Planting “Regime Change” in Venezuela

July 2nd, 2017 by Maxim Nikolenko

The myth of human rights playing a decisive role in the diplomacy of the United States is an important façade to be broken before touching the current political crisis in Venezuela. A noble crusade for democracy and promotion of human rights are applied by the State Department only in times when these enlightening qualities serve the interests of Washington.

Thus, the regime change is conveyed to the public as liberal intervention, while the predominantly authoritarian outcomes of such liberal interventions are rarely discussed in the corporate press. This goes without plunging deep into describing the Western protectionism of the most repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Afghanistan, Egypt and Turkmenistan.

With such resume of hypocrisy, human rights and democracy were used to formally glorify the overthrow of Ukrainian government in 2014, replacing one corrupt regime with a right-wing, marionette and fascist-leaning oligarchy. Human rights were cited in Donald Trump’s speech to tighten the persisting and human rights violating embargo on Cuba. Promotion of democracy and human rights were cited in the West to justify liberal intervention, or in practice: a NATO-led slaughter of Libya, with David Cameron declaring the succeeding chaos an “inspiration for the world.”

The corporate media in the West is embedded with these political ventures. This means an overwhelmingly unfavorable coverage of certain governments is present only in times when there is a political agenda of suppressing or removing such regimes. A striking example has been Syria where the corporate press is actively involved in covering the conflict. That coverage overwhelmingly stands hostile to the Syrian government, echoing the U.S’s openly stated interest of seeing the downfall of Assad. On other side, there is coverage or the absence of it on Yemen.  For over 2 years, the Saudi-led and American-supported destruction of this country of 28 million had virtually gone unnoticed. Perhaps, the world’s worst cholera outbreak and the world’s worst humanitarian disaster don’t worth the news.

Yet, there is news, constant news, covering the political crisis in Venezuela. Daily reports are published on the corporate outlets reverberating the soaring crime, food shortages and poverty experienced by millions of ordinary Venezuelans. If considering their perspective a valid fact, Venezuela has been a failed state for over 2 years, with editorialists anxiously waiting for a final default. An overwhelming blame for the validly existing economic crisis was attributed to the socialist policies of Nicolás Maduro’s government, with Forbes arrogantly celebrating the setbacks of Bolivarian Revolution.

Certainly, there are failures for which the government is responsible. However, the fundamental factors influencing the crisis had virtually been ignored. The slump in oil prices and an outright economic war being fought against Venezuela, are out of discussion. The overthrow of a socialist government is.

Opposition supporters echo their leaders declaration that the Venezuelan government is now "officially a dictatorship."

Opposition supporters echo their leaders declaration that the Venezuelan government is now “officially a dictatorship.” (Source: teleSUR / Reagan Des Vignes)

For over 3 months, Venezuela had experienced violent protests from the opposition forces who are calling for ‘that’ overthrow. Daily clashes are occurring between the security forces and protesters. At least 87 deaths had so far been attributed to the violence. Venezuelan fractured opposition to the ruling socialist government is politically right-wing, supported by local elites who lobby for the exercise of neoliberal capitalist policies, practiced by many regional oligarchic allies of the United States. An independent investigative journalist, Abby Martin, was on the ground covering the demonstrations. Her report contradicts the mainstream portrayal of these protests. While the majority of anti-government demonstrators are peaceful, a small contingent of masked radicals is used on the “front lines” to clash with security forces. These provocateurs; sometimes outright fascists, are the most effective elements whose actions intend to provoke the international response.

And the response is coming. The government is now being charged with repression of the opposition protests. Barely any attention is taken on the opposition violence. Breakdown of the death toll is not reported, with all deaths automatically being blamed on the security forces. Yet, such data exists. The South American-based TeleSUR published a report with names of individuals who lost their lives in the crisis. Only 6 deaths are blamed on the security forces. The rest were killed in shootings, looting and lynching, exercised by the opposition mob. Other figures estimate the security forces to be responsible for over a dozen deaths.

With existing media blackout on such facts, it is not surprising that the American financial and diplomatic support for the opposition remains unchallenged. In fact, the American people themselves are encouraged to sponsor the protests. Embedded with the State Department, corporate press helps to circulate the message. An article published on Bloomberg describes in details how the protesters are armed and organized. This organization process involves helmets and goggles, worn by provocateurs on the front lines, coming “via private couriers. Portable radios and gas masks are smuggled across the border or sent on charter planes.” Venezuelan expats are holding “fund raisers” and their appeal for support is shared on social media networks. The article was open in connecting these actors to the previous incidents of unrest in Venezuela. Indeed, “they failed to oust Maduro back in 2014.”

Crowdfunding is described to be the key driving force of resistance. Small donations do contribute to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela. There are many campaign pages on GoFundMe and Generosity raising funds for the radicals in masks.

In my search for such fundraisers, I found 17 pages, (15 on GoFundMe and 2 on Generosity), specifically raising money for the protests. At the time of writing this article, the combined sum raised on these campaigns tops $102,584. The most successful fundraiser on Generosity raised $44,768 in small donations. The opening dates of these campaigns correlate with the period of current unrest in Venezuela. Beneficiaries of these funds will perhaps be the most radical elements on the ground, those who intend to provoke the international response.

In the meantime, liberal British newspaper the Guardian outlines 9 ways readers can support “Venezuelan human rights protests.”

Undoubtedly, crowdfunding provides just a small fraction of the money used to sponsor opposition. The most recent bill in Congress aims to provide Venezuela $9,500,000 on democracy promoting activities. Value of this sum would increase astronomically on the Venezuelan black market exchange. Ones again, the regime change agenda is painted with “democracy promotion” and human rights.

Vice President Tareck El Aissami (Source: Venezuela Analysis)

That “democracy promotion” also involves sanctions. It was the Obama administration who first imposed them on Venezuelan officials back in 2014. A year later, the non-militaristic republic was declared a threat to national security of the United States. Today, a list of sanctioned individuals includes 8 members of Venezuelan Supreme Court and top government officials, including the Vice President Tareck El Aissami, who was labeled a drug “kingpin” by Washington. If drug “kingpin” was the motive for sanctions on the Vice President, then a large circle of politicians and oligarchs in Mexico should long be veiled under similar restrictions. But Mexico is portrayed to us as a democracy while Venezuela is an authoritarian regime, requiring a package of democracy promoting measures.

Tough economic sanctions against Venezuela were also debated in Washington. If imposed, they will only exacerbate the already difficult situation facing millions of ordinary citizens.

In the time when multinational corporations and Washington are plaguing the economy and interfering in politics, the Bolivarian Revolution moves on implementing its promises. In a span of 6 years, over 1.4 million new homes were built across the country to rehouse the poorest families from the barrios. Since the triumphs of Chavistas in 1998, the rates of extreme poverty were successfully reduced while the literacy rates uplifted. Enrollment into institutions of higher education was surged from 670,000 in 1998 to 2,500,000 in 2013. Social security now covers over 2 million retired residents. These achievements had virtually received no credit on the American news outlets. Neither is mentioned the fact that in spite of economic strains, Venezuela continues to make payments on its debt, thus eroding the widely speculated narrative of default. Understandably, the mentioned triumphs against poverty and hunger had suffered setbacks from the economic woes. The government’s agenda, however, remains unshackled

Even before the economic crisis, before the scarcity of basic goods and manipulative use of currency devaluation, attempts were made to topple the socialist government from powers. Back in 2002, the Venezuelan elites had colluded with Washington to orchestrate a coup against the predecessor of Nicolás Maduro, the symbolic leader of Bolivarian Revolution, Hugo Chavez. They failed…  The power of ordinary citizens had restored the democratically elected leadership.

Nothing has changed since.

The Empire and its multinational corporations maintain a strong interest in Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, numerically the largest in the world. For them, the biggest crime committed by the government was the use of oil revenues for empowerment of ordinary citizens, the people who were forgotten and neglected by previous administrations. Reinforcing political influence over the government and privatizing control over the oil sector became an obsession. So far, it seems the elites and Washington are prepared to use any diplomatic and economic means to achieve the outlined goals. Thus, there is no end in sight to protests. Meanwhile, the ordinary Venezuelans face a tough road ahead.

“I always say we don’t want to be rich, our aim is not material wealth. It is to live with dignity”, emphasized Hugo Chavez in an interview with a renowned filmmaker and investigative journalist, John Pilger. The struggle to “live with dignity” continues for Venezuelans, similarly as it continues for the billions of people across the world.

It is not for the corporate Empire to decide on the lives of ordinary people and the expropriation of natural wealth their lands preserve. It is cannibalistic to use starvation as a weapon, forcing people submit to the cynically imposed ultimatums.

Venezuela deserves sovereignty! Venezuelan people deserve to “live with dignity.”

Maxim Nikolenko is a Russian native living in the U.S. He is the founder and editor of www.alterbeacon.com

Featured image from Land Destroyer Report

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Planting “Regime Change” in Venezuela

On Monday 26th June, the White House released a statement saying that the United States had “identified potential preparations for another chemical attack by the Assad regime…” It went on to say: “If, however, Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price.”

Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, followed that statement by tweeting,

“Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people.”

On Tuesday morning, speaking on BBC 4 Today programme, the British Defence Minister Sir Michael Fallon was asked how Britain would respond to another American attack on Syria, and he responded “we will support” future US action in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

With these unsubstantiated statements on Syria, the Trump Administration is dragging the world towards the law of the jungle. As if the situation in the Middle East was not bad enough, these warlike statements have made the situation much worse, and are in fact leading us towards a major confrontation in the Middle East with unimaginable consequences.

Some 14 years ago, in total violation of international law and without any authorization by the Security Council, former US President George W. Bush launched a barbaric attack on Iraq, which destroyed the country, killed and wounded more than a million people, and gave rise to ISIS that has since waged a campaign of terrorism throughout the world.

Far from having learned any lessons from that disastrous mistake, the Trump Administration seems intent on committing a similar mistake on a grander scale. During the campaign, Candidate Trump accused the former US Administration of having created ISIS, not indirectly but deliberately. He spoke about America having spent six trillion dollars on illegal wars in the Middle East and having nothing to show for it. He vowed that he would not be interested in regime change and was intent on resolving international disputes through negotiations and deals.

Whether he has changed his mind or whether the neocons in the Administration and the deep state have infiltrated and dominated his administration makes little difference. The clear fact is that the Trump Administration is acting in a dangerous and arrogant way and is dragging the world towards another catastrophe.

Shortly after coming to power, President Donald Trump and his disgraced National Security Advisor Michael Flynn singled Iran out for condemnation and put her on notice, despite the fact that the Iranian government had spent hundreds of hours in constructive talks not only with the United States, but with all the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany and had reached a landmark agreement that was then endorsed by the Security Council.

The agreement blocked all the paths to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, even if she ever had any intention of manufacturing them, something that Iran has denied, and years of investigation have not provided a shred of evidence to the contrary.

President Trump chose Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahhabi fundamentalism that has provided the ideological framework for nearly all the militant Sunni terrorist groups from Al Qaeda, to the Taliban, to Boko Haram and finally to ISIS and its various affiliates, which have created mayhem throughout the world, including the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, as the venue for his first foreign visit. While in Riyadh, he bizarrely formed a “coalition against extremism” with Saudi leaders at its head.

However, as Trump made absolutely clear in his speech to the unelected Arab monarchs, the main aim of the coalition was to unite those Sunni potentates against Iran.

US rocket artillery system in Syria (Source: South Front)

In the past few weeks, America has launched a number of attacks on the positions of the forces allied with the Syrian government in their battle against ISIS. On 18th May and 6th June, American aircraft bombed pro-Syrian militias in southern Syria. They shot down two Iranian-made drones on 8th and 20 June, and on 18th June a US fighter shot down a Syrian aircraft near the town of Tabqah, west of Raqqa, while the Syrian aircraft was attacking ISIS forces in Raqqa. American and Israeli forces have also frequently attacked the forces affiliated with the Syrian government.

