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Small+farmers+produce+more&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=JSVRWbLpE4jy8Af7q7WgBg

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/news/170405-lancet.html

https://blogs.csiro.au/ecos/small-farms-need-protection-to-safeguard-nutrients-and-diversity/

Navdanya’s report on Biodiversity Based Productivity and Health per Acre shows that small biodiverse farms produce more food and more nutrition than chemical monocultures.

http://www.navdanya.org/attachments/Health%20Per%20Acre.pdf

Navdanya’s 1 acre diverse model farm can produce Rs 400,000 worth of grains, vegetables, fodder, medicinal plants over the rabi and kharif season. This is evidence from studies of small biodiverse ecological farms.

India is a land of small farmers, and the small farmers feed the nation of 1.3 billion. They are India’s Annadattas. Today our Annadatas, are trapped in debt. 300,000 famers have committed suicide since 1995, and the epidemic of farmers suicides is increasing as the seed slavery and food slavery (created by giant corporations) spreads through globalisation and neo-liberal economic reforms.

Globalisation is based on the myth that small farmers are unproductive and should be driven off the land and replaced by giant industrial farms. This is scientifically false, and socially unjust. All scientific evidence shows that small farms are more productive than large farms.

As our former Prime Minister Charan Singh wrote:

“Agriculture being a life process, in actual practice, under given conditions, yields per acre decline as the size of farm increases (in other words, as the application of human labour and supervision per acre decreases). The above results are well nigh universal :output per acre of investment is higher on small farms than on large farms.Thus, if a crowded, capital scare country like India has a choice between a single 100 acre farm and forty 2.5 acre farms, the capital cost to the national economy will be less if the country chooses the small farms”.

Globally, small farms produce 70% of the food we eat using 25% of the land, while industrial farms produce only 30% food, using 75% of the land, and also destroying 75% of the soil, water, biodiversity, while emitting 50% of the Green house gases that are polluting the atmosphere and destabilising the climate system.

Industrial agriculture produces commodities, not food. 90% of corn and soya grown in the world go for Biofuel and animal feed. Real food can only be produced on small farms which are biodiverse, ecological and chemical free. Large farms grow monocultures, using intensive chemicals, and energy intensive mechanisation. The costs of production in chemical, industrial agriculture systems is higher than the value of the output. Without giant subsidies they cannot survive. Industrial farming is inherently unviable.

Making farmers dependent on purchase of costly inputs is the source of super profits of global corporations. It is also the reason for farmers debt and distress. Toxic Corporations like Monsanto are also trying to own the seed. They are creating new commodities to sell to farmers, and get them trapped in deeper debt and slavery. Monsanto has bought the climate data corporation to sell climate data to farmers as well as insurance. Monsanto sees the insurance market as $3 trillion. Monsanto has bought the Soil Data corporation and will sell soil data to farmers. In addition it has joined hands with Silicon Valley firms to create spyware for farm machinery and for surveillance drones. This is a vision of slavery and total destruction of seed freedom and food freedom. It is s.m.a.r.t.slavery.

We have successfully resisted over the last 30 years, and will continue to resist corporate rule over the next 30. We will continue to defend our small farms to grow healthy, poison free food for our country. Corporations as middle men are siphoning off 99% of the value of food farmers produce through multiple forms of Lagaan. They make additional profits by extracting nutrition from food through industrial processing. Both producers and eaters loose, while corporations make profits from both.

II – Corporate Globalisation

A death knell for Small Farmers

The second major contributor to farmers distress is corporate globalisation. Written in the WTO – referred to as “economic reforms“  by the neo liberal policy makers who ran the erstwhile planning commission and now run the Niti Aayog. Corporate agriculture has always had the aim of driving small farmers off the land (first as workers, into factories, now being told the future is without work ). Both because the small farmers show there is a better way of farming, and because they are sovereign producers. The freedom and high productivity of small farmers has therefore been at the centre of all policies of industrial, corporate agriculture.

The rules of corporate globalisation were written by global corporations.They were designed to destroy India’s food and agriculture production and wipe out India’s small farmers. This is precisely what they have done.

The WTO rules that are causing distress in Indian agriculture have also aggravated the hunger, malnutrition and disease epidemic, they are:

1. The TRIPS agreement drafted by Monsanto. Through which Monsanto tried to seek patents on seeds. Even though India does not allow patents on Seeds, Monsanto has been collecting royalties illegally for Bt cotton Utility- Collecting royalties is the main reason for pushing GMOs. This is also the reason the Bayer GMO mustard is being pushed with Pental as a Trojan horse.
2. The Agreement on Agriculture drafted by Cargill and the agribusiness industry.
   Utility- for market access to domestic markets through trade liberalisation
3. The SPS agreement  drafted and promoted by the global food processing industry such as Nestle, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Tyson etc. Utility- to impose pseudo safety standards in order to shut down the household and cottage food processing industry in India, and deregulate the unhealthy industrial food processing operations.

Globalisation Myths in Food and Agriculture

Pseudo Productivity, Pseudo Competition & Pseudo Surpluses 

Globalisation is supposed to improve efficiency and productivity, and it is supposed to increase competition and choice. In the area of food and farming, globalisation is based on three faulty assumptions:

• Globalisation will lead to a spread of the most productive and efficient farming systems. It will therefore lead to increased food production as well as conserve land, water and biodiversity.
• Globalisation will lead to increased access to the best food and will lead to decrease in food scarcity and hunger. It will improve food security and food safety.
• Globalisation will lead to increased competition and will improve the incomes and condition of farmers by increasing their bargaining power and choice.

However, the reality of globalisation and its impacts on food and farming is contrary to this projected mythology of prosperity and abundance.

Globalisation of food and agriculture has led to: 

• Globalisation of non.sustainable industrial agriculture.
• Globalisation of rural poverty, and destruction of farmers’ livelihoods and dramatic decline in farmers’ incomes.
• Globalisation of hunger.

Our food and farming systems are in deep crisis. Food scares are spreading (highlighted by the Mad Cow Disease and GMOs). Farmers are committing suicides in thousands or selling their kidneys to pay back debts incurred for high cost agricultural inputs – such as seeds and pesticides, which were supposed to have brought them prosperity by increasing their productivity.

The prosperity that globalisation was supposed to spread is also proving elusive. Prices of agricultural commodities are collapsing, as import restrictions are removed and uber-subsidised products flood domestic markets, while domestic producers are denied price support and procurement subsidies.

Farmers loose, consumer looser.

Low prices to farmers does not mean low prices for Third World consumers, the majority of whom are desperately poor and already malnourished. Food prices are rising in the Third World, as food subsidies are removed, and the polarisation, between prices farmers receive and prices consumers pay, increases. Prices of food are also increasing as vertical integration increases corporate profits, and as pseudo hygiene laws are used to legally ban low cost, culturally and economically appropriate food processing systems — like the ghanis (tiny cold pressed oil mills) the chakkis (the small family run flour mills) the halwai shops (sweet and savoury snack makers).

The livelihoods and food rights of millions are being robbed, as Indian agriculture is being reduced to a market for global corporations — for their seeds and agrichemicals, for their processed foods, for dumping their subsidised grains and commodities. The corporate takeover of Indian agriculture has been facilitated by the globalisation of agriculture, through the imposition of Structural Adjustment – by the World Bank and IMF, and the trade rules of W.T.O. as embodied in its Agriculture Agreement and TRIPs Agreement. This corporatisation is now part of the National Agriculture Policy. US interest, our policy?

The trade liberalisation rules have camouflaged the corporatisation of agriculture by creating meaningless jargon around “competitiveness”. “market access”, “aggregate measure of support”, “etc.”, which hide the emergence of corporate monopolies, the dumping of subsidised products, and the growth of corporate subsidies.

Demystifying Trade Liberalisation

This report is aimed at demystifying trade liberalisation in the food and agriculture sectors: highlighting its impacts on the livelihoods of farmers, food security and food rights of all, and proposing changes, both in global trade policy and in the national agriculture policy to ensure that the natural resource base of agriculture is conserved, livelihoods of small farmers are protected, the nutritional security and food security of consumers is Increased and the productivity of our agriculture is enhanced.

The report addresses the crisis of non-sustainable food production, the crisis of food security and hunger, of food rights and food entitlements and the crisis of farm prices and marketing, resulting from the growth of monopolies and anti-competitive practices.

Outside In – the Globalisation of Non-sustainability

Pseudo Productivity and the Myth of Efficiency 

70% of the world’s food is produced by local farming communities, especially women. Farming systems of the world have been diverse, reflecting diverse agro-climatic features on the one hand, and diverse food cultures on the other. In fact, the diversity of agricultural systems and cultural diversity of food systems have co-evolved by a mutual interplay of nature and culture, of biodiversity and cultural diversity.

Globalisation of agriculture had led to the rapid destruction of diverse farming systems and displacement of small farmers worldwide. The destruction of the environment and rural livelihoods is an inevitable consequence of the globalisation of industrial agriculture. This is usually justified as necessary in order to produce more food.

Industrial agriculture includes the chemicalisation and mechanisation of agriculture as in the case of the Green Revolution. It also includes genetic engineering. The farmers crisis is not per-chance. It has been designed, and enacted through globalisation and neo liberal policies that put corporate profits first, and farmers last. Beginning with the 1991 new economic policies imposed on agriculture as part of the World Bank Structural Adjustment policies (SAP), “development” of the design commenced.

Globalisation is based on external liberalisation. External liberalisation is foreign trade and foreign investment driven liberalisation. External liberalisation serves external interests. Agriculture liberalisation under SAPs is an example of such external liberalisation, it consists of the following elements:

1. Liberalising fertiliser imports, and deregulating domestic manufacturing and the distribution of fertilisers.
2. Removing land ceiling regulation
3. Removing subsidies on irrigating electricity and credit, thereby creating conditions to facilitate the trading of canal irrigation water rights
4. Deregulating the wheat, rice, sugarcane, cotton, edible oil and oilseed industries
5. Dismantling the food security system
6. Removing controls on markets, traders, and processors, and subsidies to cooperatives
7. Abolishing the Essential Commodities Act
8. Abolishing the general ban on future trading
9. Abolishing inventory controls
10. Abolishing selective credit controls on inventory financing
11. Treating farmers’ cooperatives on an equal footing with the private sector

The foregoing elements of SAP are recipes for removing centralised state control over agriculture. But concentrating it, now even further into the hands of agribusiness and Transnational Corporations (TNCs) such as Monsanto, Cargill and PepsiCo —who are emerging as the new Zamindars controlling not just land use, but also water use and seeds.

Internal liberation

What is required for us is not external liberalisation but an internal liberalisation of agriculture. Internal liberalisation implies liberating agriculture in the direction of enhancing self-regenerative ecological processes and enhancing ecological and livelihood security.

In particular, this includes:

1. Freeing agriculture from high external inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides and making a transition to sustainable agriculture based on internal inputs for ecological sustainability
2. Freeing farmers from capital intensive farming and debt
3. Freeing peasants from landlessness
4. Freeing farmers from fear of dispossession by monopolies of land, water and biodiversity
5. Freeing the poor from the spectre of starvation by ensuring food as a human right
6. Freeing rural people from water scarcity by ensuring inalienable and equitable water rights
7. Freeing knowledge and biodiversity from IPR monopolies
8. Rebuilding local food security, reinvigorating local markets

The attack on Farmers Seed Sovereignty 

Monsanto did not succeed in getting patents on seeds through, because our national democratic efforts led to the introduction of Art 3j in our amended Patent law, disallowing patents on Plants, Animals and Seeds  India also introduced the Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act.

However, Monsanto illegally introduced Bt Cotton in India in 1998. Monsanto established a monopoly, and extracted super profits via illegally collected royalties on Bt cotton seeds, from Indian farmers, trapping farmers in debt, pushing hundreds of thousands of cotton farmers to suicide them to suicide. Without conference, without information, sans consent.

Monsanto is challenging Article 3j in the High Court of Delhi. Its lawyer was a member of the group of neolibs writing a new IPR policy.

Monsanto is challenging the Competition Commission of India that is investigating its Bt Cotton Seed Monopoly.

Bayer has now merged with Monsanto. Bayer is pushing a herbicide resistant GMO mustard which was rejected in 2002, using Pental as a trojan horse. Pental is also arguing against Article 3j of our patent law. Most of the patents related to the GMO mustard are Bayer patents.

Inspite of the evidence, that Bt cotton has failed, and that the GMO mustard has lower yields than non GMO mustards, the NITI Aayog is pushing GMO seeds as the future of India’s agriculture. Hell bent on breaking down the protections we have built into our systems.

Anil Madhav Dave, the late environment minister was not ready to give approval to GMO mustard. He died mysteriously on 18th May 2017, much like  Lal Bahadur Shastri – who was not giving approval to the Green Revolution, and also died mysteriously, in Tashkent on 11th Jan 1966.

Rising Costs, Falling Prices: The attack on farmers’ hard earned income and the creation of the negative farm economy.

Agrichemical and agribusiness corporations wrote the rules of WTO. They have only one objective: to make profits by increasing their markets.

Increasing markets for chemicals and corporate seeds translates into higher costs of production for the farmer. Farmers land holdings have not increased, thus an increase in profits comes from:

• increased subsidies
• increased market penetration, or
• increased price of industrial product

Increasing markets for agribusiness means falling prices for farm produce.

Farmers falling incomes, with costs of production outstripping the price of the produce, is making agriculture unviable under corporate driven policies.

Their are 2 ways in which agribusiness is capturing the Indian agriculture market.