On 6th April, the day when Trump was playing host to the Chinese President, he fired 59 Tomahawk missiles at the air base from which a Syrian aircraft that had allegedly used chemical weapons had taken off. This was despite the fact that the United Nations was still investigating the source of the attack and some evidence produced since, including an article by award winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, have cast doubt on the veracity of those accusations.

As Syrian forces, backed by Russia and Iran, are gaining the upper hand and pushing the terrorists and the insurgents out of Syria, the intensity of Israeli and American attacks on Syrian government forces has increased.

From the start of the crisis in Syria, there have been a number of theories based on some leaked information that claimed that the entire debacle in Syria was part of a vicious plot by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States, initially supported by Turkey and Qatar, to isolate Iran and to cut off any links between Iran and Hezbollah through Syria.

Sadly, all the recent events seem to confirm those assumptions. The US Secretary of State has openly spoken about the need for regime change in Tehran, and many members of Congress have also backed those calls. The US Congress has again imposed new sanctions on Iran in clear violation of the JCPOA. American courts have blocked huge Iranian assets and have turned them over to the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, despite the fact that 15 out of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens.

A court is considering at the moment the confiscation of a major building belonging to an Iranian foundation in New York again on flimsy charges.

However, whether those theories about US involvement in Syria in support of Israel and against Iran were correct or not, the fact remains that the Trump Administration, once again supported by Britain, is engaged in an illegal and dangerous course of action that may result in a major confrontation between Russia and Iran on the one hand, and the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia on the other.

There is no need to point out that these actions are in clear violation of the UN Charter and are aggressive actions taken illegally in a sovereign state. However, there are a number of points that need to be stressed in this connection:

1. On the basis of which authority is the United States engaging in hostile acts in Syria against that country’s legal government? Russian and Iranian forces have been invited by the Syrian government to fight against the terrorists. By what authority does the United States station her forces in that country and attack Syrian forces?

2. Is the Trump Administration sincere in wanting to fight against ISIS or not? If it is, then why has it intensified its attacks on Syrian and allied forces just at a time when ISIS is on the verge of collapse?

3. Does the Trump Administration believe in democracy, free elections and the rule of law or not? If it does, then how is it possible to side with a number of autocratic rulers in Riyadh on the day when millions of Iranians took part in competitive and vibrant elections with 76 per cent turnout to choose their new president?

4. Is the Trump Administration interested in changing the behavior of the Iranian government, with greater freedoms and more emphasis on human rights, or is it intent on regime change no matter what, in order to please its Israeli and Arab clients? Iran has moved a long way towards greater openness at home and greater coexistence with the West, as evidenced by the JCPOA. Is it not wiser to allow these democratic practices to take their course in the only country in the Middle East with the greatest potential for democracy and cooperation with the West?

5. Has the Trump Administration calculated the cost of another major war in the Middle East, which might prove to be even more disastrous than the invasion of Iraq and Libya? If it hasn’t, is it not time for the international community to tell the US Administration that it will not bear the brunt of another unnecessary catastrophe in the Middle East?

6. During the campaign, candidate Trump often talked about how good it would be to cooperate with Russia to fight ISIS. Russia and Iran have been the two countries that have been fighting ISIS both in Syria and Iraq ever since that terrorist organization was formed. If Trump meant what he said, why is he not cooperating with Russia to finish the job in Syria, instead of hampering Russian and Iranian efforts in support of the Syrian government to restore peace to that country? Have Trump and his generals thought about the consequences of a confrontation with Russia for America and the world?

7. Does the Trump Administration believe in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict with some justice for the hard-pressed Palestinians who have lived under a brutal occupation for more than 50 years, or is it going to turn a blind eye to their suffering by supporting Israel’s illegal occupation? For the sake of sustainable peace in the Middle East, would it not be better to put some pressure on Israel to reach a fair settlement with the millions of Palestinians either on a one-state or a two-state solution, instead of destabilizing the Middle East in support of unreasonable Israeli demands?

8. During the campaign, Mr. Trump strongly criticized President Obama for having set a red line for Syria not to use chemical weapons, and then did nothing when Syria allegedly used chemical weapons. Does he realize that by issuing such statements he is making an open invitation to the terrorists to undertake such false flag operations and then he will be boxed in and would have no option but to launch a heavy attack on Syria, whether the government was responsible for the use of chemical weapons or not?

9. Finally, does the Trump Administration believe in the rule of law, the supremacy of the Security Council and the need for negotiations and talks, or does it believe in the law of the jungle? If it believes in the rule of law and peaceful resolution of conflicts, it should clearly stop any action that is not authorized by the Security Council and that goes against international law.

The world is poised at a very critical juncture.

The events in Syria could either lead to the restoration of stability in that war-torn country whose people have gone through unimaginable hardships, or it can pave the way for a global confrontation the outcome of which is too frightening to contemplate.

Featured image from The Arab American News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington’s New Threat Against Syria, Russia and Iran: Invitation to False Flag Operation

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – The OPCW said earlier in the day that its fact-finding mission had established the use of sarin in the April 4 incident in Khan Sheikhoun in the province of Idlib.

“Unfortunately, we are forced to state on the first reading of the document that its conclusions are still based on very doubtful data,” the Russian ministry’s information and press department said.

It noted that the OPCW’s data was “obtained from the same opposition and the same notorious NGOs of the White Helmet type, and not at the site of the tragedy but in a certain ‘neighboring country’.”

“Therefore, it is not surprising that the content of the OPCW special mission’s report is largely biased, suggesting the presence of a political order in this structure’s activity,” the ministry said.

Featured image from OPCW

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on OPCW’s Syrian Sarin Gas Report Based on Doubtful Data – Russian Foreign Ministry

One of the biggest experiments involving human subjects ever conducted anywhere is taking place right before our eyes, and the world is silent.

The project is at its peak and the world shows no interest. This experiment on human beings, unsanctioned by any of the international scientific institutions whose oversight is required by the Helsinki Declaration, seeks to examine human behaviour in situations of extreme stress and deprivation.

The experimental group does not comprise just a few, nor dozens or hundreds, nor thousands or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people. The experimental population includes no fewer than two million human beings.

Thus far they have stood the test amazingly well. While some turbulence is evident inside the pressure cooker within which they are confined, it has not yet exploded. The Gaza Strip is being watched to see when and in what form it will ultimately explode. This is apparently only a matter of time.

As presented by Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt: What happens to two million human beings when they are deprived of electricity nearly all the time, day and night? What happens to them in winter, and in spring, and especially now, in the terrible heat of a Middle Eastern summer?

This experiment, like all such experiments, is being conducted in a phased manner. The frog is to be cooked in water that will gradually be heated until it boils.

At first Gaza was deprived of electricity for about a third of each 24 hours, then for about half, and now the level has been ratcheted up such that the two million residents of Gaza have electricity for only about 2.5 hours in each 24. Let’s see what that does to them. Let’s watch how they respond. And how about when they are supplied with electricity for only a single hour per day? Or for one hour per week? This experiment is still in its early stages, and no one can foresee its end.

The location of this experiment is among the most cursed parcels of land on earth. Forty kilometres long, its width varying between 5.7km and 12.5km, with a total area of 365 square kilometres – the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated places in the world. According to the CIA, in July 2016 there were some 1.7 million people there; the Palestinian Authority cites two million residents as of October 2016.

In any case, a million of them are considered refugees or the children or grandchildren of refugees, about half of whom are still living in refugee camps. Compared with other refugee camps elsewhere in the Arab world, the camps in Gaza are considered especially wretched, except perhaps for the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria. The refugees in Gaza were expelled or fled from Israel in 1948 and comprise about a fifth of all Palestinian refugees in the world.

This population has rarely known any meaningful period of quiet, security or minimal economic welfare. Their situation today may be at its worst and most despairing, and a UN report has already concluded that in another two-and-a-half years or so, by 2020, the Gaza Strip will no longer be habitable, largely due to the escalating water problem. The new cuts in electricity are exacerbating the plight of these human beings as the experiment continues.

In the last decade, this battered strip of land has also turned into a cage, the largest cage on earth.

Gaza is surrounded: by Israel to the north and east and by Egypt to the south, and on its western boundary by the sea, where the Israeli military has absolute control. Since the advent of Hamas rule in Gaza, Israel in cooperation with Egypt has imposed a siege. The siege has been eased somewhat over the years, but remains a siege, especially with respect to the movement of people into and out of Gaza and the almost total prohibition on the export of goods.

But even that isn’t sufficient. Gaza’s torments are far from over. Now comes the reduced supply of electricity.

In this file photo, a Palestinian woman and her children light candles during a power outage in Gaza City, on November 10, 2013

In this file photo, a Palestinian woman and her children light candles during a power outage in Gaza City, on November 10, 2013 (Source: phys.org)

Gaza has a single electric power plant, which cannot produce as much electricity as is consumed. Launched in 2002 with a production capacity of about 140 megawatts, the plant is limited by the carrying capacity of its grid and in 2006 was producing only 90 megawatts, with 120 additional megawatts supplied by Israel, paid for in full, of course.

The plant was blown up by Israel after the abduction of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in the summer of 2006, when it was producing 43% of Gaza’s electricity consumption. After reconstruction, the plant reached a production capacity of about 80 megawatts. But even this is entirely dependent on Israel, which is the plant’s only supplier of diesel fuel and spare parts.

When the siege was first imposed, Israel began restricting the quantity of diesel fuel it supplied. Gaza needs between 280 and 400 megawatts of electricity, depending on the season. About a third of the total required, some 120 megawatts, was coming from Israel, and 60-70 megawatts was coming from the power plant. There was a chronic shortage of electricity in Gaza even before the most recent decrease. Gazans have been without electricity for some hours every day for years now.

On 11 June of this year, Israel’s security cabinet decided to cut the supply of electricity provided by Israel to Gaza as per a request by the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. That set off the present crisis, the worst so far. The power struggle between Abbas and Hamas, which rules in Gaza, a struggle in which Israel cooperates in a contemptible manner with the PA, has created the present situation. In this situation there are no good guys and bad guys, but only bad guys.

About two weeks after the cabinet decision, Israel cut back on its supply again and eliminated another eight megawatts from the 120 megawatts it was providing. In consequence, the supply in some parts of Gaza, especially in the west and south, has been reduced to only about two-and-a-half hours of electricity in each 24 hours. Two-and-a-half hours of electricity per day.

It’s hard to imagine the day-to-day routine in this sweltering heat with only two-and-a-half hours of electricity a day. It’s hard to picture how food can be kept fresh, frightening to think of all the ordinary human tasks being done without electricity, awful to consider all the hospital patients whose lives depend on electricity.

Not long ago, an article in Haaretz (4 June) by Mohammed Azaizeh, who works for the Israeli human rights organization Gisha, described what was happening in the Al-Rantisi Hospital in Gaza.

In the paediatric ICU, children were hooked up to respirators for which the electricity was available only a few hours each day, their lives now dependent on a generator. Sometimes the generator breaks down. Hospital director Dr Muhammad Abu Sulwaya described the situation in his hospital as catastrophic. In the other Gaza hospitals the situation is, of course, similar.

Children receive kidney dialysis treatment at al-Rantisi pediatric hospital in Gaza. (Photo by Dr. Rand Askalan through The Electronic Intifada)

Thus the residents of Gaza again fall victim to cynical political machinations that play out at their expense. The unbridled power struggles and ego games between Abbas and Hamas, between Egypt and Hamas, and between Israel and all the others have consequences that reach as far as the paediatric respirators for the children at Al-Rantisi.

No one can see where this will end, with the parties only further entrenching their positions and the world responding with apathy. The lack of electricity results in a lack of clean water and flooding of untreated sewage. Gaza is accustomed to all of that, but even the fantastic and unparalleled resilience of Gaza’s residents has its limits.

Israel bears primary responsibility for this situation, due to the siege it imposes, but Israel is certainly not the only culprit.

The PA and Egypt are full partners in this crime. Yes, crime. This is 2017 and preventing millions of human beings from receiving electricity means depriving them of oxygen and water. Israel’s responsibility cries out to the heavens because Gaza is still under partial Israeli occupation.

Although Israel withdrew its military and its settlers from the Gaza Strip, it retains sole responsibility for many other aspects of life in Gaza. This makes Israel responsible for providing electricity for Gaza’s residents. The PA also bears a heavy responsibility for the current situation, in which it is abusing its own people. Likewise Egypt, which likes to refer to itself loftily as the sister of Palestinians, even as its own role in the siege of Gaza is intolerable.

Gaza is dying, slowly. Elsewhere, its suffering matters to no one. No one in Washington, or Brussels, or Jerusalem, or Cairo nor even in Ramallah. Incredibly, there is evidently almost no one who cares that two million people are abandoned to the dark at night and to the sweltering heat of the summer days, with nowhere to run and no shred of hope. Nothing.

Gideon Levy is a Haaretz columnist and a member of the newspaper’s editorial board. Levy joined Haaretz in 1982, and spent four years as the newspaper’s deputy editor. He was awarded the 2015 Olof Palme human rights prize and was the recipient of the Euro-Med Journalist Prize for 2008; the Leipzig Freedom Prize in 2001; the Israeli Journalists’ Union Prize in 1997; and The Association of Human Rights in Israel Award for 1996. His new book, The Punishment of Gaza, has just been published by Verso.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Gaza: Israel’s Experiment on Humans in Situations of Extreme Stress and Deprivation

Featured image: Pro-government forces hold the Syrian flag as they pose for a photo in the village of al-Sahel, near the rebel held town of Yabrud, nearly 80 kilometres north of Damascus, on March 4, 2014.

Three maps of Syria show the immense progress the Syrian government forces and their allies have made over the last few month.

During the last half year the Syrian Arab Army not only liberated al-Qaeda held parts of east-Aleppo city, but also the Islamic State held eastern part of Aleppo governate. The closing move happened yesterday when the last ISIS held area in the governate was cut off and the enemy retreated. The area north of the arrows is now free of ISIS fighters. Mines, IEDs and sleeper agents still need to be searched for.

via IslamicWorldUpdate – See bigger picture here

In a next step the Syrian Army will move simultaneously from north and south to connect the red areas between (roughly) south of Al-Thawrah and Palmyra. This will enclose and clean the ISIS bulge in the west and secure Homs governate as well as the supply line to Aleppo city.

The Russian rearming, retraining and reorganizing of the Syrian Army has really helped. Russian air support delivers the necessary protection and interdiction capabilities for large movements. De-conflicting zones in the western part of the country as well as the cleanup of several pockets of “rebels” near the big cities freed up ten-thousands of Syrian soldiers. The reinforcements provided through Iran created the additional temporary manpower needed to regain and clean the liberated areas. A total of 40,000 men are engaged in the eastern campaign. When the local Syrian government structures are re-established in the liberated areas the additional forces will no longer be needed.

On a larger scale the immense progress of the Syrian government during the last six month becomes even more obvious. The (red) government held areas were enlarged considerably:

January 1, 2017

via Chelsea4Life – See bigger picture here

July 1, 2017

via Chelsea4Life – See bigger picture here

Note that most of the (grey) ISIS area in the east is uninhabited steppe or desert. ISIS is concentrated in a few villages and cities along the Euphrates river. The south-eastern green area, currently held by U.S. supported “rebels”, is also mostly empty space. To liberate these areas still requires some diligence and time to prevent ambushes and to remove the few enemy strongholds along the way.

The above maps put to rest the often repeated propaganda about a presumed “unwillingness” of the SAA to fight ISIS. According to IHS Janes the forces of the Syrian government coalition, not the U.S. supported “rebels”, are the most engaged in defeating ISIS in Syria:

Between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017, 43 percent of all Islamic State fighting in Syria was directed against President Assad’s forces, 17 against the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the remaining 40 percent involved fighting rival Sunni opposition groups — in particular, those who formed part of the Turkey-backed Euphrates Shield coalition.

Without external hostile interference the legitimate Syrian government will be back in control of all significant parts of its country by the end of this year.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria – These Maps Show a Year of Progress in the Government’s Campaign against Al Qaeda and ISIS

“Those two members of the – this paramilitary right wing…they were arrested and then they were released, and we see the intimidation…they appear in court, and they disrupt the work of the judges. Seeing this and how powerful they are,  judges might…some of them just prolong these pre-detention terms because they don’t want any trouble. Because they can come to their houses.” – Halyna Mokrushyna (from this week’s interview).

This level of freedom that is now, including against civil society is unprecedented. Never in the history of Ukraine has not had this level of freedom and against journalists and against civil society,”   – Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko. (May 14, 2017)[1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

As the award-winning investigative journalist Robert Parry has detailed in his writings over the past three years, there is a persistent narrative in the Western press about the displacement of the former Yanukovych government as a victory of a democratic popular uprising over autocratic rule.[2]

According to the standard Western narrative, a “new era of freedom” had emerged over Ukraine, challenged only by Russia’s ‘illegal interference’  first in Crimea, and then in the south and east regions known as the Donbass.[3]

In spite of the well documented involvement of US politicians and US financial resources (ie. the $5 billion Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland boasted about ‘investing’ in the country’s ‘democratic’ future), Western media typically blame Russia for destabilizing Ukraine and interfering in its internal affairs.

Apparently, the democratic renaissance ushered in by the Euromaidan has yet to fully flourish. According to TheDuran, in the period between January 29, 2015 and July 20, 2016, 11 politicians and journalists critical of the post-Yanukovych government have been killed under mysterious circumstances. These include journalist Oles Buzyna (discussed on a previous installment of this program), Russian journalist Pavel Sheremet (perished when the car in which he was traveling exploded) and a number of apparent ‘suicides.’

The chill on dissent can be instigated in more subtle ways. Take the case of high profile journalist Igor Guhzva. On June 22, the editor-in-chief of independent media outlet strana.ua had his offices searched. He was detained and charged with having attempted to extort money from a politician in the Rada, a charge he denies. His lawyer, and outside observers believe the charges are a pretense for containing an effective critic of the government.

In post-EuroMaidan Ukraine, accusations of being a ‘Kremlin stooge’ can substitute for reasoned debate in disarming Poproshenko’s political opponents. The principle of ‘holding the powerful to account’ becomes conflated with treason, inviting physical intimidation from thugs subjecting their targets to serious bodily harm and property damage.

(above: surveillance camera footage of an attack on the Vesti newspaper from July, 2014)

The US-based watchdog group Freedom House acknowledges the continuation of ‘Violence, threats, intimidation, and harassment against media professionals and organizations,’ in Ukraine, however in its most recent report it notes, “Ukraine’s media environment has significantly improved since a change in government in 2014, and ongoing reforms continue to strengthen the legislative environment for journalists and outlets.” It should be noted however that the major sponsors of Freedom House, including the National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Department of State, The Walt Disney Company, Lockheed Martin, and Northrup Grumman, are all aligned with the same foreign policy goals of the same U.S. government conducting a propaganda campaign against Putin’s Russia.[4][5]

This week’s installment of the Global Research News Hour, the last of the regular 2016-2017 season makes an effort to reveal the suppression of speech, thought and press freedom hidden under the veil of protection from a malevolent internal threat. In a feature interview, our guest Ukrainian-Canadian Halyna Mokrushyna addresses the trumped up charges against journalists Igor Guhzva and Ruslan Kostaba, the equation of communist writings with terrorism, the failure of popular political movements, and the isolation she has experienced as a member of the Ukrainian diaspora departing from the standard Ukraine narrative.

Halyna Mokhushyna is a regular contributor to the independent site newcoldwar.org. She is currently enrolled in the PhD program in Sociology at the University of Ottawa and a part-time professor. Her doctoral project deals with the memory of Stalinist purges in Ukraine. She travelled to Lviv, Kyiv, Kharkiv and Donetsk in the summer of 2013 to conduct her field research. She last traveled to the region in April of 2015.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in everyThursday at 6pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

Notes:

  1. http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=14466
  2. https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukraine/
  3.  http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=14466
  4. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2017/ukraine
  5. https://freedomhouse.org/content/our-supporters

At the same time Trudeau and the monopoly media are “celebrating” killing people at distances of over three kilometres, the Trudeau Liberals blatantly deny that we are even involved in combat operations. “One wonders what effect that has upon soldiers simultaneously being asked to kill people and then being told that what they are actually doing is ‘advising and assisting’.”

Canadian media has been celebrating the world record for “longest kill shot” reportedly earned by a Canadian sniper in Iraq:

A Canadian sniper working alongside Iraqi forces in their fight against ISIS successfully struck a member of the militant group from a distance of 3,540 metres, Canada’s military confirmed Thursday.

The sniper is a member of the elite Joint Task Force 2 special forces unit, but citing operation security the military provided no details about how or when the incident took place.

The Globe and Mail first reported the sniper record Thursday and quoted unnamed military sources who said the kill shot disrupted an ISIS attack on Iraqi security forces.

The shot surpasses the previous record held by a British soldier, who in 2009 shot a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan from a distance of 2,475 metres.

Photo from cbc.ca

This news comes amid calls for a public inquiry into the murder of Shanna, Brenda, and Aaliyah by Lionel Desmond, and his suicide. Desmond was suffering from PTSD when he killed the women in his family and then took his own life, and veterans advocates have been critical of the mental health supports available:

Peter Stoffer says a judicial inquiry would shed light on the inner workings of many organizations including the Department of National Defence, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Nova Scotia health system, and the mental health care system.

The story about the sniper is clearly a piece of propaganda from military sources intended to boost the prestige of the Canadian military right when Trudeau is increasing military spending by 70 per cent over the next decade to $32.7 billion dollars. This new spending particularly emphasizes funding for special forces operations, so the placement of a news story promoting the “elite” nature of Canada’s special forces is hardly coincidence.

As Tony Seed observes in his blog:

The more than $30 billion in announced additional military spending over the next decade alone, most of which will be paid to the biggest arms monopolies, will result in the great parasitism of Canada’s economy and social wealth. This figure does not include costs related to future military deployments or any of the government’s subsequent “decisions related to continental defence and NORAD modernization.” Although it is a truism to note how far these sums of money would go towards providing for the people’s well-being, just as significant is the fact that this wealth is directed away from the all-sided development of the economy towards militarism.

This story also induces some cognitive dissonance. When “kill shots” are being treated in the national media as though they are simply levels in a video game and not human beings being called upon to kill other human beings, it shouldn’t be any wonder that troops are returning with severe PTSD.

In all the discussion of Lionel Desmond’s PTSD, there was little public discussion of what it is that we are sending troops into war to do. The vague idea that the Canadian public generally holds that we’re engaged in “peacekeeping” allows a distancing of the extreme and horrifying violence of combat, and the terrible things soldiers are called upon to do. There is little willingness to engage with the idea that if people are returning so deeply traumatized, maybe we should be questioning our involvement in military action and not just the mental health services available to veterans.

What happened to the previous record holder for longest sniper kill, Sergeant Craig Harrison? He developed post-traumatic stress disorder after his discharge:

Sgt Craig Harrison, who served in the army for 23 years, told ABC news that he felt like he was “hung out to dry,” when he was discharged. “They didn’t even say thank you,” he said.

Over the course of his career, Sgt Harrison completed multiple deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, the latter of which caused him to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Sgt Harrison said that his nightmares were related to the people he had killed, that “I can smell them, I can see them. Every person who I have taken their life”.

That, of course, is conveniently left out of the news coverage of the current record holder.

At the same time Canada is celebrating killing people at distances of over three kilometres, the government is denying that we are even involved in combat operations. One wonders what effect that has upon soldiers simultaneously being asked to kill people and then being told that what they are actually doing is “advising and assisting.”

In this article from 2014, it’s suggested that the high rates of suicide and PTSD experienced by troops who served in Afghanistan is also impacted by public attitudes:

It’s a vicious cycle as those who go to war feel extra mental stress when they sense their sacrifice is unappreciated, and their cause diminished by post-war indifference.

And it doesn’t help when Canadians talk a bold game about “supporting the troops” but don’t deliver.