• Firstly, by importing and dumping subsidised, inferior products.
• Secondly, by capturing domestic trade by destroying APMCs and local distribution channels, creating private corporate procurement, and imposing contract farming.

The creation of import dependency for oilseeds and pulses are examples of the destruction of local economies, and with them the livelihood of farmers growing oilseeds and pulses.

Unnecessary import of Fake Edible Oil: Palm Oil and GMO soya

India can produce enough oilseeds that are diverse, healthy, safe, and culturally appropriate.

1990s

In the 1990’s India had become self sufficient in edible oils as a consequence of the conscious commitment to grow more oilseeds. The policy was called the “Yellow Revolution. It worked. In 1993-94 India was producing 97% of her requirements.

In 1998, the same year that Monsanto sneaked in its BT cotton, the MNC’s engineered a crisis, got indigenous oilseeds banned and dumped GMO soya oil on India by manipulating a drop in Import Duties. India had bound its import duties at 300% in the WTO. The US lobbies had soya oil duties reduced to 45%. In the stage-managed crisis of 1998, the duties were dropped to 0%. In addition, the soya bean was subsidised by $190/tonne by the US govt, and Rs 15/kg by India.

No wonder India was flooded with imports, not because of domestic scarcity but because of manipulated prices, manipulated trade and manipulated policy. The women of the slums of Delhi called me, to say their children could not eat the food cooked in Soya oil, that they wanted the mustard oil back. So we organised the “Sarson Satyagraha” in 1998 and saved our mustard.

But the imports kept increasing through dumping and manipulating of policy. Compared to1.02 million tonnes edible oil imports in 1996-97, India’s imports doubled to 2.98 million tonnes in 1998-99, and then jumped to 5 million tonnes in 1999-2000.

Today

Today we are importing more than 60% of our domestic requirements. And destroying our coconut, sesame, groundnut, safflower, niger, mustard, linseed diversity and healthy food economy, for GMO soya which is destroying the Amazon, and palm oil which is destroying the Indonesian rainforests. The planet is loosing, Indian farmers are loosing livelihoods, Indian citizens are loosing health.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/agri-business/oil/article9349762.ece

Enough

We can grow enough oilseeds to meet India’s needs. As the farmers’ organisations wrote in a letter to the Environment Minister, Anil Dave –

“Oil seed production has taken a hit due to bad pricing/procurement support from the government, and inappropriate anti-farmer import policies adopted by the government. It is not because we are unable to produce enough or do not have the seeds or know how. If the pricing, procurement and import policies are made farmer friendly we assure you that we can produce all the mustard and other oil seeds the country needs.”

The government of India is (again) being manipulated by the same interests that forced the edible oil imports on us, in order to force GMO Mustard  on us in the name of reducing import dependence. While the argument is one of reducing imports, the government did not procure oilseeds from India’s farmers in 2017, further increasing their distress.

Unnecessary Import of Fake Pulses and Corruption 

Pulses are truly the pulse of life for the soil, for people and the planet. In our farms they give life to the soil by providing nitrogen. This is how ancient cultures enriched their soils. Farming did not begin with the green revolution and synthetic nitrogen fertilisers. The displacement of biodiversity, by monocultures of Bt cotton and sugarcane, in the semi arid regions of Maharashtra, has contributed to both water scarcity and the farmers crisis.

This area  earlier grew pulses. We are therefore growing nearly 10 million tonnes less pulses.

Further, under the new private partnership of the government of Maharashtra with ADM, farmers are receiving half the MSP.

http://www.ficci.com/spdocument/20539/SOYBEAN-Report.pdf

With the artificially created pulse scarcity India, prices of pulses have taken dal beyond the reach of Indians. Tur reached Rs 200 a kilo in 2015. The govt is using the scarcity to import pulses. Today we are the biggest importers. And since the rest of the world does not grow the diversity of pulses we grow, what is being imported cannot replace the diversity necessary for the Indian diet. Large quantities of yellow pea from US and Canada are imported at the cost of billions of dollars.

In 2012 the CAG had audited the pulse imports. The CAG had particularly pointed to the import of yellow pea.

“YELLOW PEAS

Without taking into consideration the food patterns, the Government in 2007 imported yellow peas.

When the peas found no takers, they were sold after prolonged delays, at very low rates, with heavy losses to the importing agencies.”

The MoCA and F&PD decided in 2008 that the agencies need not go for further contracts of yellow peas, but the Union Cabinet in 2009 decided to  allow the agencies to import these.

The agencies continued to import even when they had huge unsold stocks, resulting in a loss of Rs. 897.37 crore, 75 per cent of the total loss of Rs. 1,201.32 crore”

But the loss is not only to the exchequer.

Import of yellow pea translates into importing nutritional deficiency for people and the soil and decline in soil health. In 2015-16 India planned to import more than 5 million tonnes of yellow pea from Canada and US, we will not be told whether it happened.

Yellow pea has only 7.5 percent protein compared to indigenous pulses having 20-30%. Importing 5 million tonnes of yellow pea instead of growing our own pulses is thus equal to 1 million tonnes of protein debt created for Indians. Not growing 5 million tonnes is depriving our soils of more than 1 billion kg of nitrogen.

https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/green-or-yellow-split-peas-dry-cooked?portionid=51928&portionamount=100.000

In 2017 farmers had abundant pulse production. But in-spite of promises, the government failed to procure and offer the just MSP.

In June 2016 the Government had announced a bonus above MSP of Rs 425 for Tur and Moong.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/MSP-of-pulses-and-oilseeds-hiked-to-motivate-farmers/articleshow/52545498.cms

http://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/pulses-import-to-fall-by-20-in-fy18-on-better-domestic-output-117050400820_1.html

But at harvest time the government was missing, making an abundant harvest turn into farmers distress. Design.

And the imports were not stopped in-spite of an abundant harvest, showing clearly that the government has higher commitments to corporations and their kickbacks than justice to farmers, that in the neo-library, trade trumps farms. Execution.

Pulse imports grew 20% to 5.67 million tonnes in the financial year 2017, farmers’ harvest cheaply procured for the food “industry”.  Success.

“A record high crop output, along with record imports, has created a mayhem in pulses market, with farmers unable to sell pulses even at the minimum support price announced by the government. In FY17, the total import if pulses increased 19.9 per cent to 5.67 million tonnes, which, along with 22.14 million tonnes of crop, has improved the availability for the year by around 27.8 million tonnes, against the average normal consumption of 24 million tonnes”

http://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/pulses-import-grew-20-per-cent-to-5-67-million-tonnes-in-fy17-117050300247_1.html

Solution

Reversing the Agrarian Decline and Stopping Farmers Distress, Taking the Road to Samriddhi through Swalamban

The first and immediate step in stopping the distress is freedom from debt. Farmers have been forced into debt by government policies promoting corporate agriculture. Since the government has promoted corporate driven policies, it is responsible for the debt crisis farmers face.

It must waive the loans of farmers, and stop creating new debt traps through credit, intended to expand corporate markets and financed through corporate driven insurance, and paving the road for dependence on climate and soil data as “Big Data “ is sold by corporations as a new commodity.

All imports of oilseeds and pulses must be stopped.

In 2017 farmers had grown enough pulses. Many farmers who committed suicide in 2017 had been unable to sell their dal. Instead of importing fake yellow pea dal, the govt needs to buy from farmers. The government owes it to our farmers to provide fair and just MSP since it has promoted a government-dependent and corporate-driven marketing and distribution system .

Policies for local, regional and national self reliance and food sovereignty must be evolved. This is necessary, both, to secure farmers markets, and people’s food and nutritional security. Wheat and rice do not provide nutritional security as the Umian Declaration from the ICAR conference on Nutrition Sensitive Agriculture has pointed out. Forcing farmers to grow chemical intensive monocultures is increasing their vulnerability, both by increasing their costs and making them vulnerable to volatile, unjust, trader and corporate controlled agriculture markets, which exploit farmers.

Contract farming will make the crisis worse, since it will lock the farmer to growing one commodity and selling it at a price the corporation determines. This is what happened to Punjab farmers growing tomato and potato farmers contracted to Pepsi, and this is also what is happening to west Bengal farmers.

Every Indian deserves culturally appropriate, nutritious and adequate food. Only Indian farmers can grow the diversity and quality we need. No other country can provide it. Destroying our farmers means destroying our nutritional security and our future.

We must grow what we need, and buy what our farmers grow. The new colonisation of Indian agriculture begins with Seed. The new freedom begins with Bija Swaraj – Seed Soveregnty.

For this, we must:

1. Stop GMOS, including GMO mustard.
2. Stop Government subsidies to corporate seeds.
3. Defend 3 j of our patent act.
4. Make Monsanto pay for the damage it has caused, including driving farmers to suicide.
5. Prevent new seed law on Compulsory Registration by farmers of their seeds
6. Create Community seed banks everywhere.
7. Create scientist farmer partnerships for participatory and evolutionary breeding.

Make Poison Free Agriculture the basis of health and nutrition 

Corporations are colonising our agriculture through chemicals and poisons, spreading the myths that ecological farming cannot produce enough food and small farms are unproductive. Our work in Navdanya over 3 decades has shown that through poison free ecological agriculture ,we can produce enough nutritious food food for two Indias (Health per Acre ).

Diversity is vital for health. There is no short-hand for diversity, there is no shortcut. Small farmers growing biodiversity without poisons are our doctors and physicians, because they are growing health.

Increase farmers income through freedom from corporate inputs and corporate purchase of commodities 

Farmers debt and negative incomes occur because corporations sell costly inputs and buy cheap commodities. The farmer is sandwiched between the corporate buyer and corporate seller.

Food is not a commodity. Locking farmers into raw material supply chains feeding into global junk food giants like Pepsi, is a recipe for farmers distress, as seen in the case of farmers in Bengal growing potatoes for Pepsi.

When farmers are sovereign in their seeds, in their ecological production, and fair trade, they can increase farm incomes 10 to 100 times (Wealth per Acre ) as the Navdanya experience has evidenced.

Indians eat diversity. Ayurveda asks us to eat six tastes for a balanced diet. Diversity is health for the soil. It ensures farmers economic health. It ensures health to the eater. (Health per Acre and ANNAM from Navdanya). Corporate agriculture needs globalisation, centralisation, costly external inputs, monocultures and uniformity.  Ecological agriculture and healthy food systems are based on national sovereignty, decentralisation, internal ecological inputs, and diversity at every level – of varieties, of species, of crops, of foods, of markets.

Diversity can only exist in small farmers. That is why small farmers are necessary for sustainability of farmers livelihoods, and the health of society. That is why we need diversity on our farms, and in our thalis. We need diversity in our markets and our cultures.

III – The deadly legacy of the Green Revolution

The Green Revolution destroyed soils, water, biodiversity and made farmers dependent on purchased chemical inputs, trapping farmers in debt.

The Green Revolution, first applied in Punjab, was given a Nobel Peace Prize, based on the false narrative that the new seeds and chemicals would create prosperity and hence peace. But by 1984, Punjab was a land of violence and war. 30,000 people had been killed in the Punjab violence. It was this divergence between the myth of the Green Revolution and the unfolding reality of violence, that compelled me to research what was happening in Punjab, for a programme on Peace and Global Transformation, of the United Nations University. My book, The Violence of the Green Revolutionwas the result of my study going to the roots of the conflicts and violence in Punjab.

The Green Revolution was nonsustainable – ecologically, economically, socially.

Ecologically it lead to the death of the soils due to excessive use of chemical fertilisers. On 2% cultivated area, Punjab uses 10% of the synthetic fertilisers used in the country. Between 1970-71 and 2010-2011, the overall fertiliser use, has jumped from 213,000 tonnes to 1,911,000 tonnes. Synthetic fertilisers need intensive irrigation. 89% of the  land in Punjab is irrigated: with 27% from surface waters, and 71% from ground water. Over irrigation has created salinated and waterlogged deserts, and is pushing Punjab to a water famine.

Albert Howard reminded us “The birthright of all living things is health. This law is true for soil, plant, animal and man; and health for these four is one connected chain”.

Since synthetic fertilisers do not return organic matter to the soil, Punjab soils are diseased and dying owing to their use. The replacement of the rich diversity of Punjab, with monocultures of rice in the kharif season, and wheat in the rabi season, has also contributed to the impoverishment of the soils and the farmers of Punjab.

Between 1960-61 and 2010-2011 acreage under wheat has gone up from 29.58% to 44,5%, and rice from 4.79% to 25%. Meantime area under pulses has dropped from 19% to 0.21%, oilseeds has dropped from 3.9% to .71%, millets have dropped from 11.26% to 0.21%. When measured in terms of Nutrition per Acre and Health per Acre, Punjab is actually producing less food and nutrition as a result of the Green Revolution.

Diversity of crops has disappeared. Before the Green Revolution, Punjab farmers grew 41 varieties of wheat, 37 varieties of rice, 4 varieties of maize, 3 varieties of bajra, 16 varieties of sugarcane, 19 species/varieties of pulses, 9 species/varieties of oilseeds.

In place of wheats with names like Sharbati,Darra, lal Pissi, lal Kanak, Bansi, Kathia, Malwa, Pakwan, Dawat Khan, which describe the quality and origins of the crop, we have the personality-less HD 2329, PBW 343, WH 542 – infested with pests and diseases, requiring ever higher doses of pesticides.

The high cost external input agriculture has turned farming into a negative economy. While costs of production in 2011-12 were Rs 1,700 for rice, and Rs 1,500 for wheat, the MSP was lower, at Rs 1,285 and Rs 1110 respectively. Between 1995-2001 and 2001-2005, net income of Punjab farmers has dropped from Rs 77/-  to Rs 7/- for rice, and Rs 67/- to Rs 34/- for wheat.