If the public doesn’t believe troops are actually engaged in combat, I imagine that makes it more difficult for people returning from war to actually speak about their experiences. If your family and friends believe you were out there “assisting and advising” and have no idea what you actually did, then I imagine it’s even harder to try to explain to people why you are so traumatized now.

Meanwhile, spending for war is being increased while Canada buries the violent impacts of war, asking us to cheer on sniper shots like we’re watching a Hollywood movie while pretending that war is benign and that our “150 years of being nice” means that we must be peacefully and politely going about the business of war.

So at the same time as we tell Indigenous women that equality costs too much, we increase military spending. At the same time as we pledge to make more war across the planet, cause more refugees, and impoverish more women and children, we brag about our supposed international reputation for being “nice and friendly.” We talk about the tragedy of the Desmond family, but turn around and rah rah killing in war like it’s the same as getting the record for most puppies walking at the same time, or most children jumping through a skipping rope.

And while even talking about things like free community college education or a living wage or assistance levels that allow people some dignity is “puppies and rainbows,” we can spend billions of dollars to stoke global conflict. We treat joining the military like it’s a social program that solves issues of poverty or lack of access to education or “behaviour problems in youth,” so we can’t send mental health counsellors into Black communities, but we can tell Black men just to join up as the path to respectability and stability.

We are turning women away from domestic violence shelters because we don’t fund enough beds, so women have no place to run to. We don’t even talk about the lives of women who are shot to death and we bury them a day later and in private, but we have all the space in the world to celebrate “kill shots.”

We won’t pay for inquiries into deaths in prisons or deaths in nursing homes or from military PTSD – or pay to make the changes that presumably those inquiries would demand – but we have money for more drones. Austerity tells us there’s just no money for housing or for drug treatment centres so I guess people will just have to die in prison un-investigated, but we are bringing democracy and civilization to the rest of the world.

And as we are inundated with celebrations of Canada 150, and told what a peaceful and welcoming country we live in, and how lucky we are to live in such a good country, and how we don’t have violence and conflict like other places, and as we erase histories of Indigenous genocide, we publish military propaganda pretending that killing people is some kind of game, but just as long as Canada is on top in the killing game, it’s all glorious and free.

El Jones is a poet, teacher and activist in Halifax. She writes the Saturday Morning File for the Halifax Examiner, in which this article first appeared on June 24, 2017.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada 150: The Media’s Obscene “Heroization” of Special Ops and the ‘Longest Kill Shot’

Permanent War Against Humans and the Planet

July 2nd, 2017 by Nora Fernandez

Featured image: U.S. Marines raise their flag atop Mount Suribachi, Iwo Jima, Feb. 23, 1945 (Source: latinamericanstudies.org)

War is evil; permanent war is permanent evil. It is evil to humans but also to other species and the planet; the weapons used destroy us but also contaminate and destroy nature.

Despite a general knowledge of the evils of war and acceptance of peace and the rule of law, war has become a permanent feature of the 21st century -destructive, cruel, dehumanizing and vindictive. Its message: those who can kill and destroy the most have the upper hand. Major General Smedley Butler said it in a speech in 1933: “war is a racket.” Butler, who had joined the Marine Corps in 1898, predicted WWII and ongoing wars thereafter; he served his country for 34 years but understood how war worked and our limits in putting an end to it (1).

At the helm of 21st century paranoia with war we find NATO and the U.S. The U.S. has an aggressive history that includes its own Civil War, about a century after its war of independence in 1776, costing at a minimum the lives of some 620 000 to 820 000 soldiers.

Based on 1860 census 8 percent of all white males between the ages of 13 and 43 died in the war, including 6 percent in the North and 18 percent in the South…the war destroyed much of the wealth that had existed in the South –confederate bonds forfeited, banks and railroads bankrupt, income dropped to less that 40 percent of that of the North, something that lasted into the 20 century.” (2)

Since the 1991 offensive of George H.W. Bush administration against Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and a number of strikes by the Clinton administration (in 1993, 1996 and 1998 -Dessert Fox), the world has been at war since 2003 when the George W. Bush administration, and the “coalition of the willing,” invaded Iraq. There was a plan:

 “He (G.W. Bush) reiterated his commitment to preemption in his West Point speech in June.

“If we wait for threats to fully materialize we will have waited too long,” he said. “We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge.”

Although it was less noted, Bush in that same speech also reintroduced the Plan’s central theme. He declared that the United States would prevent the emergence of a rival power by maintaining “military strengths beyond challenge.” With that, the President effectively adopted a strategy his father’s administration had developed ten years earlier to ensure that the United States would remain the world’s preeminent power. While the headlines screamed “preemption,” no one noticed the declaration of the dominance strategy.”(3)

The Bush administration obtained Congress’ approval for this attack knowing well that the UN would not authorize a resolution favoring a UN attack. Kofi Annan, then UN Secretary General, called the United States’ attack “an illegal act of war” but this did not end it. The American Congress authorization for the attack would turn into the facto approval for permanent war; the costs of war unexamined or optimistically under-estimated. The public everywhere remains ignorant of the actual costs of war that include not only our dead and wounded, but our enemies,’ civilians dead or wounded, the death of other species, and the economic and environmental destruction caused by war. Furthermore, the constant danger of war escalating into a global conflict is disregarded or dismissed. The hope in making all this more visible is increasing awareness about risks, so that rational, moral perspectives prevail and life holocaust is prevented.

War: from racket to permanent destruction

Smedley Buttler identified war as a racket, making fortunes for some while costing much to the majority and the lives of many:

“It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious (racket). It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is…something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about…conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets?…..

The general public shoulders the bill.” (1)

On December 2015, Barack Obama (then president of the U.S.) while making comments at the Air Force base of Tampa (Florida) explained that permanent war had never been authorized:

As you know all too well, your mission — and the course of history — was changed after the 9/11 attacks. By the time I took office, the United States had been at war for seven years. For eight years that I’ve been in office, there has not been a day when a terrorist organization or some radicalized individual was not plotting to kill Americans. And on January 20th, I will become the first President of the United States to serve two full terms during a time of warRight now, we are waging war under authorities provided by Congress over 15 years ago — 15 years ago. I had no gray hair 15 years ago. Two years ago, I asked Congress, let’s update the authorization, provide us a new authorization for the war against ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant), reflecting the changing nature of the threats, reflecting the lessons that we’ve learned from the last decade. So far, Congress has refused to take a vote. Democracies should not operate in a state of permanently authorized war. That’s not good for our Military. It’s not good for our democracy.” (4)

The Trump administration, however, does not seem worried about the issue and continues to wage war with the authorization Congress extended to Bush in 2001. Ashton Carter, Trump’ s Secretary of Defense, stated clearly that he is not concerned, in fact, he believes the coalition must be kept militarily active even after the inevitable expelling of ISIL from Mosul and Raqqa. In Washington, officials seem to agree in essence that the war against terror must continue. Edward Hunt raises concerns about how promises about ending the war and in favor of peace are regularly made while the state of permanent war continues. Ending it, Hunt says, requires political commitment because the U.S. has been changed profoundly so to return to how it was before requires effort. President Trump remains unconcerned about permanent war. Trump increased the U.S. military budget for 2017 by 5 percent commenting at the time that “the fighting is wonderful”. (5)

Militarism and Environmental Contamination, at home and everywhere

Many try to ignore how militarism contaminates the environment turning the issue into the “white elephant” sitting in the living room. The ecological print of the Military in the U.S. is undeniable and huge; and it is an issue even within the 4127 military installations sitting on 19 million acres of land. Maureen Sullivan, head of the Department of Ecological Programs of the Pentagon, recognized this in 2014 explaining that she was dealing with 39 000 contaminated sites with an estimated cost of 27 000 million American dollars. John D. Dingell, Congressman from Michigan, who served during WWII, argued that practically all U.S. military sites are seriously contaminated.

King Island Tasmania 2009 stranding. Scientists believe that naval sonar from both Australian and US Navy may have been responsible. — Island, Tasmania 2009 (Source: Champions for Cetaceans)

In addition, American Military are the world’s greatest consumers of oil and the third major polluters of the U.S. waterways. They use extremely contaminating nuclear power –which they need to fabricate bombs. Also, the U.S. government has concealed nuclear accidents for the past 50 years by compensating 33 000 armament workers (dead today) for health damages. The Pentagon is one of the main emitters of greenhouse gases in the world while the Department of Defense burns contaminants in open pits seriously contaminating the air. We know that military sonar(s) kill whales and dolphins; that chemical weapons and depleted uranium used by the Military destroy human health and ecosystems; and that U.S. Military bases are the most toxic places in the U.S. as their per-chlorate and trichloroethylene have filtered down into aquifers, soil and drinking water. Nuclear arms tested in the South East of the U.S. (and the South Pacific islands) have contaminated millions of hectares of land and water with radiation; uranium has contaminated Navajo Reserve lands, and “rusting barrels of chemicals and solvents and millions of rounds of ammunition are criminally abandoned by the Pentagon in bases around the world.” (6)

In Canada the Distant Early Warning Line (DEW Line), designed by MIT scientists to give advance warning of Soviet bombers heading over the North Pole, is a clear example of military contamination. It took a lot of materials, money and effort to build it -460 000 tons of materials, 45 000 commercial flights completed delivering them, 75 million gallons of petroleum products consumed, 22 000 tons of food in 1 million containers shipped to the Line, and 20 000 people working there to complete it by 1958. But, half of the Line was obsolete by 1963 because of intercontinental ballistic missiles and other emerging technology and by 1993 all the stations were closed. Thankfully, in 1996 Canada’s Department of National Defense launched one of North America biggest environmental clean ups and cleaned the area; it cost C$575 million (of which C$ 92 million came from the U.S.). There were about 40 million kilograms of soil contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and lead incinerated, 283 000 cubic meters of less contaminated soil buried on site in new engineered landfills, and more than 200 000 cubic meters of soil contaminated with diesel fuel placed in land farms till the hydrocarbon evaporated to acceptable levels. There were also thousands of cubic meters of garbage in 83 non-hazardous waste landfills covered with gravel. (7)

Barry Sanders, Fulbright senior chief researcher, twice nominated to the Pulitzer, argues that the war on terror is really a war against our planet:

If…the United States invaded Iraq to ensure oil…in trying to reach that goal the United States have consumed, destroyed and burnt a huge amount (of oil).”

In fleeing Kuwait, the Army of Iraq burnt more than 600 oil wells, 5 to 6 million barrels of oil turned into smoke together with 70 to 100 million cubic meters of natural gas. The clouds were huge covering 10 thousand square miles, blocking the Sun and killing about a thousand people from inhalation of acrid smoke. To this we have to add about 60 million barrels of oil that filtered into the soil poisoning about 40 percent of the underground water; and, about 6 million barrels of oil that filtered into the sea forming a huge documented oil spill destroying fish, birds and local mammals and ending with the fishing of shrimp. He estimates the armed forces consume a million barrels of oil a day (20 million gallons). According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency each gallon of gasoline produces 19 pounds of CO2; the armed forces send 400 million pounds (200 000 tons) of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere a day. For Sanders the most serious assault on the environment comes from the U.S. armed forces and needs to end. (8)

The U.S. Department of Defense, by itself, produces more waste than the 5 largest chemical corporations of the U.S., including depleted uranium, oil, pesticides, defoliants, lead and radiation due to the making, testing and use of arms. Thousand kilos of radioactive micro-particles, highly toxic, for instance, are contaminating the Middle East, Central Asia and the Balkans. The mines and cluster bombs are spread in vast areas even after the war has ended. After 34 years of the end of the Vietnam War, dioxin contamination is still 300 to 400 times larger than normal levels, resulting in severe birth defects and cancer in the third generation of affected. Because of the war, Iraq -an exporter of food, imports now 80 percent of its food, the war and military policies since the war caused desertification. (8)

Damages to the environment can be temporal but most are not. According to the World Watch Institute a 35 percent of the hard wood of the forest in South Vietnam were spread with agent-orange at least once during the war. In places close to rivers and roads like the Ho Chi Minh road they were spread up to half a dozen times. The areas spread have lost trees from a 10 to 80 percent, depending on how many times they were spread. In total a 14 percent of the forests of Vietnam were destroyed. Yet, not all trees react the same way, some, like mangroves with aquatic roots filtering salt from water, are more susceptible to agent-orange as it interferes with their filtration mechanism causing all of them to die and not to recover years after they were spread. In the 1980s a study completed in the Vietnam forests, documented existing 24 species of birds and 5 of mammals in the forests spread, compared to 140 to 170 species of birds and 30 to 55 of mammals in the ones that were intact, showing the effect agent-orange had over the fauna. (6)

The Many Costs of War

War has been tolerated as “necessary evil;” it is evil but unnecessary. The Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs (Brown University) in the U.S. offers detailed estimates of the human costs of the war on terror showing the crime taking place. The estimates are inclusive of American soldiers, who die directly under enemy fire, subcontractors and allies, opponents and the directly and indirectly killed civilian population. In the case of the “war on terror,” studies including Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, estimate that 6 900 American soldiers died during hostilities (half of them under enemy fire and the rest due to electrocution, explosive devices and sunstroke). Among subcontractors there are about 7 000 dead, a number that is probably larger because subcontractors tend to under-report deaths. Among allies (Pakistani, Afghani and Iraqi personnel) and including the police, numbers add to about 6 for every American soldier dead, that is estimated 50 000 dead. We add the opponents (that is the enemy militants) estimated in 110 000. We then add the civil population in the war zones that generally die in large numbers as they die in the markets, in their homes and in the streets and are estimated to be 217 000, all of them direct deaths. We finally add indirect deaths of civil population; deaths by hunger, sickness or injury, because of the destroyed infrastructure (lack of food, water, hospitals) estimated in about 4 for every one of the civilians who died directly or an estimated total of 870 000. The calculations of war victims by 2016 were 1.261.000 people of who the great majority are civilians while 14 000 are soldiers and contractors. (9)

The financial costs of war include more than human costs. They include the medical treatments of soldiers returning to the U.S. from the front with physical, emotional and psychological injuries requiring short or prolonged assistance. These costs of war are less easy to calculate; we know how many soldiers we have lost but we do not know the levels of sickness, trauma and loss capacities until the returning soldiers complete applications. Thus, for example, by March 31, 2014 there were 970 000 applications for loss of capacity registered. (9)

Millions of people were indefinitely displaced and live in very precarious conditions; the number of Afghani, Iraqi and Pakistani refugees is calculated in more than 7.6 millions. The civil freedoms and rights have also been very negatively affected and violated due to war. The moneys sent for reconstruction have been used not to reconstruct these countries but to arm the military and police of the countries affected by war, especially in Iraq y Afghanistan. Large part of the monies destined to humanitarian relief and reconstruction of the civil society have been lost, stolen, abused or used fraudulently in unsustainable projects. (9)

nowinexile: Iraq before and after “democracy” 10 years since the American invasion of Iraq. More then 600,000 deaths and a beautiful country destroyed by American imperialist greed.

Iraq before and after “democracy” 10 years since the American invasion of Iraq. (Source: Another Me / Pinterest)

In Afghanistan wild life and ecosystems disappeared too. The past 30 years have left the place without trees –more than a third of the forest disappeared between 1990 and 2007, the soil suffers desertification and other species have also been lost, even 85 percent of the migratory birds have disappeared in the area. The infrastructure of Iraq has been devastated, including health and education systems. In Afghanistan American politicians used to promise that the invasion would bring democracy to the region but today the warlords control power and the society continues to be segregated in terms of gender and ethnicity while ISIS is free to take territories and lives. (9)

Economic Destruction

The myth that war is good for the economy is false. Paul Krugman (Nobel in Economy) argues that war never pays:

If you’re a modern, wealthy nation…even easy, victorious war doesn’t pay. And this has been true for a long time.

According to the British journalist Norman Angell,

in an interdependent world (like ours), war would necessarily inflict severe economic harm even on the victor. Furthermore, it’s very hard to extract golden eggs from sophisticated economies without killing the goose in the process.

Modern war, adds Krugman, is also very expensive; for example, the Iraq war could cost over $ 1 trillion dollars (more on this ahead). (10)

Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz also agrees that war is bad for the economy. He explains that although WWII was often seen as moving the world out of depression, we now know this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed, he explains, that peace is economically far better than war. Economist Dean Baker explains that most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses (like consumption and investment) and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment. Joshua Goldstein points that recurring war drains wealth, disrupts markets and depresses economic growth; war impedes economic development and undermines prosperity. (10)

Mike Lofgren argues that if at one time (when weapons were compatible with converted civilian production lines) military spending was a job creator those days are gone. Today, a dollar used for highway construction, health care, or education will create more jobs than a dollar for the Pentagon buying weapons. War causes austerity, limits investments and spending on people and their needs, and generates inflation –war finances itself with inflation, creating it and expanding it. War causes inequality, damages the economy and creates huge levels of debt. James Galbraith wrote in 2004 that during a war prices and profits rise, wages and their purchasing power fall:

Thugs, profiteers and the well connected get rich. Working people and the poor make out as they can. Savings erode, through the unseen mechanism of the inflation tax –meaning: the government runs a big deficit in nominal terms, but a smaller one when inflation is factored in.” (10)

In Canada, military spending has increased too; the current build-up in spending began in 1999, well before the 9/11 attack on the U.S.; but, Canadian participation in the “Global War on Terrorism” following 9/11 has been the primary driving force behind the increases. In 2010-2011 Canada reached the largest military budget since WWII. Canada is the 13th largest military spender in the world; in 2016-2017 Canada’s military budget was of C$ 18.9 billion. As a member of NATO Canada has committed itself to a level of military spending of 2 percent of its GDP; thus, although it is currently spending about 1.2 percent of its GDP the expectation is to increase it. Pressure has increased recently; the Trudeau government agreed to increase spending to C$ 32 billion by 2026-27, which is about 1.4 percent of Canada’s GDP.  (12, 13)

Economic historian, Julian Adorney points that

“Hitler’s rearmament program was military Keynesianism on a vast scale.”

Hitler’s economic administrator, Herman Goering, poured every available resource into making planes, tanks and guns, their hope was to create a multiplier effect that would jump-start the flagging German economy. It did not happen. Military spending grew from 750 million Reichsmarks in 1933 to 17 billion Reichsmarks in 1938 –a 21 percent of GDP was taken by military spending. Total government spending was 35 percent of Germany’s GDP –the military consumed 60 percent of the budget. Military rearmament produced military wealth but private citizens in Germany starved. (11)

Still, Hitler’s war machine would not have been possible without secret funneling of British and American funds through the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). The BIS original purpose was to facilitate reparation payments imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles after WWII, the bank went beyond this. Established in Basil, Switzerland, in 1930 through intergovernmental agreements by a dozen countries, the BIS is today the central bank of central banks and essentially, a sovereign state paying no taxes, with sovereign grounds and offices, annual secret meetings and personnel holding diplomatic immunity. The Governor of the Bank of Canada (BOC), Gerald Bouey, bowed to the BIS dictates in 1974, since then the BOC lost its independence (16).

In the U.S. military budget is high. Obama’s budget for 2017 dedicated 63 percent to military spending, the 37 percent left covered all other expenditures but half of this discretionary part of the budget was also used for military costs as well. Trump’s budget for 2018 dedicated 68 percent to military spending, the 32 percent left is to cover all other expenditures. A huge percentage of the U.S. budget is spent in the military and in war. (14)

When War costs Trillions…

Professor Neta Crawford makes a conservative estimate of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, she explains that they have and will cost more than $4.79 trillion of U.S. dollars. In her estimate she includes future veterans’ care and the President’s request for FY2017 Overseas Contingency Operations, but not all future interest on debt associated with the wars as, she says,

“This will likely be many trillions of dollars.”

Her paper estimate does not include all the costs of the war for which it is difficult to come to a reasonable estimate or which are smaller and scattered in various federal and state budgets. She says:

For example…I have not included the various costs of veterans’ care that have fallen to state and local governments or other costs externalized to military families and Americans more generally. Nor have I estimated the macro-economic consequences of the wars.”

Professor Crawford estimate of current and future costs of war greatly exceeds pre-war and early estimates, most being optimistic she says. In her view,

the most comprehensive estimate of the long-term budgetary costs of both wars –including direct and indirect spending and other economic effects — is The Three Trillion Dollar War by Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes.”

She argues still that costs of war have exceeded even their cautious estimates. Crawford estimate make the post-9/11 wars very expensive, at more than $4.79 trillion current U.S dollars (see table below). In addition, she includes cumulative interests on past appropriations by 2053 of 7.9 Trillion U.S. dollars to a total cost of 12.69 Trillion U.S. dollars.

In summary, the actual costs of war are difficult to put in numbers and even the numbers calculated by experts are so huge that are still difficult for most of us to grasp, we are talking about trillions of dollars in the case of the U.S. where actual costs have been well documented and where a large portion of war expenditures is taking place. There is much that has not been documented including the expenses paid by U.S. allies but also expenditures that are challenging to document, such as the costs of economic and infrastructure destruction, the costs of loss of life, incapacitation and human suffering of others involved and victimized, the costs of human rights violations and the costs of ecological destruction. Furthermore, with perpetual war there is a risk of precipitating our planet into an international conflict involving use of nuclear power that would cause ultimate destruction of our species and home.  A focus on war seems pessimistic; most importantly it leaves out the only sane alternative: peace.  We need to refocus on peace, to see peace for what it is: our only option. We already know that peace is good for the economy, for people, for other species and for our planet; we know war continues to cause ruin, pain and destruction to the financial benefit of few. Butler saw the challenge in 1933 and more than 80 years later we are still unable to make war a thing of the past. We are allowing war to escalate risking world proportion holocaust. We are the only ones who can stop the craziness.

Notes

1. “War is A Racket” (Major General Smedley Butler, 1933) https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

2. “American Civil War,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

3. “Dick Cheney Plan For Global Dominance.” (Aldeilis, David Armstrong, Nov. 19, 2006)

http://aldeilis.net/english/dick-cheney-plan-for-global-dominance/

4. “Remarks by the President on the Administration´s Approach to Counterterrorism.” The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Mac Dill Air Force Base, Tampa, Florida, December 6, 2016. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/06/remarks-president-administrations-approach-counterterrorism

5. “The United States of Permanent War.” (Edward Hunt, Counterpunch, February 24, 2017). http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/24/the-united-states-of-permanent-war/

6. “Environmentalists are Ignoring the Elephant in the Room: U.S. Military is the World´s Largest Polluter.” (Global Research, Washington’s Blog, May 23, 2017). http://www.globalresearch.ca/environmentalists-are-ignoring-the-elephant-in-the-room-u-s-military-is-the-worlds-largest-polluter/5591596

7. “DEW Line: Canada is cleaning up pollution caused by Cold War radar stations in the Artic.” (Sandro Contenta, The Star, August 4, 2012). thestar.com/news/insight/2012/08/04/dew_line_canada_is_cleaning_up_pollution_caused_by_cold_
war_radar_stations_in_the_arctic.html

8. “The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism.” (Barry Sanders, AK Press, (2009).

9. “The Human Toll of the Post 9/11 Wars.” (Catherine Lutz & Yidan Zeng, video (2016) Watson Institute International Public Affairs, Brown University). http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar

10. “Economists destroy the myth that war is good for the Economy.” (Washington´s Blog (June 11, 2016). http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/top-experts-war-bad-economy.html

11. “Starvation and Military Keynesianism: Lessons from Nazi Germany.” (Julian Adorney, LeeRockwell.com (Dec 17, 2013). https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/julian-adorney/hitlers-economy/

12. “Canadian Military Spending 2010-2011.” (Bill Robinson, Foreign Policies Series, Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives).

13. “Canada Increase Military Spending NATO” (The Guardian, June 7, 2017). theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/07/canada-increase-military-spending-nato.