As a consequence the farmers are in deep debt, with an average of Rs 41,576/acre. 17% having debts of Rs 80,000/acre.

The pain of the negative economy started to be felt in the late 1970s as inputs increased and subsidies were reduced. The 1984 farmers protests in Punjab were early protests that pointed to the roots of the crisis.

By the 1980’s Punjab farmers were organising themselves on grounds of being treated like a colony of the Centre to feed India. As the “Gurmata” passed at a Sarbat Khalsa on 13 April, 1986 declared:

“If the hard –earned income of the people or the natural resources of any nation or region are forcibly plundered: if the goods produced by them are paid arbitrarily determined prices, while the goods bought by them are sold at high prices, and in order to carry this process of economic exploitation to its logical conclusion, the human rights of people or a nation are crushed, then these are indices of slavery of that nation, region or people. Today,the Sikhs are shackled by the chains of slavery.”

In 1984, Punjab farmers were protesting against this slavery. On 31st Jan, they organised a RastaRoko. On 12th March, they gheraoed the Governor’s House. During April 1984, farmers organised a campaign against indebtness called Karja Roka. In May, the Governors House was again gheraoed. On 23rd May a call was given to not sell grain to FCI.

The violence, rooted in a violent agriculture whose seeds had been sown by the Green Revolution, was responded to with militarised violence of Operation Blue Star. The army was sent into the Golden Temple, the most sacred shrine of the Sikhs. And the vicious cycle of violence deepened, with Indira Gandhi’s assassination, and with the following brutal killing of 3000 Sikhs. The issue of justice for the Sikhs, and the Punjab farmers, is still alive, as is the issue of justice for the victims of Bhopal. Both disasters caused by the Poison Cartel.

The democratic response to the anger and discontent building up in Punjab would have been to listen to the farmers protests, and respond with a policy for ecologically, economically and socially sustainable agriculture. The military response failed to address the roots of the problem of discontent.

If in the 1980s the crisis led to militancy, today it is expressed in epidemics of farmers suicides and cancers.

Instead of learning lessons from 1984, and the continuing legacy of a violent and toxic Green Revolution, Punjab government is signing MOU’s with Monsanto, and the centre wants to spread the poisonous legacy of the Green Revolution, eastwards.

There is no place for poisons and war chemicals in our food and agriculture. Pesticides are poisons. GMOs are poison producing plants. Bt genes in Bt crops, and herbicide resistant genes in herbicide resistant crops, are toxins.

We can grow more food, more peace, more prosperity through ecological and organic farming.

We need to make a national commitment to a Poison free agriculture and food system, to protect our beloved Bharat from recolonisation through chemicals, to stop farmers suicides, to reverse engineered hunger, malnutrition and disease.

In our indigenous seeds and indigenous ecological agriculture, lie the seeds of resurgence of Bharat, her farmers, her soil, her biodiversity, her waters, her spirit.

TRANSCEND Member Prof. Vandana Shiva is a physicist, ecofeminist, philosopher, activist, and author of more than 20 books and 500 papers. She is the founder of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, and has campaigned for biodiversity, conservation and farmers’ rights, winning the Right Livelihood Award [Alternative Nobel Prize] in 1993. She is executive director of the Navdanya Trust.

All images in this article are from the author.

I am afraid that The Saker and Finian Cunningham are correct. Nothing can come of Trump’s meeting with Putin, because, as Cunningham puts it, “Trump doesn’t have freedom or real power. The real power brokers in the US will ensure that the Russophobia campaign continues, with more spurious allegations of Moscow interfering to subvert Western democracies. Trump will continue to live under a cloud of media-driven suspicions. And thus the agenda of regime change against Syria and confrontation with Russia will also continue. Trump’s personal opinions on these matters and towards Vladimir Putin are negligible—indeed dispensable by the deep powers-that-be.”  

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/395782-trump-putin-meeting-media-syria/  

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47392.htm  

Cunningham points out that instead of lauding the meeting as the beginning of the process to defuse the high tensions between the two major nuclear powers, the US media denounced Trump for being civil to Putin in the meeting.

What is missing from the media in the entirety of the Western world and perhaps also in Russia is the awareness that the dangerous tensions are orchestrated not only by Hillary and the Democratic National Committee, the neoconservatives, the US military/security complex, and the presstitutes, but also by President Trump’s own appointees.

Trump’s own ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, and Trump’s own Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, sound exactly like Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, the neoconservatives, the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN and the rest of the totally discredited presstitute media that is committed to raising tensions between the US and Russia to the point of nuclear war.

On the same day that President Donald Trump said

“it is time to move forward in working constructively with Russia,” and the day after he said “I had a tremendous meeting yesterday with President Putin,”

the ignorant, stupid, Nikki Haley, who Trump appointed as US UN Ambassador, publicly contracted her president, forcefully stating:

“we can’t trust Russia and we won’t ever trust Russia.” 

The ignorant stupid Haley is still in office, a perfect demonstration of Trump’s powerlessness.  

The ignorant stupid Haley has gone far beyond Obama’s crazed UN Ambassador, neocon Samantha Power in doing everything in her power to ruin the prospect of normal relations between the two major nuclear powers. Why does Nikki Haley work in favor of a confrontation between nuclear powers that would destroy all life on earth? What is wrong with Nikki Haley? Is she demented? Has she lost her mind, assuming she ever had one?  

How can President Trump normalize relations with Russia when every one of his appointees wants to worsen the relations to the point of nuclear war?

How is President Trump going to improve relations with Russia when President Trump stands powerless in face of his dressing down by his UN Ambassador? Clearly, Trump is powerless, a mere cipher.

Joining Nikki Haley was Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. Tillerson, allegedly a friend of Russia, is also working overtime to worsen relations between the two nuclear powers by publicly contradicting the President of the United States, thereby making it clear that Trump is barely even a cipher. Tillerson, a disgrace, said that Putin’s refusal to admit that Putin elected Trump by interfering in the US election “stands as an obstacle to our ability to improve the relationship between the US and Russia and it needs to be addressed in terms of how we assure the American people that interference into our elections will not occur by Russia or anyone else.” 

Trump’s incompetence is illustrated by his appointments. There is no one in “his” government that supports him. Everyone of them works to undermine him. And he sits there and Twitters.

So, what is President Putin’s belief that an understanding can now be worked out with Washington worth? Not a plugged nickel. Trump has zero authority over “his” government. He can be contradicted at will by his own appointees. The President of the United States is a joke. You can find him on Twitter, but nowhere else, not in the Oval Office making foreign or military policy. The president Twitters and thinks that that is policy.

The Trump administration was destroyed when the weak Donald Trump allowed the neoconservatives to remove his National Security Advisor, General Flynn. Trump has never recovered. “His” administration is staffed with violent Russophobes. Wars can be the only outcome.

We know two things about the alleged Russian interference in the Trump/Hillary presidential election. One is that John Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, and Comey, Obama’s FBI director, implied repeatedly that Trump was elected by Russian interference in the election, but neither the CIA nor the FBI have provided any evidence whatsoever that any such interference occurred. Indeed, months into the case, the special prosecutor, the former FBI director, can produce no evidence. The whole thing is a sham, but it is ongoing. There will be no end to it as it is designed to undermine President Trump with the people who elected him. The message is: “Trump is not for America. Trump is for Russia.”

This is astounding! The NSA has intercepts of all transmitted data. If Russia interfered in the US presidential election the evidence would be obvious and immediately available.  

Despite the obvious lies told by Brennan and Comey, the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the scum, no one has been arrested and put on trial for their efforts to overthrow the elected president of the United States. This proves beyond all doubt that the President of the United States is a non-entity. A figurehead incapable of action independently of the Deep State that controls him.

If Vladimir Putin really believes from his meeting with Trump that all of the orchestrated false charges against Russia can now be removed and normal relations restored, Putin is in la-la land. Nikki Haley says that the US will NEVER trust Russia. If Putin trusts Washington, Russia will be destroyed. And the rest of the world with Russia.

The highly anticipated encounter of the two presidents went better, much better than anybody predicted. There was a lot of anxiety, and expectations were low as heavy rain clouds, especially after Trump’s visit to Warsaw where he obediently repeated the Cold War platitudes dictated by his minders. Trump had been sent off to Hamburg by Washington establishment with warnings a convent novice gets before an unfortunate but unavoidable meeting with a Don Juan. They didn’t trust the inexperienced youngster, and insisted he should speak with Vlad only in presence of grown ups, like Auntie Fiona (Hill) or Uncle HR (McMaster), well known for their aversion to Russians.

They warned him that, short of a nuclear strike, every other reaction will be considered betrayal of the Shining City upon a Hill. Every neocon and Cold Warrior in the West gave his advice to the President, how should he humiliate Putin and put him on his place, below the salt. They actually didn’t allow Trump to have a proper meeting with Putin, with full agenda, advisers and ministers, preferably a few days long, in a Camp David format or similar. But they failed profoundly.

The meeting on the margins of G-20 had become the central event, while G-20 became a meeting on the margins of Putin-Trump summit. When Donald and Vlad had met, there was no stopping: a great sympathy they had felt for each other manifested itself in every smile. At the beginning, Putin had been quite reserved; he steeled himself to a possible rejection, to a possible affront, even to insult. But Trump skillfully put him at ease.

Instead of planned thirty minutes, they spoke for over two hours; even an attempt by Trump’s wife to restrain her husband wasn’t crowned with success. They just could not tear themselves apart. After a few hard months of enforced separation by the self-appointed duennas, the pals were together, at last.

The Western media, trying its damnedest to cause ill feeling between the two men, spoke of Putin’s victory, of the Russian becoming the boss, the top dog. A typical reaction was that of the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund, which declared that Trump had “just unilaterally surrendered to Russia”. They hoped that vain Trump would be upset at being bettered by Vlad. We shall not join their legion by ceding victory to Putin. Both won, and we won with them.

At such an event, one can hardly expect real tangible results. The results need more time. Creating conditions for future work together would suffice. And still there were some achievements.

President Vladimir Putin and Oliver Stone

I’d suggest you watch the long but rewarding film “Putin Interviews” by Oliver Stone as prolegomena to the meeting reports. In the film, Stone asks Putin about accusations of cyber-meddling in the US elections, and Putin gives a full explicit answer. He said that he had offered President Obama a treaty on cyber security, properly describing what the states can, and can’t do in cyberspace to each other.

Obama did not take the offered ball, for the US felt it had vast superiority in the field, and didn’t want to give the advantage away.

“According to an unnamed senior intelligence official with the US government, the Obama administration has penetrated Russia’s electric grid, telecommunications networks and the Kremlin’s command systems. The purported hack means that critical parts of Russia’s infrastructure are now vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons”, reported Australian news agency.

Indeed complaints of “Russian hackers” sound false, bearing in mind that NSA spies against everybody in the world, including Russia. Millions of Russian calls are intercepted by the American secret services annually, as Snowden told us. The idea of drafting and concluding a treaty forbidding offensive hacking is a good and timely one. At the meeting in Hamburg, President Trump agreed with that, and the presidents decided to appoint a bilateral commission to sort it out and to prepare the treaty. It will be good for all the nations, not only for Americans and Russians, as NSA spied even on American allies like Mme Merkel.

The treaty should also deal with really dangerous viruses, like Stuxnet that was unleashed against Iran, and its newer versions like WannaCry. Julian Assange provided us with the provenance of the viruses: they are from the NSA collection of tools, and they already caused mayhem from Russian banks to British hospitals. The NSA factory of viruses should be brought under control by the treaty.

Interference in elections is also a valid point addressed by the two presidents. Not the silly story of Russian interference in the last American elections, but the very real one of American interference in the elections in Russia, France and elsewhere. President Trump apparently agreed that it should be covered by the treaty and stopped. Professional Cold Warriors were alarmed: how can you compare Russian meddling with our Western pro-democracy drive! That reminds me of an old Jewish joke, preceding World War One: – Let us go and kill some Turks! – And what if they will kill us? – Why would they? We didn’t wrong them!

“How can you compare” is a favourite Jewish cliché, frequently used if you compare a killed Jew and a killed Palestinian. I never could understand it. If it is ok for the US to meddle in Russian elections, why can’t Russians meddle in the US elections? Perhaps the two presidents will agree to cease meddling, but I won’t bet my socks on it.

They made a move forward in Syria, too, by approving the agreement prepared by their teams in Amman, Jordan. For a first time, this agreement contains a declaration in favour of the territorial integrity of one, undivided Syria; this is an important Russian achievement. If carried out, the agreement will bring a ceasefire to South-Western Syria, in the area adjacent to Jordanian border and to the Israeli armistice line on the Golan Heights.

In a surprising move, President Trump agreed that the area would be patrolled by Russian military police. This suggestion had been hotly argued against by the Israelis. Despite their frequent visits to Moscow, they really trust only the US. There should be American troops on the ground in Syria, and no Russian troops close to our lines are acceptable, said Israeli politicians. If indeed Russian military police will patrol the area, the Israelis will eat a big fat frog.

Kadyrov (right) with Russian President Vladimir Putin. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

There is an additional nuance: the Russian military police in Syria have been staffed with Chechens, who are good fighters, Muslim by faith, and devoted to President Putin – though he fought them, defeated them, and brought them back under Kremlin rule. There was a time when the enemies of Russia would profess their love of Chechens, but not anymore. Now their own leader Ramzan Kadyrov, the son of their previous rebel president and a former rebel himself is a strong supporter of Putin, and a subject of a hate campaign by Western liberals – and by Russian nationalists. Placement of Chechens in the military police in Syria is a success of Putin’s national policies, especially relevant in the light of a new development.