14. “Costs of War, Last Obama budget (2017) vs Proposed Trump budget (2018)” (Watson Institute International Public Affairs, Brown University). http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/military-spending-2018

15. “US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $ 4.79 Trillion and Counting. Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security.”(Neta C. Crawford, Boston University, Sept 2016). http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%
20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

16. “Beyond Banksters. Resisting the New Feudalism.” (Joyce Nelson, Watershed Sentinel Books (2016).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Permanent War Against Humans and the Planet

Two Chinese teachers based in Pakistan’s southwest province of Baluchistan were reportedly abducted and murdered by militants from the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS).

CNN, in an article titled, “‘Grave concern’ over Chinese teachers reportedly killed by ISIS in Pakistan,” would attempt to portray the act of terrorism as a random strike aimed at China’s expanding economic activity abroad.

In reality, the terror attack was very precise in terms of location and purpose, and fits into a larger pattern of violence and political instability that has plagued Pakistan’s Baluchistan province and China’s ambitions there for years.

US Using Proxies to Disrupt China-Pakistan Economic Corridor 

Baluchistan, and more specifically, the port city of Gwadar, serve as the central nexus of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). It is a complex and expanding system of rail, roads, ports, and other infrastructure projects built jointly with the Pakistani government to facilitate regional economic growth – and an integral component of the much larger One Belt, One Road initiative.

Disrupting China’s economic lifelines to the rest of the world is an open objective of US policymakers. A paper published in 2006 by the Strategic Studies Institute titled, “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral.” identified Gwadar by name as one of several components of China’s “String of Pearls.”

The report states explicitly in regards to a possible “hard approach” toward Beijing that:

There are no guarantees that China will respond favorably to any U.S. strategy, and prudence may suggest to “prepare for the worst” and that it is “better to be safe than sorry.” Is it perhaps better to take a hard line towards China and contain it while it is still relatively weak? Is now the time to keep China down before she can make a bid for regional hegemony? Foreign policy realists, citing history and political theory, argue that inevitably China will challenge American primacy and that it is a question of “when” and not “if” the U.S.-China relationship will become adversarial or worse.

What better way to contain China’s regional ambitions than to mire economic development in places like Baluchistan with armed militancy, or obstruct it altogether with a US-backed independence movement in the province?

US policymakers have noted just that. In a 2012 paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled, “Pakistan: The Resurgence of Baluch Nationalism” (PDF), it would be stated unequivocally that (emphasis added):

If Baluchistan were to become independent, would Pakistan be able to withstand another dismemberment—thirty-four years have passed since the secession of Bangladesh—and what effect would that have on regional stability? Pakistan would lose a major part of its natural resources and would become more dependent on the Middle East for its energy supplies. Although Baluchistan’s resources are currently underexploited and benefit only the non-Baluch provinces, especially Punjab, these resources could undoubtedly contribute to the development of an independent Baluchistan. 

Baluchistan’s independence would also dash Islamabad’s hopes for the Gwadar port and other related projects. Any chance that Pakistan would become more attractive to the rest of the world would be lost.

Not only would it be Pakistan’s loss regarding the Gwadar port, it would be China’s loss as well.

And while the paper attempts to claim the US stands nothing to gain from Baluchistan’s independence, the US State Department has spent years and an untold sum of money and resources supporting just such an independence movement. Additionally, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace itself hosted an event by the “Baloch Society of North America,” advocating US intervention in the province toward achieving “independence.”

The US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Open Society via “Global Voices” funds a long list of organizations in Pakistan’s Baluchistan province advocating everything from autonomy to outright independence. This includes the Association for Integrated Development Balochistan (AID Balochistan), The Balochistan Point, and the Balochistan Institute for Development.

The US NED-funded Institute for Development Studies & Practices’s (IDSP) president regularly uses social media like Twitter to make and support statements calling for Baluchistan’s independence and depicting the province as a “colony” of Pakistan. So do virtually all other members of the above mentioned organizations funded by the US government.

The long list of US-funded Baluchistan-based organizations regularly link to op-eds and propaganda depicting violence in the province as one-sided and perpetuated by Pakistani forces alone – echoing the same sort of intentionally skewed public relations campaigns supporters of US-backed violence in Syria have undertaken since 2011.

And just like in Syria, the violence being spun, excused, or glossed over directly meshes with US interests – in this case – impeding Chinese-Pakistani cooperation in Baluchistan and beyond.

Violence in Baluchistan Benefits US Proxy War with Iran Also 

That the Islamic State has claimed responsibility for this latest attack, following in the wake of a larger attack on Tehran, Iran, is particularly significant. It was US policymakers who, in a 2009 Brookings Institution policy paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” would mention Baluchistan and Baluchi separatists by name as possible conduits, safe havens, and proxies for conducting armed conflict against Iran.

Creating violence in Baluchistan, Pakistan thus serves to not only mire Chinese ambitions across Asia, it assists Washington’s long-standing objective to encircle Iran with hostile state and non-state actors ahead of eventual regime change operations against Tehran.

Previously, the United States has attempted to use a variety of local groups to foment political instability and violence. Now it appears that all of its geopolitical mischief is being lumped under the catch-all, the “Islamic State.” In reality, the militants who kidnapped and murdered the two Chinese teachers in Baluchistan, Pakistan, were likely local militants the US has been backing for years, and whose role in destabilizing Pakistan is increasingly understood by local and global audiences.

Assigning blame to the Islamic State appears to be a means of disassociating America from the violence it is intentionally fueling across the region.

The Islamic State “coincidentally” appearing in virtually every geopolitical theater on Earth US interests are impeded or challenged by local and regional interests helps explain why not only the Islamic State exists in the first place, but explains how it has managed to survive and continue to thrive despite multinational efforts by nations like Russia, Syria, and Iran to defeat it.

Through state sponsorship, the Islamic State’s source of logistical, political, and military power ultimately lies in Washington, London, Brussels, Ankara, Riyadh, and Doha – where Russian-Syrian-Iranian military and political power cannot reach.

For those wondering where the Islamic State will strike next, one needs only to look at a  world map and identify where else US interests are being impeded by an increasingly multipolar world unwilling to yield to Wall Street and Washington’s corporate-financier monopolies. As illustrated in this recent and abhorrent attack in Baluchistan, Pakistan, important points along China’s One Belt, One Road project would be important places to look out for.

By targeting teachers, such terrorism seeks to incite fear across the very workers who are part of implementing this ambitious regional economic plan. It is a motive that resides far above the crude ideological motivations generally assigned to the Islamic State, and instead resembles well thought-out – if not sinister – geostrategic planning.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ISIS “Coincidentally” Appears Along China’s One Belt, One Road

The Balfour Declaration, currently accepted by many as the founding legal statement for the establishment of Israel is really nothing more than a letter. It was a letter of policy between government personnel and became a major part of foreign policy then, and its shadow effects have continued on rather effectively to now. Balfour’s Shadow is a well written outline of the history of events after the letter: the immediate short term effects on British policy after WW I; the medium range policies that continued until after WW II; up to Britain’s current policy of advocating for and dealing with Israel. It is not a pretty story.

The letter was not necessarily well intended. Balfour himself was anti-Semitic. Yet the letter offered support to the Zionists for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine. Several factors accounted for this, one of them being this very anti-Semitism, as many British felt that Jews would never assimilate into their society.

Several other factors came into play: Jewish support in the war effort was considered necessary; the British wanted to protect the Suez Canal as the main route through to its then colonies of south Asia, mainly India; and natural resources, oil, became a major interest after oil was discovered in abundance in the Middle East. A colonial outpost would, Britain believed, help consolidate control of the region against Arab interests in an era when British racism ran rampant throughout its colonial networks.

From that beginning, Cronin highlights the major factors in the relationship between Zionists, Jews, and the British government. He deals specifically with events pertaining to the government, and does not detail all that transpired during Britain’s occupation via the Palestinian Mandate. But the general thread of the history is exposed throughout the work, accessible to both those with a strong background in the history and those just entering into the discovery process of Middle East history. For the latter, Balfour’s Shadow provides enough detail that a reader should be motivated to research more information through other works (of which there are many).

Author David Cronin (Source: @dvcronin / Twitter)

In general, Cronin reveals that the methods used by the British to control the indigenous population of Palestine laid the foundation for the ethnic cleansing and later suppression of the Palestinian people. Much history has been written about the Haganah, Stern, and Irgun ‘gangs’ fighting against the British, but the general trend of British behaviour was to support the increasing settlement patterns, evictions, and land grabs of the Zionist settlers.

After the nakba, Britain continued to supply Israel with military support ranging from hundreds of tanks, many planes, up to and including nuclear systems, in particular the sale of heavy water through Norway. This period was a transition from British global power to U.S. global power: after the fake war for the Suez Canal and the later pre-emptive war of 1967, the U.S. had clearly taken the lead in supporting Israel. Britain however did not let go.

Indeed, Britain became one of the strongest voices in support of Israel as military trade and financial/corporate interests continued with mostly behind the scenes activities. Additional information is provided showing how the British worked to sideline the PLO by effectively recruiting Arafat as leader of a recognized PLO ‘government’, leading to the false promises of the Oslo accords and the continued annexation, settlement, and dispossession of the Palestinians.

For contemporary events, Cronin highlights the bizarre career of Tony Blair. At this point in time Blair was truly a “loyal lieutenant” for the U.S., adopting and promulgating U.S. policy for Israel and the Middle East in general. Bringing the work up to current events, “Partners in Crime” outlines the corporate-military ties between Britain, Israel, and the U.S.. Most of the corporate interest is military procurement going both directions – hardware to Israel, spyware and security ware to Britain. As always, these corporations (Ferranti, Affinity, Elbit, Rafael, Rokar, Lockheed-Martin) changed British views – at least of the elites – from tentative support to solidarity. These friendly relations also helped tie Israel into the EU more strongly.

Today, official British policy remains as an ardent supporter of Israel, with a lasting pride in Israel’s founding. The British colonial heritage rages on in the Middle East.

This is an excellent work most specifically for its focus on British attitudes concerning the development of Zionism/Israel, a history of war crimes and apartheid. Kudos to Cronin for his extensive use of many personal diaries and notices and of official records from War and Colonial office files as well as Foreign and Commonwealth files for more recent materials. It is concise and direct, an accessible read that can serve as a prerequisite for Middle East studies/Zionist studies and as a general guide to British policy for Israel. [1]

***

Image result

Title: Balfour’s Shadow – A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel

Author: David Cronin

Publisher: Pluto Press, London

Click here to order.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

[1] Many books cover the development of Zionism and the creation of Israel. For a more highly detailed development of the historical situation preceding and leading up to the Balfour letter itself, the best I have read is: The Balfour Declaration – The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Jonathan Schneer. Anchor (Random House), Canada. 2012.

This review was first published in Palestine Chronicle, June 29, 2017.

Featured image from Book Depository

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Balfour’s Shadow – A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel

Donald Trump is the very embodiment of why the undeserving rich must no longer be allowed to reproduce themselves, as a class. They are the fuse that, if not removed, will ignite a fiery doom for the species. Decisively kettled in the White House by a bipartisan War Party that feared he might weaken the momentum of the Obama-Clinton military offensive in Syria, Trump appears to have opted to outdo his tormentors in mad brinkmanship.

On Monday, seemingly out of the blue, the White House announced that the U.S. had “identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children.” Press secretary Sean Spicer provided no substantive details, only a warning that if “Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price.”

Amazingly, nobody seemed to have broken the potentially apocalyptic news to the Pentagon, and even the White House National Security Council behaved as if it were out of the loop. The New York Times, a ferocious proponent of regime change, ever ready to amplify and embellish the wildest fictions about Syrian government use of chemical weapons “against its own people” — and they have all been fictions — spent the whole day in fruitless search for authoritative voices to flesh out the story. Not until Tuesday did the Pentagon release a statement, weakly claiming that the U.S. had observed “what looked like active preparations for a chemical attack” at the Syrian air base that Trump bombed on April 6, in supposed retaliation for the non-existent Syrian sarin gas attack on an al-Qaida-controlled town in Idlib province. But even the warmongering Times could see that the Pentagon was ad-libbing, attempting to “shore up” the surprise White House statement of the day before.