This week, the Russian authorities blocked public access to the Russian far right nationalist site Sputnik and Pogrom, as you can read in the column of my worthy colleague Anatoly Karlin. It’s got its name from (allegedly) the only two Russian words that have entered English dictionaries. They are Nazi sympathisers, like the Ukrainian nationalists, and that is not a popular view in Russia, which bore the brunt of fight with Nazis. Their chief editor published a column on June 22, saying that every good Russian was happy when the Germans invaded their country.

They are also extreme anti-Communists, and this is also not too popular a view in Russia. This site had been established with help of Western secret services to sow discord between Russian citizens of different ethnic origin, just like the US-sponsored Radio Liberty did in the Soviet days, and the Germans during the war it, too. They do instigate hostility between Russians and Ukrainians, between Russians and the people of the Caucasus.

Typically for such political organisations, despite the site’s name (pogrom was, after all, an anti-Jewish riot), they are quite pro-Jewish and fervently pro-Zionist. Otherwise, the CIA wouldn’t dare support them. However, they always have something bad to say about Putin (they hate him) and the Chechens and their leader.

Now we see that Putin was right in encouraging the Chechens to fight for Russia. It is indeed a good idea to use Sunni Muslims as a police force in this heavily Sunni Muslim area being liberated from ISIS, and Chechens are known as fierce fighters that nobody wants to mess with. It is better to have them on the side of Moscow than on the side of its enemies, and it is definitely worth while to block the Sputnik and Pogrom, leaving moral considerations aside.

The two presidents spoke about North Korea. Some years ago, Russians had supported sanctions against DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the official name of North Korea), and the Americans had no problem in passing a sanctions-enforcing resolution in the Security Council. Not anymore. Last month, the Russians made a radical shift on Korea. Now they are strongly against sanctions likely to economically strangle the country and definitely against military action there. So, the Russian position has become quite close to the North Korean one, surprisingly more so than that of the Chinese, although Chinese trade with Korea dwarfs the Russian trade. If the Americans want the North Koreans to stop their nuclear tests, Putin said to Trump, they should refrain from carrying out large-scale military exercises. The Russians also want to encourage North-South dialogue. Such dialogue had been very successful and popular in its time, but then the US interfered in South Korean elections and blocked pro-dialogue politicians. The Northern rulers, however, would like the dialogue to resume with unification of Korea in mind. The Russians and their Chinese allies object greatly to the American THAAD missile defence system being installed in South Korea.

On Ukraine, the presidents agreed to establish a special bilateral channel of communications between the US special envoy and his Russian counterpart. They also confirmed their faith in the Minsk agreements, and this is an important diplomatic achievement for the Russians. However, these agreements did not prevent Kiev troops shelling the cities of Donbass.

To sum it up, Putin and Trump managed to save the day, despite all odds. Their immediate achievements are indeed modest, but they established the ground for progress. Future steps will depend mainly on Trump’s ability to withstand the pressure, to set himself free from his minders. He is the first American president experiencing such a continuous media onslaught, and he still stands. It seems that his advisers urge him to surrender to his enemies in the media and in the congress, but he is a stubborn man. He also discovered that in Vladimir Putin, he can have a real friend and partner.

The world has changed: in 1980s, the Russians were happy that their leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, had met with Ronald Reagan and that he was admired and lionised by Western media. They thought it natural that Gorbachev admires Reagan. Then, the Western support was a real asset for a Russian politician. Gorbachev came to power in aftermath of Margaret Thatcher’s blessing.

Now, the Russians are happy that they have a leader who can withstand any pressure, a leader who is admired for his strength. If he is hated in the West, they feel he is doing something right. Probably the Western media, if they want to undermine Putin, should begin to sing him dithyrambs.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

Featured image from Reuters/ Steffen Kugler/Courtesy of Bundesregierung

The recent confessional “I Like Gaza”, written by Uri Avnery –Peace Activist, Journalist, founding member of the peace bloc Gush Shalom, former publisher and editor-in-chief of the news magazine Haolam Hazeh, founding member of the Knesset, founding member of the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, and columnist for Internet – will break the heart of anyone who has ever anguished over the plight of the Palestinian peoples; especially  over the ensuing long decades since the Zionists first invaded Palestine in 1948, with the blessings of the world, and Israel ever since has continued its heinous, incessant racist, apartheid persecution of the Palestinian people, again with the continued blessings of the world.

Sadly, this persecution now includes the Palestinian peoples themselves, caught in the grip, as they are, of a fatal death spiral as they viciously fight and squabble; as oppressed peoples predictably often do amongst themselves once their forced to ‘circle the wagons’ and then begin shooting each other over what few scraps of power and hegemony remain. What is now occurring in Gaza could spell the final chapter in this ugly saga of what human beings everywhere, since time immemorial, seem hopelessly destined to do to one another in whatever contentious theatre of human endeavor.

Meanwhile, the world – in the body of the United Nations and all its affiliate nations, organizations and bodies – either intentionally fosters or helplessly and hopelessly looks on and, as it has done on so many previous occasions of mayhem in recent human history, makes what few anguished, obligatory, hollow gestures and responses, like it has done for nearly 70 years in the case of the Palestinians, while nothing appreciably changes for the better but only the worse.

Uri Avnery poignantly writes,

Uri Avnery (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

“I HAVE a unique confession to make: I like Gaza! Yes, I like this far-away corner of Palestine, the narrow strip on the way to Egypt, in which two million human beings are crowded, and which is closer to hell than to heaven.

My heart goes out to them. I HAVE spent quite a lot of time in the Strip. Once or twice I stayed there with Rachel for a couple of days. I became friendly with some people whom I admired, people like Dr. Haidar Abd-al-Shafi, the leftist doctor who set up the Gazan health system, and Rashad al-Shawa, the former Mayor, an aristocrat from birth.

After the Oslo agreement, when Yasser Arafat came back to the country and set up his office in Gaza, I met him there many times. I brought to him groups of Israelis. On his first day there he sat me on the dais next to him. A photo of that occasion now looks like science fiction.

I even came to know the Hamas people. Before Oslo, when Yitzhak Rabin deported 415 Islamic activists from the country, I took part in setting up protest tents opposite his office. We lived there together, Jews, Christians and Muslims, and there Gush Shalom was born.

After a year, when the deportees were allowed back, I was invited to a public reception for them in Gaza and found myself speaking to hundreds of bearded faces. Among them were some of today’s Hamas leaders. Therefore I cannot treat the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip as a faceless gray mass of people. I couldn’t stop thinking about them during last week’s terrible heat wave, about all the people – the men and women, the old, the children, the toddlers, the babies – languishing in awful conditions without electricity and air conditioning, without clean water, without medicines for the sick. I thought about those living in the houses severely damaged in the last wars and not repaired since. My heart was bleeding, and asking, “Who was to blame?”

Yes, WHO IS to blame for this ongoing atrocity? ACCORDING TO the Israelis, “the Palestinians themselves are to blame”. Fact: the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah has decided to reduce the electricity supply to Gaza from three hours a day to two. (The electricity is supplied by Israel and paid for by the Palestinian Authority). This seems to be true. The conflict between the Palestinian Authority, ruled by Fatah, and the Palestinian leadership in Gaza, ruled by Hamas, has come to an ugly climax.

The uninvolved bystander wonders: how can that be? After all, the entire Palestinian people are in existential danger. The Israeli government tyrannizes all Palestinians, both in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. It keeps the Strip under a strangling blockade, on land, in the sea and in the air, and is setting up settlements all over the West Bank, to drive the population out. In this desperate situation, how can the Palestinians fight each other, to the obvious delight of the occupation authorities?

That is terrible, but, sadly, not unique. On the contrary, in almost all liberation struggles, something similar has happened. During the Irish struggle for independence, the freedom fighters fought against each other and even shot each other. During our own struggle for statehood, the Haganah underground turned Irgun fighters over to the British police, who tortured them, and later shot up a ship bringing recruits and arms to the Irgun. But these and many other examples do not justify what is happening now in Gaza. The struggle between Fatah and Hamas on the backs of two million people condemns these to inhuman living conditions. As an old friend of the Palestinian people in their fight for liberation, I am deeply saddened.

BUT THERE are more partners to the atrocious blockade on Gaza. Israel can blockade the Strip only on three sides. The fourth side is the Egyptian border. Egypt, which has in the past fought four major wars against Israel on behalf of the Palestinian brothers (in one of which I was wounded by an Egyptian machine-gunner) is now participating in the cruel blockade on the Strip.

What has happened? How did it happen? Everyone who knows the Egyptian people knows that it is one of the most attractive peoples on earth; a very proud people; a people full of Humor, even in the most trying circumstances! Several times I have heard in Egypt phrases like: “We do not like the Palestinians very much, but they are our poor cousins, and we cannot abandon them under any circumstances!” And yet here they are, not only abandoning, but cooperating with the cruel occupation.”

This writer, like so many others who feel compassion for the Palestinians and anguish what can be done to alleviate their situation, is deeply moved by Uri Avnery’s commentary. And now, unfortunately, we must continue to turn to yet another raw, gaping wound of the human spirit, and as yet unresolved debacle of the human condition, called Syria!

OMG! Will Things Never Be Otherwise Until the Human Race Finally Expunges Itself?

Jerome Irwin is a freelance writer and author of “The Wild Gentle Ones; A Turtle Island Odyssey” (www.turtle-island-odyssey.com), a three volume account of his travels as a spiritual sojourner, during the 1960’s, 70’s & 80’s, among Native Americans & First Nations in North America. It encompasses the Spiritual Renaissance & Liberation Movements among native peoples throughout North America during the civil rights era. In 2014, Irwin authored a series of articles on Israel, Gaza, Palestine and Syria (“Gaza & World’s Collective Soul Besieged”; “Gaza at Christmas”, “The Battle For Pqlestine”, “Israeli Zionism” and “Syria’s Civil War & Human Folly”). Irwin also is the publisher of The Wild Gentle Press

Featured image from Countercurrents

The immediate prospect for significant improvement in U.S.-Russia relations now depends on something tangible: Will the forces that sabotaged previous ceasefire agreements in Syria succeed in doing so again, all the better to keep alive the “regime change” dreams of the neoconservatives and liberal interventionists?

Or will President Trump succeed where President Obama failed by bringing the U.S. military and intelligence bureaucracies into line behind a cease-fire rather than allowing insubordination to win out?

These are truly life-or-death questions for the Syrian people and could have profound repercussions across Europe, which has been destabilized by the flood of refugees fleeing the horrific violence in the six-year proxy war that has ripped Syria apart.

Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with U.S. President Donald Trump at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, on July 7, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)

But you would have little inkling of this important priority from the large page-one headlines Saturday morning in the U.S. mainstream media, which continued its long obsession with the more ephemeral question of whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would confess to the sin of “interference” in the 2016 U.S. election and promise to repent.

Thus, the headlines: “Trump, Putin talk election interference” (Washington Post) and “Trump asks Putin About Meddling During Election” (New York Times). There was also the expected harrumphing from commentators on CNN and MSNBC when Putin dared to deny that Russia had interfered.

In both the big newspapers and on cable news shows, the potential for a ceasefire in southern Syria – set to go into effect on Sunday – got decidedly second billing.

Yet, the key to Putin’s assessment of Donald Trump is whether the U.S. President is strong enough to make the mutually agreed-upon ceasefire stick. As Putin is well aware, to do so Trump will have to take on the same “deep-state” forces that cheerily scuttled similar agreements in the past. In other words, the actuarial tables for this cease-fire are not good; long life for the agreement will take something just short of a miracle.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will have to face down hardliners in both the Pentagon and CIA. Tillerson probably expects that Defense Secretary James “Mad-Dog” Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo will cooperate by ordering their troops and operatives inside Syria to restrain the U.S.-backed “moderate rebels.”

But it remains to be seen if Mattis and Pompeo can control the forces their agencies have unleashed in Syria. If recent history is any guide, it would be folly to rule out another “accidental” U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops or a well-publicized “chemical attack” or some other senseless “war crime” that social media and mainstream media will immediately blame on President Bashar al-Assad.

Bitter Experience

Last fall’s limited ceasefire in Syria, painstakingly worked out over 11 months by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and approved personally by Presidents Obama and Putin, lasted only five days (from Sept. 12-17) before it was scuttled by “coalition” air strikes on well-known, fixed Syrian army positions, which killed between 64 and 84 Syrian troops and wounded about 100 others.

In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials a few days before the air attack on Sept. 17, showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement – like sharing intelligence with the Russians (an important provision of the deal approved by both Obama and Putin).

Secretary of State John Kerry (right) and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. (U.N. photo)

The Pentagon’s resistance and the “accidental” bombing of Syrian troops brought these uncharacteristically blunt words from Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian TV on Sept. 26:

“My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia … apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.”

Lavrov specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia despite the fact, as Lavrov put it,

“the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama [who] stipulated that they would share intelligence.”

Noting this resistance inside the U.S. military bureaucracy, Lavrov added,

“It is difficult to work with such partners.”

Putin picked up on the theme of insubordination in an Oct. 27 speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club, in which he openly lamented:

“My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results. … people in Washington are ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice.”

On Syria, Putin decried the lack of a “common front against terrorism after such lengthy negotiations, enormous effort, and difficult compromises.”

Lavrov’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, meanwhile, even expressed sympathy for Kerry’s quixotic effort, giving him an “A” for effort.after then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter dispatched U.S. warplanes to provide an early death to the cease-fire so painstakingly worked out by Kerry and Lavrov for almost a year.

For his part, Kerry expressed regret – in words reflecting the hapless hubris befitting the chief envoy of the world’s “only indispensible” country – conceding that he had been unable to “align” all the forces in play.

With the ceasefire in tatters, Kerry publicly complained on Sept. 29, 2016:

“Syria is as complicated as anything I’ve ever seen in public life, in the sense that there are probably about six wars or so going on at the same time – Kurd against Kurd, Kurd against Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sunni, Shia, everybody against ISIL, people against Assad, Nusra [Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate]. This is as mixed-up sectarian and civil war and strategic and proxies, so it’s very, very difficult to be able to align forces.”

Admitting Deep-State Pre-eminence

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. (Source: Consortiumnews)

Only in December 2016, in an interview with Matt Viser of the Boston Globe, did Kerry admit that his efforts to deal with the Russians had been thwarted by then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – as well as all those forces he found so difficult to align.

“Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation [of the ceasefire agreement] extremely hard to accomplish,” Kerry said. “But it … could have worked. … The fact is we had an agreement with Russia … a joint cooperative effort.

“Now we had people in our government who were bitterly opposed to doing that,” he said. “I regret that. I think that was a mistake. I think you’d have a different situation there conceivably now if we’d been able to do that.”

The Globe’s Viser described Kerry as frustrated. Indeed, it was a tough way for Kerry to end nearly 34 years in public office.

After Friday’s discussions with President Trump, Kremlin eyes will be focused on Secretary of State Tillerson, watching to see if he has better luck than Kerry did in getting Ashton Carter’s successor, James “Mad Dog” Mattis and CIA’s latest captive-director Pompeo into line behind what President Trump wants to do.

As the new U.S.-Russia agreed-upon ceasefire goes into effect on Sunday, Putin will be eager to see if this time Trump, unlike Obama, can make a ceasefire in Syria stick; or whether, like Obama, Trump will be unable to prevent it from being sabotaged by Washington’s deep-state actors.

The proof will be in the pudding and, clearly, much depends on what happens in the next few weeks. At this point, it will take a leap of faith on Putin’s part to have much confidence that the ceasefire will hold. 

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.  As a CIA analyst for 27 years, he led the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and, during President Ronald Reagan’s first term, conducted the early morning briefings with the President’s Daily Brief.  He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Featured image from AP

Featured image: “The U.S. bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria is now the heaviest since the bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in the 1960s-70s, with 84,000 bombs and missiles dropped between 2014 and the end of May 2017,” Davies writes. (Photo: DVIDSHUB/flickr/cc)

This is the state of war in the United States in July 2017.

The U.S. bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria is now the heaviest since the bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in the 1960s-70s, with 84,000 bombs and missiles dropped between 2014 and the end of May 2017. That is nearly triple the 29,200 bombs and missiles dropped on Iraq in the “Shock and Awe” campaign of 2003.

The Obama administration escalated the bombing campaign last October, as the U.S.-Iraqi assault on Mosul began, dropping 12,290 bombs and missiles between October and the end of January when President Obama left office. The Trump administration has further escalated the campaign, dropping another 14,965 bombs and missiles since February 1st.  May saw the heaviest bombing yet, with 4,374 bombs and missiles dropped.

The U.K.-based Airwars.org monitoring group has compiled reports of between 12,000 and 18,000 civilians killed by nearly three years of U.S.-led bombing in Iraq and Syria. These reports can only be the tip of the iceberg, and the true number of civilians killed could well be more than 100,000, based on typical ratios between reported deaths and actual deaths in previous war-zones.

As the U.S. and its allies closed in on Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria, and as U.S. forces now occupy eight military bases in Syria, Islamic State and its allies have struck back in Manchester and London; occupied Marawi, a city of 200,000 in the Philippines; and exploded a huge truck bomb inside the fortifications of the “Green Zone” in Kabul, Afghanistan.

What began in 2001 as a misdirected use of military force to punish a group of formerly U.S.-backed jihadis in Afghanistan for the crimes of September 11th has escalated into a global asymmetric war. Every country destroyed or destabilized by U.S. military action is now a breeding ground for terrorism. It would be foolish to believe that this cannot get much, much worse, as long as both sides continue to justify their own escalations of violence as responses to the violence of their enemies, instead of trying to deescalate the now global violence and chaos.

There are once again 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan, up from 8,500 in April, with reports that four thousand more may be deployed soon. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been killed in 15 years of war, but the Taliban now control more of the country than at any time since the U.S. invasion in 2001.

The US is giving vital support to the Saudi-led war in Yemen, supporting a blockade of Yemeni ports and providing intelligence and in-air refueling to the Saudi and allied warplanes that have been bombing Yemen since 2015. UN reports of 10,000 civilians killed are surely only a fraction of the true numbers killed, and thousands more have died from disease and hunger.

Now Yemen is facing a humanitarian crisis and a raging cholera epidemic due to lack of clean water or medicine caused by the bombing and the blockade. The UN is warning that millions of Yemenis could die of famine and disease. A Senate bill to restrict some U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia was defeated by 53 votes (48 Republicans and 5 Democrats) to 47 in June.

Closer to home, U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) recently hosted a conference with the presidents of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador in Miami. This signaled a further militarization of the U.S. war on drugs in Central America and efforts to limit immigration from those countries, even as a report by State and Justice Department inspector generals held State Department and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents responsible for the killing of four innocent civilians (one man, two women and a 14-year-old boy) by machine-gun fire from a State Department helicopter near Ahuas in Honduras in 2012.

The inspector generals’ report found that DEA officials repeatedly lied to Congress about this incident, pretending the Hondurans were killed in a shoot-out with drug traffickers, raising serious doubts about accountability for escalating U.S. paramilitary operations in Central America.

Right-wing opposition protests in Venezuela have turned more violent, with 99 people killed since April, as the protests have failed to mobilize enough popular support to topple the leftist government of Nicolas Maduro. The U.S. supports the opposition and has led diplomatic efforts to force the government to resign, so there is a danger that this could escalate into a US-backed civil war.

Meanwhile in Colombia, right-wing death squads are once again operating in areas where the FARC has disarmed, killing and threatening people to drive them off land coveted by wealthy landowners.

Looming over our increasingly war-torn world are renewed U.S. threats of military action against North Korea and Iran, both of which have more robust defenses than any that U.S. forces have encountered since the American War in Vietnam. Rising tensions with Russia and China risk even greater, even existential dangers, as symbolized by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock, whose hands now stand at 2-1/2 minutes to midnight.

Although our post-9/11 wars have probably killed at least 2 million people in the countries we have attacked, occupied or destabilized, U.S. forces have suffered historically low numbers of casualties in these operations. There is a real danger that this has given U.S. political and military leaders, and to some extent the American public, a false sense of the scale of U.S. casualties and other serious consequences we should look forward to as our leaders escalate our current wars, issue new threats against Iran and North Korea, and stoke rising tensions with Russia and China.

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

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

The G-20 summit highlighted a transition in geopolitical power that has been developing for years. The process has escalated in recent months since President Trump took office, but its roots go much deeper than Trump. Europe is tired of the US spying on its leaders and creating a massive refugee crisis from its chaos creating wars. Russia and China are being pulled together as the US threatens both with missiles and bases on their borders.

Now Trump seeks more money from everyone to reduce the US trade deficit and holds the world back on the climate crisis. The United States is losing power, a multi-polar world is taking shape and people power is on the rise as the world unites for people and planet before profits.

The G-20 bordered on being a G-19, with the US a loner on key issues of climate change, trade and migration. These are some of the biggest issues on the planet. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been saying lately

“We as Europeans have to take our fate into our own hands.”

This is an indication they no longer see the US as the leader or even a reliable partner on key issues. In a summation of the G-20, Politico writes:

“Hamburg will also go down as a further mile marker in Europe’s slow emancipation from the U.S.”

We may be witnessing the beginning of the end of US Empire.

The United States Loses World Power

At the same time that Europe is setting its own course, Russia and China have been moving toward each other and acting in tandem, often with positions opposite the United States. While Washington was trying to isolate Russia, it has been building new friendships and alliances.

Presidents Putin and Xi have met on more than 20 occasions over the past four years. Xi now refers to Russia as China’s foremost ally. In that time, the United States built a wall of bases and missiles around both countries, intruded on China’s maritime space in the Asia Pacific and fomented regime change in Ukraine to turn that country against Russia. US aggression is backfiring and creating a multi-polar world. After meeting with Russia, President Xi met with Chancellor Merkel to sign trade deals.

Presidents Putin and Xi met before the G-20 to continue to build their alliance. Putin and Xi made  deals on trade agreements and energy sales, created a $10 billion joint investment fund and came to a common approach regarding North Korea. Their approach: “dialogue and negotiation”, coupled with firm opposition to the THAAD missile system being installed by the US in South Korea.

North Korea is another issue where the US is out of step with the world. While the US was lobbying for an aggressive confrontation with North Korea over nuclear weapons, other countries were not joining in and Russia and China were urging restraint and diplomacy. The Los Angeles Times reports

 “White House officials have been dismayed to see China and Russia teaming up to advocate for a ‘freeze for peace’ strategy in which North Korea agrees to stop moving forward with its nuclear weapons development, in exchange for the international community easing sanctions and making other concessions.”

Even Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has been a lap dog for the United States, called on China and Russia to help mediate the Korean crisis.

US B-1 Lancer nuclear bombers (Source: PopularResistance.Org)

Instead of diplomacy, President Trump sent B-1 Lancer bombers capable of delivering nuclear weapons toward the North Korean border where they released 2,000 pound inert bombs. Others in Congress are suggesting more economic sanctions, including sanctions that will negatively impact China and other countries. These actions are driving North Korea to develop ICBM nuclear missiles in order to protect itself from the United States, and driving other nations away from the US.

North Korea responded by calling the US’ action a dangerous provocation that could lead to nuclear war.  “More of the same” will not only continue to raise tensions but misses a tremendous opportunity to transform the relationship with North Korea and end the Korean War. Russia sought to reduce tensions by providing the United Nations with information demonstrating North Korea did not produce an ICBM, but only a mid-range missile. The world knows that North Korea is not the real threat to world peace, the United States is the problem, as William Boardman explains.

President Moon, the new president of South Korea, wants a ‘sunshine policy’ of constructive engagement with North Korea, including building economic ties. Already divisions are showing between the US and South Korea, especially over the THAAD missile system. The system was rushed into Korea during the recent elections, despite Moon’s warnings. Moon has said that South Korea must take a lead role in reducing tensions. He ordered an investigation of bringing THAAD equipment into the country.

Globalization is Leaving the United States Behind

While Trump is calling for trade that puts America first, i.e. decreases the massive US trade deficit through trade protectionism, other countries are taking a different approach. Pepe Escobar reports

 “At the BRICS meeting on the sidelines of the G-20, they called for a more open global economy and for a rules-based, transparent, non-discriminatory, open and inclusive multilateral trading system.”

Throughout the Obama term, trade negotiations were bogged down because the US was out of the mainstream, calling for greater transnational corporate power than other countries would accept. This was one reason why negotiations slowed and the TPP was killed under election year pressure that made the agreement toxic. Now Trump wants to be even more extreme in favoring US corporations.

As Finian Cunningham writes, the world understands US economic problems better than US leaders. He writes the world knows that US

“trade imbalances with the rest of the world are not because of ‘rotten deals’, as Trump would have it, but rather because the American economy has ruined itself over many decades. The off-shoring of jobs by American corporations and gutting of American workers with poverty wages are part of it.”

Some Good News

One potential piece of good news this week was President Trump meeting with President Putin for more than two hours. The meeting overcame the Russia-phobia put forth by a barrage of anti-Putin, anti-Russian propaganda that has been produced for many years. The US desperately needs a positive relationship with Russia, not just to avoid conflict with a nuclear and economic power, but because the US is becoming isolated. While not a lot came out of this first meeting, it did provide a good start for the potential resolution of many conflicts – Syria, Ukraine, North Korea, Iran and nuclear weapons (where they should work to achieve the goal of no more nuclear weapons voted for in the UN), to name a few.

The meeting produced a small step that could grow into a significant positive change. The US and Russia announced a ceasefire in part of southwestern Syria that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have been discussing for weeks. This could allow the US to play a positive role in Syria, in a war it has been losing.

But, this is also a test for President Trump – is he in control of the US government? Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years, who led the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and gave the daily intelligence briefing to multiple presidents, asks whether the Trump-Tillerson ceasefire will survive better than an Obama-Kerry ceasefire also negotiated with Putin-Lavrov. In the Obama case, four days into the ceasefire, the US air force attacked Syrian troops, sabotaging the agreement. McGovern asks two questions critical to the lives of Syrians and the future of Europe and the Middle East:

“Will the forces that sabotaged previous ceasefire agreements in Syria succeed in doing so again, all the better to keep alive the ‘regime change’ dreams of the neoconservatives and liberal interventionists?”

“Or will President Trump succeed where President Obama failed by bringing the U.S. military and intelligence bureaucracies into line behind a ceasefire rather than allowing insubordination to win out?”

The RussiaGate myth was the top priority of the media and bi-partisans, rather than the potential Syria breakthrough. While the propaganda on alleged Russia interference continues, the US political class ignores the positive potential of the cease fire in Syria, closes its eyes to the potential undermining of the agreement by the Pentagon and talks about the myth that Russia elected Trump. As each new RussiaGate myth is published, it is shown to be false.

People Over Profit

Finally, another lesson from the G-20, people around the world are angry at political leaders who are failing them, including Donald Trump for holding back urgent action on climate change, fed up with globalization that puts people’s needs far behind the profits of transnational corporations, and are demanding changes to a system that does not listen.