“That statement,” wrote the Times, “appeared to take defense officials off guard. An official with the United States Central Command, which oversees combat operations in the Middle East, said Monday night that he had ‘no idea’ what the White House statement was referring to.”

“The ‘play-crazy’ gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor.”

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk ArmageddonHowever, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all.

Psycho-babble masquerading as political analysis is usually useless, but Trump is a babbler who is acting psycho. Hillary Clinton gives the impression of being more disciplined than Trump, but is nevertheless criminally insane, a howling homicidal fiend who would have issued an unacceptable ultimatum to the leaders of Syria and Russia long before hitting the 100-day mark in her presidency. The world might have been a cold cinder by now, had Hillary been allowed to return to the White House. The planet’s epitaph would read: Humans evolved, Clinton became president, everybody died.

There is no good way out of terminal crisis for U.S. imperialism, other than to surrender to the verdict of history – which, for the imperialist, is an unthinkable horror that drives them to risk suicide while routinely murdering millions. “Better dead than Red” remains the imperialist maxim, even though their antagonists are mainly capitalists, these days. It is actually quite logical that the heads of both imperial parties are bonkers, and that the politician considered by millions to be the “progressive” alternative is also an imperialist pig — the only kind of animal that is allowed on this farm.

“Hillary Clinton is a howling homicidal fiend who would have issued an unacceptable ultimatum to the leaders of Syria and Russia long before hitting the 100-day mark in her presidency.”

Image result for obama + clinton

Photo from Mother Jones

Donald Trump was always pretty dumb, but there was a time less than a year ago when he was sufficiently in control of his meager faculties to understand, in a twisted ”cracker” kind of way, that Barack Obama was “the founder of ISIS” and his co-founder is Hillary Clinton. That’s an essentially correct statement, in that President Obama and his secretary of state unleashed such a torrent of weapons and money to favored jihadists that the emergence of ISIS, impatient to establish a caliphate on captured territory, was both inevitable and predicted. The Defense Intelligence Agency tried to set off the alarms in 2012, in cables that were declassified years later. The DIA analysts reported that the security situation in Iraq, in particular, was deteriorating:

“This creates the ideal situation for AQI [al Qaida in Iraq, which became ISIS] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters [meaning, Shia Muslims]. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

“Thus,” in an article titled “Yes, Obama and Clinton Created ISIS – Too Bad Trump Can’t Explain How It Happened,” we wrote:

“a year after Obama and his European and Arab friends brought down Libya’s Gaddafi and shifted their proxy war of regime change to Syria, U.S. military intelligence saw clearly the imminent rise of ISIS — and that ‘this is exactly’ what ‘the West, Gulf countries and Turkey…want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.’”

Last summer, Trump perceived the basic outlines of the U.S.-sponsored jihadist wars in Libya and Syria. But, the not-so-tough-little-rich-boy finally recanted under the relentless assault of the War Party, and is now “all in” with every lie about Russia and the Syrian state. Trump joins the War Party with the fervor of a convert, guaranteeing an even bloodier mess than usual.

“President Obama and his secretary of state unleashed such a torrent of weapons and money to favored jihadists that the emergence of ISIS, impatient to establish a caliphate on captured territory, was both inevitable and predicted.”

Trump hopes that his dramatic conversion will compel the Democrats and corporate media to release him from purgatory. At this point, he craves “normality” – which, under imperialist terms, requires that he wage endless warfare abroad. (Trump is far more comfortable waging domestic wars against Blacks, Mexican immigrants and Moslems.)

Most of the world knows full well that the U.S. and western Europe have grown dependent on Islamic jihadists to buttress imperial interests in the Muslim world. In 2015, a BBC-commissioned poll found that 81 percent of Syrians believe the U.S. created the Islamic State. An even higher percentage of Iraqis think so.

The people of Syria and Iraq are intimately familiar with the political-theological movements that have emerged from the madness imposed on their societies by the United States. The people of the United States have easy access to the truth of their country’s criminal role in the world — the evidence is everywhere, and not really hidden — but choose to believe in U.S. “exceptionalism” because it infers that they, the citizens of empire, are also exceptional creatures.

Black folks used to be largely immune to such essentially race-based delusions, but the Obama presidency altered many Black people’s perceptions of their relationship to imperial power. Only three Black congresspersons (Barbara Lee-CA, John Conyers-MI, and Bobby Rush-IL) are among the five Democrats and eight Republicans that have co-sponsored Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s Stop Arming Terrorists Act (H.R. 608). The bill prohibits the use of federal funds to assist “Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or any individual or group that is affiliated with, associated with, cooperating with, or adherents to such groups,” and would halt all U.S. assistance to governments that aid such groups.

Gabbard’s bill would outlaw Washington’s policy in Syria and render U.S. arms sales and aid to the Sunni Gulf monarchies and Israel illegal.

It is too fine and elegant a bill to ever become law in the belly of the beast – which is why the genuine Left should make support for Gabbard’s legislation a litmus test for politicians, to weed out the beasties.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].
Glen Ford’s blog

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Competes with Hillary in U.S. War of Lies and Terror Against Syria

Bond markets in Europe and US are in rapid retreat this past week, in the wake of central bank announcements of coming rate hikes and balance sheet sell-offs. Will it spread to bubbles in stock markets in the US and elsewhere? Listen to the Alternative Visions radio show of June 30, 2017 for the discussion.

Dr. Rasmus reviews key decisions by central banks this past week that are making investors nervous about stock and bond market bubbles that have been created since 2008. Heads of central banks in Europe—the ECB and Bank of England—this week signaled they too may raise interest rates and sell off their QE balance sheets—following the US Fed’s announcements of last week. Is the free money provided by central banks to private bankers and investors now coming to an end?

QE free money alone has amounted to $15 trillion since 2009—feeding the financial bubbles in stocks, bonds, currencies and derivatives. Pulling this ‘life support’ of free money from the banks—i.e. off the free money oxygen ventilator—has investors now nervous, Rasmus explains.

An emerging ‘bond rout’ may be the tip of the financial iceberg. At the same time, the US Fed this past week also announced its annual phony bank stress tests and it will allow banks to reduce their capital safety cushions by accelerating bank dividend and stock buyback payouts to shareholders. US banks are projected to increase payouts to 100% of this year’s profits. (Chase to 110% and $27 billion). Bank stock prices surged driving US stocks higher into bubble territory. Will the bond rout spread? Will the stock bubble end? Central banks now perform a new function of ‘permanent subsidization of private banks’ in the 21st century, Rasmus explains.

 

Featured image from Investopedia

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Financial Instability, Retreat of the Bond Market, Is a Global “Bond Rout” Brewing?

Seymour Hersh, America’s most famous investigative reporter, has become persona non grata in the American Propaganda Ministry that poses as a news media but only serves to protect the US government’s war lies. Among his many triumphs Hersh exposed the American My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Abu Ghraib torture prison run by the Americans in Iraq. Today his investigative reports have to be published in the London Review of Books or in the German Media.

From Hersh’s latest investigative report, we learn that President Trump makes war decisions by watching staged propaganda on TV. The White Helmets, a propaganda organization for jihadists and the “Syrian opposition,” found a gullible reception from the Western media for photographs and videos of alleged victims of a Syrian Army sarin gas attack on civilians in Khan Sheikhoun. Trump saw the photos on TV and despite being assured by US intelligence that there was no Syrian sarin gas attack, ordered the US military to strike a Syrian base with Tomahawk missiles. Under international law this strike was a war crime, and it was the first direct aggression against Syria by the US which previously committed aggression via proxies called “the Syrian opposition.”

Reporting on his sources, Hersh writes:

“In a series of interviews, I learned of the total disconnect between the president and many of his military advisers and intelligence officials, as well as officers on the ground in the region who had an entirely different understanding of the nature of Syria’s attack on Khan Sheikhoun. I was provided with evidence of that disconnect, in the form of transcripts of real-time communications, immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4.”

Sarin gas victim in Syria, as reported in April 2017. | Ninian Reid / Flickr

The belief that sarin gas was involved in the attack comes from what appears to be a gas cloud. Hersh was informed by US military experts that sarin is odorless and invisible and makes no cloud. What appears to have happened is that the explosion from the air attack on ISIS caused a series of secondary explosions that produced a toxic cloud formed by fertilizers and chlorine disinfectants that were stored in the building that was hit.

US officials spoke with Hersh, because they are disturbed that President Trump based a war decision on TV propaganda and refused to listen to the detailed counter-assessments of his intelligence and military services. A national security source told Hersh:

“Everyone close to him knows his proclivity for acting precipitously when he does not know the facts. He doesn’t read anything and has no real historical knowledge. He wants verbal briefings and photographs. He’s a risk-taker. He can accept the consequences of a bad decision in the business world; he will just lose money. But in our world, lives will be lost and there will be long-term damage to our national security if he guesses wrong. He was told we did not have evidence of Syrian involvement and yet Trump says: ‘Do it.”’

Concerns about Trump’s purely emotional reaction to TV propaganda persist. Hersh reports that a senior national security adviser told him:

“The Salafists and jihadists got everything they wanted out of their hyped-up Syrian nerve gas ploy” (the flare up of tensions between Syria, Russia and America). The issue is, what if there’s another false flag sarin attack credited to hated Syria? Trump has upped the ante and painted himself into a corner with his decision to bomb. And do not think these guys are not planning the next faked attack. Trump will have no choice but to bomb again, and harder. He’s incapable of saying he made a mistake.”

As we know, the White House has already released a statement predicting that Assad is preparing another chemical attack, for which, the White House promises, he will “pay a heavy price.” Clearly, .

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/06/30/washington-new-threat-against-syria-russia-iran-invitation-false-flag-operation.html

By all means, read Hersh’s report here. It reveals a president who makes precipitous decisions likely to cause a war with Russia.

I do not doubt Sy Hersh’s integrity. I accept that he has accurately reported what he was told by US officials. My suspicions about this story do not have to do with Hersh. They have to do with what Hersh was told.

Hersh’s report puts Trump in a very bad light, and it puts the military/security complex, which we know has been trying to destroy Trump, in a very good light. Moreover, the story strikes me as inconsistent with the subsequent attack on the Syrian fighter-bomber by the US military. If the Tomahawk attack on the Syrian base was unjustified, what justified downing a Syrian war plane? Did Trump order this attack as well? If not, who did? Why?

If national security advisers gave Trump such excellent information about the alleged sarin gas attack, completely disproving any such attack, why was he given such bad advice about shooting down a Syrian war plane, or was it done outside of channels? The effect of the shootdown is to raise the chance of a confrontation with Russia, because Russia’s response apparently has been to declare a no-fly zone over the area of Russian and Syrian operations.

How do we know that what Hersh was told was true? What if Trump was encouraged to order the Tomahawk strike as a way of interjecting the US directly into the conflict? Both the US and Israel have powerful reasons for wanting to overthrow Assad. However, ISIS, sent to do the job, has been defeated by Russia and Syria. Unless Washington can somehow get directly involved, the war is over.

The story Hersh was given also serves to damn Trump while absolving the intelligence services. Trump takes the hit for injecting the US directly into the conflict.

Hersh’s story reads well, but it easily could be a false story planted on him. I am not saying that the story is false, but unless we learn more, it could be.

What we do know is that the story given to Hersh by national security officials is inconsistent with the June 26 White House announcement that the US has “identified potential preparations for another chemical attack by the Assad regime.” The White House does not have the capability to conduct its own foreign intelligence gathering. The White House is informed by the national security and intelligence agencies.

In the story given to Hersh, these officials are emphatic that not only were chemical weapons removed from Syria, but also that Assad would not use them or be permitted by the Russians to use them even if he had them. Moreover, Hersh reports that he was told that Russia fully informed the US of the Syrian attack on ISIS in advance. The weapon was a guided bomb that Russia had suppied to Syria. Therefore, it could not have been a chemical weapon.