Protests began before the summit and grew in size and anger as the summit progressed – always met with extreme police violence. The protests in Hamburg were large and loud. The rioting got a good deal of attention, but people expressed their concerns on multiple issues in many ways. Srecko Horvat writes about the importance of protests to show opposition and power, but also the need to continue the work of building alternatives to the current failed systems.

A growing political movement is expressing what is so desperately needed. People look at world leaders posing in group photo to show an image of success as false emperors and empresses wearing no clothes. Angel Merkel, the host of the event was careful not to exaggerate, summing up the meeting merely saying “The summit took place.” The realities are growing inequality, increasing impact from climate change and political systems that are less responsive to the people and more corrupted by transnational corporate power.

The root problem for the G-20 is they are unable to break from free market neoliberalism that is bringing devastation to the world. The people must force them to face the reality that transformation to economic democracy is needed — a new economy where people share the wealth and have influence in the direction of economic policy.

This new global alignment is a positive. The US has dominated the world for too long and must learn to become a cooperative partner. And as US power is waning on the world stage, there is an opening for people power in solidarity across borders to grow.

Featured image from PopularResistance.Org

Yesterday, we banned nuclear weapons. 

It’s still hard to believe this is the case. It hasn’t fully sunk in yet, the enormity of what just happened. Even as survivors, activists, politicians, and diplomats celebrated in New York and around the world, many expressed amazement that we actually pulled it off. 

It was a long campaign. Activism against nuclear weapons has been fierce and determined for over seventy years. But it wasn’t until recent years, when a few courageous diplomats in partnership with a group of civil society actors working as part of or in collaboration with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons decided to take a leap into the unknown, that we managed to finally develop international law condemning and prohibiting these last weapons of mass destruction.

Working together, we foregrounded our actions in resistance and hope. Resistance to the pressure from nuclear-armed and nuclear-alliance states. Resistance to attitudes of cynicism and of defeatism. Resistance to staying the course, being placated, being told to be patient, that the “important” countries will handle this matter. Hope that change is possible. Hope that by working together we can achieve something that can disrupt some of the most powerful, heavily militarised structures and doctrines in the entire world. Hope that a shared sense of humanity could prevail against all odds. Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney quoted Seamus Heaney in his remarks on Friday, that

“hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is a good worth working for.”

There were incredible obstacles in our way. We were challenging power. In response, many forces of that power were unleashed upon us—politically, and sometimes personally. In her closing statement, Ambassador Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko of South Africa noted the “an incredible amount of pressure” on her continent not to participate. We saw this pressure placed on many countries in October before the General Assembly voted to begin these negotiations. We saw it even when states were organising conferences to examine the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons.

The key was not to allow these obstacles to be insurmountable. This is a choice. One can either give up or keep fighting. No obstacle is actually too big; it’s just a matter of figuring out how to go under, around, over, or through it. On Friday, 7 July, 122 governments voted yes for humanity. They took courage in their collective endeavor, and in the support of civil society filling the gallery behind them beyond capacity. They also took courage in their “moral duty,” as Ambassador Mxakato-Diseko put it, noting that

“to have voted no would have been a slap in the face to the victims of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.”

Banning nuclear weapons was not an insurmountable challenge, just as achieving the elimination of nuclear weapons is not insurmountable. The day after the adoption of this treaty we are already seeing the flood of commentary on how useless what we did is. How this treaty will change nothing; how we’ve only created divisions; how we haven’t eliminated a single nuclear weapon. It will continue to be an epic mansplaining session until the trolls, who have invested their academic or political careers in reinforcing the status quo by explaining ad nauseam that this is how things are and that things can never change, get bored and move on. (Proving them wrong is apparently not sufficient—they said we could never ban nuclear weapons and now that we have, the issue its utility, not its possibility.)

It’s okay, they can have their space to complain and critique—they have always taken up this space, and until we do more to disrupt the structures that keep them safely ensconced in that space, they will continue to do so. In the meantime, the feminists, the queers, the people of colour, the survivors, the determined diplomats, the passionate politicians, the thoughtful academics, the fierce activists—the rebels and the brave—will do what we can to keep making change. We do so to honour the people who have suffered from nuclear violence. We do so to ensure that respect, dignity, courage, and love are the dominant traits of humanity, rather than our capacity for self-destruction, selfishness, or fear.

There is time for celebration but not self-congratulation. There is only time for more work. Just like the critics warned, this treaty has not magically eliminated nuclear weapons over night. We always knew it would be harder than that. But as atomic bomb survivor Setsuko Thurlow said in her remarkable closing statement to the conference on Friday,

“This is the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons.”

This treaty was conceived of as a tool that could help change the politics and economics of nuclear weapons as a means of facilitating disarmament. The text that we adopted on Friday is well suited to this task. It provides a solid foundation to change policies and practices, as well as to shift the thinking and discourse on nuclear weapons even further than the process to ban them already has.

We have not, as a species, been able to figure out how to solve everything at once. We struggle sometimes to even keep things on the right track, tenuous and fragile as that track can sometimes be. But we can work together to do extraordinary things—and we should do it more often. It just takes courage. It sounds over simplified, but it’s really not. We’re taught that this is a naive approach to the world—it’s engrained in us as we become adults that idealism and activism are youthful pursuits. They are not. They are the pursuits of the brave, of all ages, backgrounds, and beliefs.

This is a treaty made by people. By diplomats who got inspired by an idea and went home to change their government’s positions. By activists writing, thinking, and convening, bringing together governments and civil society groups to figure out how to make things happen. By survivors who give their testimony despite the personal trauma of reliving their experiences. By direct action crews who get arrested for breaking into nuclear weapon facilities or blockading nuclear transports or military bases. By campaigners who mobilise nationally to raise awareness and pressure their governments. By politicians who truly represent the will of their people and speak the truth in parliaments. By academics who write the theory or record the process.

This treaty is an amazing feat of collective action by people who came together to do something that had not been tried before. Like anything created by people, it has its imperfections. But it’s a good start on the road to abolition, and it gives a glimpse of what is possible in this world. That, all on its own, has meaning.

Featured image from Pax Christi

For years, criticism has been mounting against the Neoliberal Economic principles  espoused by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and applied on all countries that stumble economically and seek the IMF’s help.

Many of these unfortunate countries, most of which are poor and/or developing, ended up in dire straits, sometimes worse than they began with. They were all coerced to deregulate their markets and open them to foreign capital and companies, thus losing control of their resources and sources of income. It was akin to inviting the fox into the chicken coop.

No doubt, the IMF’s policies did benefit some countries, but in all cases, the fox was let-in to take up permanent residence.

The main tenets of Neoliberal Economics are the deregulation of markets and opening them up to foreign capital flows, and shrinking the public sector to reduce government budget deficits and hence, the need to borrow.

This all sounds nice and logical, but in reality, is too general and superficial, and cannot be applied to all countries and economies in the same manner or equal doses – Countries are not a “one-fit-all” sock. Economies differ according to their constituents, stages of development and the causes of their poor performance.

After almost forty years of total belief in Neoliberal Economics, a group of IMF research economists realized its inherent flaws and published a Paper in the IMF journal (June 2016) critiquing these policies. Although the Paper concentrated on part of the IMF’s policies, it does reflect a beginning of change in the thinking process, which it is hoped catches on, and spreads to the executive divisions.

[GR Editor’s Note: This is not the first time the IMF has indulged is self-criticism. The ultimate purpose is to give a human face to IMF, without contemplating a major revamping of its policy conditionalities, M.Ch]

The Paper stressed on two “standard” IMF policies: Opening markets to foreign capital flows, and the austerity policies designed to shrink government spending. It questioned the viability of those two policies, and concluded that, more often than not, they have led to negative results, such as a drop in economic output and an increase in social and economic inequalities.

Opening financial markets to foreigners has, in many cases, led to currency volatility and economic crises. Especially, when the incoming foreign capital is speculative and/or short term in nature, regardless if it cloaked as direct investments or loans. It tends to accentuate booms and busts, depending on the phase of the economic cycle the economy is in, at the time of arrival or departure of the foreign capital. The Paper points out that 20% of the countries that the IMF had intervened in since 1980 have been hit with a financial crisis (the most famous is Thailand).

Also, in the absence of a clear government vision, a deep understanding of the concepts involved and capable institutions to control and monitor the opening up of the financial markets, the damage of such policies is likely to be magnified. Despite following the IMF’s policy recommendations, such countries fail to achieve economic growth, and only succeed in increasing social and economic inequality.

As for the policy to shrink the size of governments and reduce expenditures through and austerity program (or privatization), the Paper expressed alarm and a warning against its implementation in a general manner in all economies as a cure-all pill.

The Paper also addresses Public Debt, and concurs that large public debts are detrimental to economic growth, and should be reduced as soon as possible. However, it warns that raising taxes and shrinking expenses could change economic behavior in the market and damage the chances of growth. There is a delicate balance between public debt and the speed of reducing it. It differs from one country to another, and hence, requires custom treatment in each case.

The Paper concluded that austerity can stunt economic growth and increase inequality, which forces governments to increase welfare spending to maintain peace in society. But increased welfare spending has to be financed; most likely by new taxes (and rates), which further hurts growth and increases welfare spending, and so on – a hopeless viscous cycle.

To mitigate the negative effects of austerity policies, the Paper recommends implementing policies that redistribute income and wealth, minimize the impact of austerity on lower income classes and increase spending on education and re-training to improve job finding opportunities and thus reduce inequalities. However, such corrective policies are, by their nature, medium and longer term, and time and good planning are needed. Sudden cost cutting or tax and rate increases, may worsen a precarious condition.

The above referred to Paper is an admission from, so to speak, “The horse’s mouth”, i.e. the Economic Research Department at the IMF. We can only hope that its findings are translated into new policies for developing countries seeking economic assistance. But, above all, we hope that the Paper’s message is understood by the governments of the second and third world countries, contributes to a change in their current conventional wisdom and encourages them to develop new strategies, suitable for their unique cases.

Marwan Salamah, is a Kuwaiti economic consultant and publishes articles on his blog: marsalpost.com

Featured image: Attendees sit during the opening of the 41st session of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Committee at the ICE Krakow Congress Centre in Krakow, Poland, July 3. (Source: Daily Sabah)

Israel, not for the first time, is royally P.O.’ed at UNESCO. The UN organization’s World Heritage Committee has been holding a meeting in Krakow, Poland–and in a session on July 4, the body passed a resolution naming Israel as an “occupying power” while at the same time condemning its tunneling and underground excavation activities in the old city of Jerusalem.

Said excavations, presumably for archaeological purposes, started up several years ago. I first put up a post about them back in 2014 after it was reported that they were causing structural problems with Palestinian homes in the area, so it’s good that UNESCO is addressing the issue. But the resolution angered the Israeli representative, who threw a temper tantrum by calling for a moment of silence for “six million murdered Jews.” And this is what we see in the video below:

As you can see, the representative from Cuba charged the Israeli–rightfully in my opinion–with turning the meeting into a “politicized circus.” She then reciprocated by calling for a moment of silence for Palestinians who have died. As the video shows, the overwhelming majority of people in the auditorium rose to their feet. It did not sit well with the Israelis.

According to a report here, one Israeli official accused the UNESCO committee of being “detached from reality,” while the Zionist state’s Foreign Ministry is quoted as saying,

“Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people, and no decision by UNESCO can change that reality.”

That all was, as I say, on July 4.

Three days later, on July 7, Israel again had a hissy fit over a resolution–passed by the same committee. This time the measure had to do with Hebron, specifically recognizing its old city as an endangered World Heritage site. Hebron’s old city includes a site known to Muslims as the Ibrahimi Mosque (or Mosque of Abraham) and to Jews as the Cave of the Patriarchs. In that regard it has significance to both religions. But the committee voted to recognize the old city of Hebron as a Palestinian World Heritage site–rather than an Israeli one. This of course makes perfectly logical sense because Hebron is in the West Bank and the West Bank is internationally recognized as rightfully belonging to the Palestinians. But again Israelis resorted to tantrums.

“Not a Jewish site?!” thundered Netanyahu. “Who is buried there? Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca and Leah – our patriarchs and matriarchs!”

Of course, the committee didn’t say it wasn’t a Jewish site; they just said it was a Palestinian site–because the site is, after all, in Occupied Palestine. In fact, according to a report here, the resolution–which passed by a vote of 12-3 with six abstentions–“emphasized the importance of the site to Jews, Christians, and Muslims.”

But Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotoveli charged the committee with attempting to “appropriate the national symbols of the Jewish people,” and she went on to further accuse the UNESCO delegates of maliciously spreading lies.

“This is a badge of shame for UNESCO, who time after time chooses to stand on the side of lies,” she is quoted as saying.

You might recall I put up a post about Hotoveli a week ago. This was after she did an interview with 60 Minutes Australia in which she expressed the view that “it’s not because of the Israelis” that Palestinians live under such abject conditions. No, “it’s really dependent on them,” she insisted, adding that “their leadership doesn’t give them the ability to live under democratic values.”

From turning a meeting into a circus sideshow by calling for a moment of silence for “six million murdered Jews,” to accusing a people living under a brutal occupation of being responsible for their own misery and suffering–there is something about the behavior of Israeli officials that somehow always seems to remind me of the proverbial rude guest who showed up for a party uninvited.

By the way, in case you missed it, Israel recently confiscated an array of solar panels that had been donated by the Dutch government to a Palestinian village in the West Bank. Despite being surrounded by illegal Israeli settlements, the village in question, Jubbet al-Dhib, is not connected to the national electric grid. The Dutch government has called the action “unacceptable,” and Holland’s prime minister, Mark Rutte, has reportedly now lodged a formal protest. The solar panels cost approximately $600,000.

Featured image: Demonstrations against the Iraq War in Montreal, 15 March 2003. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s laudatory remarks[1] about a Canadian soldier’s record-setting sniper attack on an Iraqi combatant belies darker truths.

International lawyer David Jacob explains in an interview on the Taylor Report[2] that, first, Trudeau broke a promise (as per usual). In 2015 he promised that he would end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq and that there would be no direct involvement. Troops would be involved strictly in advise and assist roles.

Second, notes Jacob, the Canadian government is violating the National Defence Act by engaging in combat when we are not being attacked.

Third, NATO is not being attacked. NATO is the aggressor in Iraq.

Finally, issues of war and peace should pass first through Parliament.

There are good reasons to follow the rule of law in these matters. A compelling reason, totally ignored by mainstream agencies of indoctrination, is that Canada’s on-going, direct, illegal, aggressive warfare against non-belligerent nations (especially Libya, Syria, and Iraq), since September 11, 2001, amounts to war crimes and state terrorism.

In Libya and Syria especially, we are and have been supporting terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda. In Iraq we are directly involved in the destruction of the country’s territorial integrity and its sovereignty. In the Ukraine, we are supporting a neo-Nazi infested illegal coup government.

These are war crimes, and none of this should be swept under the carpet.[3]

Canada is and has been directly involved in the commission of a modern-day holocaust. Dr. Gideon Polya explains in “An Iraqi Holocaust 2.7 Million Iraqi Dead From Violence Or War-imposed Deprivation” that “Holocaust is the destruction of a large number of people and 9 million Iraqi deaths from Anglo-American violence or violently-imposed deprivation certainly constitutes an Iraqi Holocaust.”

He explains further,

The Anglo-American Iraqi Genocide since 1990 has been associated with 2 million under-5 year old infant deaths comprising 1.2 million (1990-2003) and 0.8 million (2003-2011), 90% avoidable and due to gross violation of Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War which demand that an Occupier must supply their conquered Subjects with food and medical requisites to “the fullest extent of the means available to it” [17]. The Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide was also war criminal mass infanticide and mass paedocide.[4]

Beneath the veneer of Trudeau’s “sunny ways”, the Canadian government is directly supporting an overseas holocaust. This should be front-page news.

Notes

[1] Lee Berthiaume, “Record-breaking Canadian sniper should be celebrated, Trudeau says.” The Canadian Press, June 27, 2017,(http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/27/record-breaking-sniper-shot-in-iraq-should-be-celebrated-trudeau-says) Accessed July 09, 2017.

[2] “Canadian Soldiers In Iraq Join The Fighting, Trudeau’s Flaming Trousers.” June 26, 2017,

(http://www.radio4all.net/files/[email protected]/16-1-CanadianSoldiersJoinIraqFight.mp3), Accessed June 09, 2017

[3] Mark Taliano,“The West’s Hidden Holocaust.” Whatsupic, July 28, 2015, (http://whatsupic.com/special-usa/14380-the-wests-hidden-holocaust.html) Accessed July 09, 2017.

[4] Dr. Gideon Polya, “An Iraqi Holocaust, 2.7 Million Iraqi Dead From Violence Or War-imposed Deprivation.” “ICH”, March 27, 2015, (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41378.htm) Accessed July 09, 2017.

On July 4, 2017, Xi Jinping was welcomed to Moscow by Putin. Their twenty-first official meeting was useful for coordinating their next moves concerning the international issues on the agenda ahead of the G20 meeting.

More than twenty agreements have been signed between Russia and China, amounting to almost twelve billion dollars worth of investment. Such figures are reflective of these two nations that define their bilateral relations as the most balanced and fundamental in the world, evidenced by the unprecedented levels of relations between Moscow and Beijing. The ease with which complicated and wide-ranging agreements are realized emphasizes the level of confidence and development cooperation developed personally by Putin and Xi Jinping.

In their third annual meeting, the most prominent themes on the agenda were also discussed with a view to the upcoming G20 meeting. The intention is to coordinate the next steps together on the world stage in order to express a common point of view on many themes, mutually reinforcing their positions in the process. This is the case with matters to do with Syria and North Korea.

With regard to international tensions, the G20 in Hamburg has finally seen the most anticipated meeting of the year, that between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.  In this sense, the meeting between Putin and Xi Jinping assumes a very powerful symbolic value: Trump and the rest of the world are aware that talking with Moscow about the events in North Korea means taking Chinese considerations into account, while discussing Syria with Beijing necessarily takes Russian concerns into account.

Moscow and Beijing intend to mutually support each other in negotiations with Washington in order to strengthen their common strategy of reaching beneficial arrangements for all parties involved. An example that illustrates this is the alignment of Sino-Russian positions on an international investigation into the alleged chemical incident in Syria in April. Another is the firm opposition to any military attempt to influence events in North Korea.

It is difficult to imagine a bright outcome for Putin and Trump’s meeting, given that Trump has been harassed for more than a year over alleged ties with Moscow by the out-of-control mainstream media. These are of course lies and propaganda created specifically to hobble the possibility of dialogue of any kind between Moscow and Washington. An important part of the American ‘deep state’ wishes to sustain a model where unilateral decisions are imposed on the rest of the world. They still live in a world where America is the sole super-power, a world order that existed in the 1990s but which is now almost completely superseded by a multipolar world order. This unipolar vision contrasts openly with a US administration that at least proposes to establish a civil dialogue between superpowers on more delicate international issues.

The best that one can hope for from the G20 in Hamburg and from the meeting between Trump and Putin is either for the arrangement of a visit to Moscow/Washington or for the two parties to deepen mutual understanding. Putin and Xi Jinping are aware that Trump is in a very uncomfortable position, facing daily attacks that leave him with little room for maneuver. At the same time, however, they know that they are faced with a president who has no experience in international relations and who tends to delegate decisions to his generals or those in his intimate circle. The problem with this is that it only fuels competition between deep-state factions. Those who want to bomb Syria sometimes prevail over those who want dialogue and strategic cooperation. Trump’s preference for delegation only exacerbates these rivalries.

The Syrian example is emblematic. Recently, the US Department of State held a press conference where more was revealed than was intended. The spokesperson, in a Freudian slip, admitted that once the offensive in Syria was over and ISIS driven out of the territory, Raqqa would be occupied by its “own” Syrian citizens. What Heather Nauert should have said, or wanted to say, is that the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), after conquering the city, would retreat and leave the city in the hands of Syrian citizens (AKA Damascus authority), free to return to the city.

Nervousness, or perhaps inexperience, may have affected Nauert, causing her to reveal America’s true intentions in Syria. The relocation of about 150 fighters from al-Tanf to a site under the control of the SDF north of Deir ez-Zor leaves open for Washington and its allies in the region the hope of controlling the borders with Iraq by taking control of Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and the nearby oilfields. Having known defeat in Aleppo and having areas near Idlib and Homs sealed off, thanks to the agreement in Astana (where Washington was excluded), terrorist allies had only one chance to alter events, which was to balkanize Syria by placing two big cities indirectly under their control and controlling the borders with Iraq. Of course it is a desperate strategy that does not take into account a number of factors, such as the will of the Iraqi, Iranian and Syrian central governments toward re-establishing previous land connections. This is without forgetting Russian influence and support for the Syrian Arab Army that will certainly not be pulled back in the race to Deir ez-Zor and towards Iraq’s borders.

The meeting between Trump and Putin will also serve to emphasize once again the importance of military communications between Washington and Moscow in an environment as fluid as Syria. After the US Air Force downed the Syrian Su-22, communications between the militaries of the two world powers seized completely. In a conflict that sees dozens of opposing factions supported by different nations, it is important that Putin and Trump can at least discuss in person what the red lines are not to be crossed.

The issue of North Korea has been enlivened by Pyongyang’s demonstration of its ability to launch an ICBM (initially pooh-poohed by the West as a medium-range missile before admitting that it was an intercontinental missile) into the Sea of Japan. It is the country’s final demonstration of strength, brought on by decades of military threats from the United States and its allies in the region (South Korea and Japan). With this latest test, North Korea has demonstrated that it has the capacity to hit Washington and its allies in case of the type of aggression Trump has repeatedly threatened. The only alternative to such a war benefitting no one is strong diplomatic negotiations. It seems that Pyongyang, Moscow and Beijing are coordinating a common front following the launch of the ICBM. Putin and Xi Jinping condemned the North Korean launch, but at the same time re-launched Kim Jong-Un‘s proposal for a moratorium on nuclear tests in exchange for a renunciation of South Korea’s military exercises with the United States close to the North Korean coast.

Putin and Xi Jinping will have the important task of trying to bring Trump closer to their strategic vision on these delicate issues. The hope is to influence the American decision-making process, while being aware of the strong internal divisions within the United States and Trump’s limited capacity to personally make autonomous decisions in international politics, preferring to delegate those decisions to his subordinates instead.

Divisions, grievances, tensions between the Western bloc and vassal nations in the Middle East seem also to be on the agenda. The United States is divided internally, with an eternal battle between the various souls of the deep state, from the Bush-style intervention faction to the Obama human-rights crowd. Such divisions have reverberated in the Gulf Cooperation Council. Following the visit of the US President to the Middle East, the UAE and Saudi Arabia triggered the most violent internal division within the Council, with Riyadh ready to implement unprecedented measures against Qatar. In Europe, the continued flow of migrants, coupled with the events related to Brexit, and with the attitude of some European leaders towards Trump, has ended up producing a series of frictions between many European countries and the US administration.

It is no surprise that international relations, in such an environment, represented by the smooth and clear relations between Moscow and Beijing, will flourish. An example of how the international environment is changing is represented by Turkey, where, for example, it has common positions with Qatar and Saudi Arabia in Syria, but also openly supports Doha in its recent disputes with Riyadh. While Ankara has bad relations with Berlin, with the personal chemistry between Erdogan and Merkel reflecting this, Turkey’s intention, through the Turkish Stream, is to become an energy hub for Europe. With mixed feelings, London and Washington nevertheless appear to be aligned on future priorities, such as on the need to increase the military spending of NATO member countries (many of whom are facing difficult budget conditions, and are therefore reluctant to pour tens of billions of dollars into armaments), as well as creating strong divisions among European Union countries.

The next G20 will hardly be able to produce sensational or wide-ranging agreements. However, it will be the first open confrontation at the same table, among the many factions that compose the Western consensus and the Sino-Russian alliance. The hope of Russia and China will be to pick up from the Euro-American legacy (often used to advance their interests at the expense of the world community) to guide the world towards goals that avoid conflict, such as in North Korea and Syria. Whether these goals are possible to achieve will depend on Western partners and their willingness to come to compromise.

Featured image from Strategic Culture Foundation

Featured image: Disputed areas between Bhutan and China (Source: see bigger picture here – yesheydorji.blogspot.in)

The recent illegal entry into Chinese territory by Indian border troops cannot be backed by any historic facts or legal basis, an expert pointed out on Saturday, adding that the real ulterior motives behind its groundless action is to finally “occupy” and “control” the area by creating new “disputed areas” in delimited section.

Sun Hongnian, a researcher with Center of China’s Borderland History and Geography Research under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, unmasked the truth in a signed article published on People’s Daily, days after Indian troops illegally crossed the delimited Sikkim section of the China-India boundary and obstructed the normal activities of Chinese border troops in Doklam.

What the Indian border guards did tramples on the international law and rules, stressed Sun, also researcher with Collaborative Innovation Center for Territorial Sovereignty and Maritime Rights.

The historic facts over China, Bhutan and the Indian state of Sikkim, the three parties involved in the latest incident incited by India, are clear-cut, Sun noted.

He further elaborated that conflicts never took place between China and Bhutan as both sides have been exercising their respective jurisdiction based on a traditional customary line.

Sun reviewed that the boundary between China and the Sikkim state of India was demarcated as early as 1794, while the Britain began its incursions into Bhutan and Sikkim in the 18th century, and invaded China’s Tibet in 1888.

Sikkim section of the China-India border was defined in the Convention between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet signed in 1890, according to the scholar, adding that the convention explicitly stipulates that Doklam undoubtedly belongs to China’s territory.

Former Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru (Source: biography.com)

The delimitation over the Sikkim section of the China-India border never changed since 1890, Sun emphasized, furthering that former Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru confirmed several times, on behalf of the Indian government, that the Sikkim-Tibet border was defined by the 1890 convention.

Abundant historic facts and legal basis have proven that Doklam has always been part of China’s territory and under its effective jurisdiction, the expert reiterated China’s position, adding that both China and Bhutan have a basic consensus on the functional conditions and demarcation of their border region.

India’s actions came amid the recent rise of some forces who instigated the country to inherit the so-called “heritage” of the Great Britain by continuing “protecting” and controlling its neighbors in South Asia, Sun wrote in the article.

Those advocates, upholding an outdated Cold War mentality, preached a tough attitude towards China, he further explained.

In the eyes of those forces, India can seek a so-called “absolute security” of its Siliguri Corridor by creating new “disputed areas” in the delimited section of the China-India boundary and ultimately securing a long-term occupation, as the country now enjoys a friendly global atmosphere, according to the researcher.

He added that by doing so, they hope to obstruct border negotiations between China and Bhutan, as a result, consolidate India’s “hegemony” in South Asian Sub-Continent.

India is an initiator of the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, but with an intention to seek “absolute security” of its Siliguri Corridor, it crossed into the Chinese territory by taking “protecting Bhutan” as an excuse, Sun criticized.

Incumbent Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi (Source: Prime Minister of India)

The scholar added that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi once called on both sides to deal with ties with a strategic and long-term horizon, enhance strategic mutual trust and manage their divergences.

What the trespassing troops did has tread on the commitments made by the Indian government, trampled on the international law and the basic norms governing international relations, and also severely damaged its images among the Chinese public, he highlighted.

Persisting in addressing border disputes through bilateral peaceful negotiations, China has settled land border demarcation with 12 of its 14 neighbors, including Myanmar, Nepal, Afghanistan and Vietnam.

Doklam is a part of China’s territory which is sacred and inviolable, the scholar stressed, reaffirming that firmly opposing the actions of the overstepping Indian troops, the Chinese people also object to the colonial rule based on which the stronger tyrannizes the weak while imposing imperative “protection” on neighbors.

China has the rights to take all necessary measures to uphold its territorial sovereignty, he reiterated.

The correct way out for India is to abide by the provisions of the boundary convention and pull all of the troops that have crossed the boundary back to its own side immediately and unconditionally, Sun concluded at last.

Featured image: A protester is arrested during a “die-in” against the Republican draft health care Bill outside the office of Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on June 22. (Photo: SAUL LOEB/AFP via Frontline)

Disabled Americans came in wheelchairs into the United States Senate to register their protest against the harsh Republican plan to slash health care. ADAPT, a disability rights group, staged a die-in right before the office of the leading Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. About 60 protesters tried to block the entrance to McConnell’s office. Their goal was to show the rest of America what would come out of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which the Republicans sought to push through as an alternative to Obamacare. The police arrested 43 protesters and wheeled out others from McConnell’s hallway.

The McConnell plan would slash Medicare, a government plan that provides health-care coverage for low-income Americans and for those with disabilities. One of the elements of the plan envisages cutting funds for in-home assistance that allows disabled Americans to remain in their own homes rather than move to nursing homes. Fourteen million Americans will lose any access to health insurance.

One of the people who got out of her wheelchair to be arrested was Stephanie Woodward, director of advocacy for the Center for Disability Rights. She was arrested by the officers in the Senate, who carried her out. “We have a right to live,” Stephanie Woodward said. “And by live, I don’t mean just breathe. I mean be a part of the American dream, be in the community, raise a family, go to work. These Medicaid cuts will force people into institutions who don’t need to be there.”

Harsh budget

Evidence of a major assault by the Trump administration on the social safety net in the U.S. was already there in Trump’s budget proposal. He sought to cut funds for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Medicaid and the Interagency Council on Homelessness. Cuts to affordable housing and to homeless assistance programmes were a centrepiece. But so too are cuts that would hurt the disabled. Sally Johnston, president of the Disabled in Action of Greater Syracuse, said: “Trump’s proposed budget will cut trillions of dollars in domestic services. How can this make America better?”

Harshness towards the vulnerable defines Trump’s agenda. There was a whisper of this when Trump mocked a disabled reporter for The New York Times, Serge Kovaleski, and when 12-year-old J.J. Holmes, who has cerebral palsy, was ejected from a Trump rally in Tampa, Florida. The disregard shown to people with disabilities reveals the kind of agenda that Trump was always going to drive. Generosity towards people is not his metier. His is a harsh project, to push aside the vulnerable in a social Darwinist drive to excellence. Weakness is reviled. Strength is applauded.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin

In late June, Trump’s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin married the Scottish actress Louise Linton. They had a lavish wedding, attended by Trump, his Vice President and most of the Cabinet. Mnuchin and Louise Linton live in a $12.6 million home in an exclusive part of Washington, D.C. The money is Mnuchin’s, what he made as a partner in Goldman Sachs. Mnuchin is not the only fabulously wealthy person in Trump’s cabinet. He sits at Cabinet meetings near Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Deputy Commerce Secretary Todd Ricketts. Trump’s Chief Economic Adviser is Gary Cohn, another former Goldman Sachs president. All are worth hundreds of millions of dollars each.

At a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, just after the Mnuchin wedding, Trump mused about the wealth in his Cabinet.

“Somebody said—why did you appoint a rich person to be in charge of the economy? No, it’s true. And Wilbur’s a very rich person in charge of commerce. I said—Because that’s the kind of thinking we want’.” What kind of thinking would that be? The thinking of someone who was willing to set aside any social agenda for his individual gain.

Trump’s base is made of a combination of people of great wealth—who are few—and the immense white-collar middle-class sector that has found itself made vulnerable by globalisation. Business process outsourcing struck the white-collar middle class, which formed the base of the Tea Party and then the Trump movement. He promised this base that he would not become wedded to Wall Street but would put Main Street in charge. That has not come to pass.

“I love all people, rich or poor,” Trump said, “but in those particular positions I don’t want a poor person.”

No poor or middle-class person should direct commercial or budgetary policy. That should be left to the rich. This is an honest assessment of Trump’s project—to appeal to the mass of white-collar vulnerable workers, but to deliver the reins of power to the very wealthy.

In a new book, Duke University professor Nancy MacLean goes into the intellectual roots of the radical Right and the vision of the current agenda, as articulated by Trump. The Right, she shows in Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of The Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America, is interested in the destruction of “society” and the creation of pure individualism. Charles Koch, one of the major financiers of the radical Right, relied upon Baldy Harper. Harper argued, decades ago, that support for vulnerable populations would erode liberty. He suggested that liberal policies that helped the poor and the disadvantaged would be like a disease against society.

“Once the disease has advanced,” he wrote, “a bitter curative medicine is required to gain already-lost liberty.”

These are harsh words. The idea of a “bitter curative medicine” is something that is natural to the Trump team. The vicious knives they wield against any social policy for the poor and the vulnerable are sharp and are used with gusto. One can see the way they cut away at precious social policies in the budget and in their health care plans.

Nancy MacLean describes the agenda of the economist James Buchanan, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics. Buchanan is a favourite of the radical Right, for whom he acts as an important intellectual standard. A clear sentiment of Buchanan’s vision is available in a 2005 document, where he attacks people who have not been able to save enough for unforeseen circumstances or for retirement. If they fall catastrophically ill or lose their jobs, they should have prepared for this eventuality through prudent savings. If not, Buchanan wrote, they

“are to be treated as subordinate members of the species, akin to animals who are dependent”.

The language here is ferocious. It is mimicked by Trump and his Cabinet.

Let us return to Trump’s budget. He proposes to cut $2.5 trillion in programmes for the working class and the indigent. Food stamps, the essential means for the poorest Americans to access food, would go. It is important to underline that one in six Americans struggles with hunger—49 million Americans have a hard time putting food on their tables. One in five children is at risk of hunger, with the ratio higher—one in three—for African-American and Latino families. There will be no easy way for Americans who struggle with food insecurity to feed themselves. They will be left to starve, like “subordinate members of the species”.

‘Poverty a state of mind’

In a radio interview, Trump’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson said:

“I think poverty to a large extent is also a state of mind.”

Aid to the poor, says the Trump team, does not work. The poor must be made to “go to work”, said Trump’s Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. But how to go to work when jobs are simply unavailable, as Trump himself has said on many occasions? In fact, the office that helps the poor find jobs has also been slated to be cut. That means even those few programmes to assist the unemployed to find work will no longer be available. In fact, as New York University Professor Jonathan Morduch and Rachael Schneider say in their new book The Financial Diaries, even those who have jobs at low pay struggle to make ends meet. Many of them rely on government assistance to get by. If they do not get access to government programmes, they turn to credit card loans and payday loans to cover their bills. There is great fragility in the budgets of the working poor.

There is cruelty in Trump’s vision. It throws the poor to the lions of desperation. The remnants of liberalism are being withdrawn. This is the end of the social contract.

HAMBURG, Germany, July 7 – Chinese President Xi Jinping on Friday delivered a speech at the 12th Summit of the Group of 20 (G20) major economies. The following is the full text of the speech:

Chancellor Merkel,

Dear colleagues,

It is a great pleasure to be with you in Hamburg, the City of Bridges, to discuss ways of building a bridge of cooperation to advance our shared prosperity. First of all, I express heartfelt appreciation to you, Chancellor Merkel, and the German government for your warm hospitality.

The global economy is showing signs of moving in the right direction. The related international organizations forecast that it will grow by 3.5 percent this year, the best performance that we have seen in several years. This would not be possible without the efforts of the G20. On the other hand, the global economy is still plagued by deep-seated problems and faces many uncertainties and destabilizing factors.

Facing such challenges, the G20 agreed in Hangzhou last year on the path forward: building an innovative, invigorated, interconnected and inclusive world economy. This year, building on the theme of the Hangzhou Summit, the Hamburg Summit has made “Shaping an Interconnected World” its theme. What we need to do now is to work together to translate our vision into action. With this in mind, I wish to state the following:

Firstly, we should stay committed to building an open global economy. This commitment of the G20 to build open economies saw us through the global financial crisis, and this commitment is vital to reenergizing the global economy. Various international organizations have revised upward forecast for this year’s global growth, mainly because of a projected 2.4 percent growth for global trade and 5 percent growth for global investment. We must remain committed to openness and mutual benefit for all so as to increase the size of the global economic “pie”. As the world’s major economies, we should and must lead the way, support the multilateral trading system, observe the jointly established rules and, through consultation, seek all-win solutions to common challenges we face.

Secondly, we should foster new sources of growth for the global economy. Innovation, more than anything else, is such a new source of growth. Research shows that 95 percent of the world’s businesses are now closely linked with the Internet, and the global economy is transitioning toward a digital economy. This means we should boost cooperation in digital economy and the new industrial revolution and jointly develop new technologies, new industries, new business models and new products. Another source of growth derives from making greater efforts to address the issue of development and implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and such efforts will both benefit developing countries and generate business and investment opportunities for developed countries. In other words, this will be a win-win game for all. At the Hangzhou Summit last year, we reached important consensus on innovation and development. This momentum of cooperation created has been sustained this year under the German chairmanship of G20. Going forward, we should see that more substantial and concrete outcomes are delivered.

Thirdly, we should work together to achieve more inclusive global growth. Currently, global economic growth is not balanced, and technological advances work against job creation. According to the projection of the World Economic Forum, artificial intelligence will take away more than 5 million jobs in the world by 2020. The G20 has an important mission, which is to reaffirm the vision of pursuing inclusive growth agreed upon at the Hangzhou Summit last year, and strike a balance between fairness and efficiency, between capital and labor, and between technology and employment. To achieve this goal, we must ensure synergy between economic and social policies, address the mismatch between industrial upgrading and knowledge and skills, and ensure more equitable income distribution. The G20 needs to place more importance on cooperation in education, training, employment, business start-up and wealth distribution-related mechanisms, as progress on these fronts will make economic globalization work better.

Fourthly, we should continue improving global economic governance. In the wake of the global financial crisis, the G20 has done a lot to improve macroeconomic policy coordination, reform international financial institutions, tighten international financial regulation and combat tax avoidance, thus ensuring financial market stability and recovery. We should build on these achievements. In particular, we should strengthen coordination of macroeconomic policies, forestall risks in financial markets and develop financial inclusion and green finance to make the financial sector truly drive the development of the real economy.

China recently hosted a successful Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation. Acting in the spirit of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits, the forum participants achieved fruitful outcomes in terms of boosting the connectivity of policies, infrastructure, trade, finance and people. Guided by a new vision of governance, we built a new platform of cooperation to tap into new sources of growth. The commitment of the Belt and Road Forum is highly compatible with the goal of the G20.

A German saying goes to the effect that, “Those who work alone, add; those who work together, multiply.” In this spirit, let us work together to promote interconnected growth for shared prosperity and build toward a global community with a shared future.

Thank you.

Bearing in mind that the majority of the Jewish Diaspora is not Zionist – only less than half reside in Israel, the majority being permanently resident in the US, and Europe – plus the documented fact that the overwhelming  proportion of Zionists are not even Jewish but are Evangelical Christians who number something in the region of 50 million – it is reasonably clear that the Jewish majority who currently live and work in the Diaspora, not only have no desire to move to one of the world’s most dangerous, geo-political trouble spots, but would dismiss the idea of the State of Israel being a safe haven for anyone, whether Jew or Gentile.  

So, what are the facts?

• The OECD in 2016 ranks Israel as the country with the highest rates of poverty among its members. 21% of Israelis live under the poverty line – (more than Mexico, Turkey or Chile).
• Israel has a population of about 8.5 million and is the 34^th most densely crowded country in the world.
• 20% of Israelis are Muslim Arab; a further 20% from the former USSR and another 20% being from North Africa. There is little commonality of ethnicity or purpose with the EU or any Western Europe state.
• Hebrew and Arabic are the official languages.

As a result of Likud government intransigence, there is now no peace process with the over five million indigenous Muslim Arabs, half of whom are forced to live under a 10 year Israeli blockade, of essential supplies, designed to try to break them. Tragically, there is now virtually no electricity or power in Gaza for its 600,000 families the majority of whom are deliberately kept unemployed and hungry.

However, there is an absolute imperative to recognise the difference between Jewish Diaspora communities in Europe and America, and the hard . 

The Jewish worldwide Diaspora is universally respected for its various talents (and its loyalty to its host countries), whereas the State of Israel is held in fear because of its massive, undeclared arsenal of nuclear warheads that could bring disaster to the world. There is virtually no commonality between the two. Israel is a secular, nuclear weapons state that has little connection with Judaism, or any respect for human dignity and life.

Meanwhile the region simmers on the brink of another expected war with Hezbollah, which would almost certainly involve heavy fatalities on both sides.

Hardly a place to holiday, much less a Dar-es-Salaam, by any stretch of the imagination.

Featured image from Wikimedia Commons