As US national security officials made it clear to Hersh that they do not believe Syria did or would use any chemical weapons, what is the source for the White House’s announcement that preparations for another chemical attack by the Assad regime have been identified?

Who lined up UN ambassador Nikki Haley and the UK Defence Minister Michael Fallon to be ready with statements in support of the White House announcement? Haley says:

“Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people.”

Fallon says: “we will support” future US action in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

How clear does an orchestration have to be before people are capable of recognizing the orchestration?

The intelligence agencies put out the story via Hersh that there were no chemical attacks, so what attacks is Niki Haley speaking about?

A reasonable conclusion is that Washington’s plan to use ISIS to overthrow Syria and then start on Iran was derailed by Russian and Syrian military success against ISIS. The US then tried to partition Syria by occupying part of it, but were out-maneuvered by the Russians and Syrians. This left direct US involvement as the only alternative to defeat. This direct US military involvement began with the US attack on the Syrian military base and was followed by shooting down a Syrian war plane. The next stage will be a US-staged false flag chemical attack or alleged chemical attack, and this false flag, as has already been announced, will be the excuse for larger scale US military action against Syria, which, unless the Russians abandon Syria, means conflict with Russia, Iran, and perhaps China.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/us-military-put-alert-washington-waiting-excuse-attack-syria-russian-senator/ri20238

http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/06/new-wave-of-anti-syrian-provocations.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Deception Inside Deception: The Alleged Sarin Gas Attack.”A False Flag Attack is on the Way”

Featured image: The aftermath of the raging inferno which gutted the Grenfell Tower block (Source: Adeyinka Makinde)

The recent statement made by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the retired judge selected to chair a public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower disaster, that he is “doubtful” that the inquiry called by Theresa May will be as wide-ranging as the tenants hope will be interpreted by many as an ominous one which candidly anticipates an unsatisfactory conclusion to any forthcoming investigation.

This is because the lessons from the past consistently demonstrate that despite the characterisation of an inquiry as a purposive endeavour geared towards producing a full and frank resolution to an event which has typically pained and outraged the public, they have often been used by the executive branch of government to stage-manage the process of scrutiny.

Thus, what may appear to be an earnest effort geared towards ‘getting to the heart of the matter’ often turns into an exercise of ‘whitewashing’.

The history of public inquiries is replete with the accusation of ‘whitewash’ and ‘Establishment cover up’. This has been facilitated by the very nature of public inquiries despite the ostensible reform offered by the Inquiries Act of 2005.

The first point to note is that the executive branch of government presently headed by Prime Minister May controls the inquiry’s terms of reference. For example, the Franks Inquiry into Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982 managed to completely exonerate the government of Margaret Thatcher even though failures in diplomacy and intelligence were widely believed to have contributed to the Argentine military government’s decision to invade. After all, Thatcher’s foreign secretary, Lord Carrington had resigned soon after the invasion citing the doctrine of Individual Ministerial Responsibility.

There had clearly been failings on the part of the Secret Intelligence Service in predicting the Argentine action, and cuts in naval spending implemented by the Thatcher administration were later viewed as actions which would have offered the Argentine junta encouragement in proceeding with their enterprise.

Simon Jenkins, then working for the Times newspaper, later confronted Lord Franks about why he had exonerated the Thatcher government. Gravely, Franks responded by inviting Jenkins to “read my terms of reference.”

Secondly, the notion that an inquiry offers impartiality has often been compromised. For example, the view held by many in the republican community of Northern Ireland that Lord John Widgery was a figure of the British Establishment who would have been unlikely to blame the British Army for the massacre of unarmed demonstrators on ‘Bloody Sunday’ in 1972 was borne out by the fact that the inquiry took just eleven weeks to absolve the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment of wrongdoing. Widgery’s conclusion was reversed thirty-eight years later by the findings of the inquiry headed by Lord Saville which held that the soldiers had killed the demonstrators in unjustifiable circumstances.

The allegation of partiality rose its head in regard to the inquiry into the death of David Kelly, which provided a platform for the first official investigation into the circumstances surrounding the decision of Tony Blair’s government to take Britain into the war with Iraq. The handpicking of Lord Hutton to chair this inquiry is seen today with virtual unanimity to have been biased in favour of diverting any blame from the government of the day.

More closer in time, worries about the perception that appointed chairs for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse were too close to certain individuals who were to be investigated led to the resignation of the first two appointments to the position of chair. The reasons for their withdrawal in each case were objections related to their perceived closeness to individuals and establishments which were to be investigated.

A third point regarding the limitations of the mechanism of the public inquiry is that the recommendations made by the inquiry such as pertaining to changes to the law can be ignored. This lack of accountability and ineffectiveness of the reports that have followed many an inquiry have arguably led to the repetition of mistakes. For example, David Cameron’s decision to allow Britain to participate in the overthrow of the government of Libya in 2011 resulted in the destruction of the country and its present day designation as a ‘failed state’. He might have been more cautious about joining the action if a proper inquiry had occurred after Britain’s participation in the 2003 invasion of Iraq which also led to catastrophic consequences.

While the aforementioned examples of inquiries predated the passing of the Inquiries Act of 2005, this reform has not stopped negative criticism of the inquiries system. The issue of executive control of the inquiry remains a thorny one given that the chairman and members of the inquiry are appointed by a government minister. The system of using single judges to preside over inquiries which was thought to have been thoroughly discredited during the Hutton Inquiry is still in place. This factor arguable serves to perpetuate an ineradicable flaw in the system.

Indeed, Amnesty International were adamant in calling on members of the judiciary not to serve on any inquiry held under the Act because “any inquiry would be controlled by the executive which is empowered to block public scrutiny of state actions.”

In 2005, Peter Cory, a Canadian judge who has served on a number of British inquiries also claimed that inquiries conducted under the Act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible because the relevant government minister would have the authority to thwart the inquiry at every step.

The Chairman of the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations Subcommittee, Chris Smith, described the proposals when it was a bill as “the public inquiries cover-up bill”.

It is also important to note that public inquiries which have tended to pose problems in terms of their inordinate length and cost -the Saville Inquiry cost £195 million and took 12 years to complete- do not provide full protection for the right to a fair hearing as required by article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was the judgement of the Joint Human Rights Committee of the British Parliament and the Law Society, the body which represents the ranks of the country’s solicitors.

Of course, the victims and relatives of the victims of the Grenfell disaster may have a case for civil negligence against the relevant local authority and private organisations responsible for the health and safety of the building. The criminal law may also provide an avenue for punishing senior public and private officials on the grounds of corporate manslaughter.

While some may feel that the chances of a cover-up are lessened due to the fact that it is government at local level rather that at Whitehall which made decisions that ultimately created an unsafe environment, it is worth noting that local authorities work and set policies within a general framework set by central government.

Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s remarks serve as a warning to those who expect that a public inquiry will provide a no-holds-barred exercise in transparency and accountability.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer and law lecturer who is based in London, England.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Britain: The Grenfell Disaster and the Limitations of Public Inquiries

Mosul Raped and Destroyed, Not Liberated

July 1st, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

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

History correctly told will equate America’s rape and destruction of Mosul to its gratuitous Hiroshima/Nagasaki nuking, along with its ruthless fire-bombing of Dresden and Toyko during WW II, three post-1948 Israeli terror wars on Gaza, imperial Japan’s rape of Nanking, and Nazi Germany’s infamous terror-bombing of Guernica, among other horrific high crimes of war and against humanity.

They flagrantly violated fundamental laws of war, grievously harming civilians most of all, massacring them indiscriminately.

Strategic bombing involves destroying an adversary’s economic and military ability to wage war. It targets its warmaking capacity and related infrastructure.

Terror bombing is another matter. It causes mass slaughter and destruction, grievously harming civilians, destroying or damaging nonmilitary related sites.

Geneva and other international laws forbid the targeting of civilians. The Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907 Hague IV Convention) states:

— Article 25: “The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.”

— Article 26: “The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.”

Article 27: “In sieges and bombardments, all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.”

Fourth Geneva protects civilians in time of war. It prohibits violence of any type against them and requires treatment for the sick and wounded.

In September 1938, a League of Nations unanimous resolution prohibited the “bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings not in the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces.”

“In cases where (legitimate targets) are so situated, (aircraft) must abstain from bombardment” if it indiscriminately harms civilians.

“The 1945 Nuremberg Principles prohibit “crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity,” – namely, “inhumane acts committed against any civilian populations, before or during the war,” including indiscriminate killing and “wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.”

The 1968 General Assembly Resolution on Human Rights prohibits launching attacks against civilian populations. For America and Israel, it’s standard practice – by land, sea and terror bombings, flagrantly breaching fundamental rule of law principles.

The battle for Mosul began last October. Ruthless US-led terror-bombing massacred thousands of civilians, displaced hundreds of thousands more.

Iraq’s second largest city no longer exists. Months of terror-bombing turned it to rubble, unknown numbers of bodies buried beneath it, largely civilians – victims of US ruthlessness.

So-called liberated areas resemble a moonscape with no visible life. The battle of Mosul was a medieval massacre. The devastating human cost remains to be revealed in full.

Orchestrated coverup tries suppressing the horrors hundreds of thousands of defenseless civilians experienced from months of fighting – fearing US-led terror-bombing more than ISIS.

Unstated Pentagon rules of engagement permit anything goes. Defense Secretary James (“mad dog”) Mattis dismissively said “(c)ivilian casualties are a fact of life in this sort of situation” – ignoring US high crimes of war and against humanity in all its war theaters, Nuremberg-level crimes.

Civilians suffer most in all wars. Survival is a daily struggle. Contempt for their agony and trauma in all US war theaters reflects how a ruthless rogue state operates.

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: A bicyclist rides by the destroyed old Mosque of The Prophet Jirjis in central Mosul, Iraq on July 27, 2014.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mosul Raped and Destroyed, Not Liberated

The Afghan war is sparked for an array of interests and it needs to flare up to secure a dozens of regional objectives. It can be claimed that the Taliban is a pretext to drain the undergrounds of rare earth elements and siphon off the black money out of drug trafficking or Russia is an alleged reason to ramp up the multi-billion dollar arms sales or the “war on terrorism” is a pretext to establish further military bases.

To ride the Afghan war, there has to be a litany of motives. Regional rivalries are not so sharp and deep nor potential to wreck Afghanistan as much. Admittedly, India and Pakistan are immersed in a feud that has stretched to the Afghan soil thanks to Washington’s authorization of Pakistan in times of Jihad to intervene in Afghanistan on its behalf. If we sum up the entire bombings that represent the two archenemies’ [India and Pakistan] proxy war in Afghanistan, it may constitute a tiny fraction.

By the same token, Saudi-Iran or US-Iran proxy war in Afghanistan is not in full-swing and leaves little to the imagination or doubt. It also account for not more than a fragment of violence.

Then what really drives the war machine? And importantly what is claiming so many Afghan lives a day?

The allegations over India and Pakistan’s confrontation in Afghanistan are unfounded. Actually, it is overblown to cast shadow over the main causes of the war, yet a struggle for mounting clout on Kabul regime is undeniable. Pakistan’s condition, among others, for a halt to terrorism and bringing Taliban to negotiation table is that Afghanistan should break off multidimensional ties to India. The proponents of this idea are false or turning a blind eye to the genuine concerns. This can also be refuted out of a stark reality that this hostility has not gone as far as to destabilize Afghanistan so largely because of the Afghan government’s warming to India. Is the multimillion dollars project of rising ISIS in Afghanistan an outcome of this potato-small issue?

India is of the opinion that Washington needs Pakistan for its Afghanistan conspiracy theory even though this country has obviously named Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism in international forums and platforms. But Washington has still showered concessions upon Pakistan for not paying lip service. To appease the regional allies countering Pakistan and respond to international calls for solid counterterrorism measures, Washington has at most revealed its determination to stop approving budgets in military or civilian aid to Pakistan, which has later been cleared from suspension.

Image result for General Pervez Musharraf

Former President of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf (Source: Wikipedia)

Former president of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf in an interview with AFP said:

“India’s domination in Afghanistan is a threat to Pakistan; Indians want to turn Afghanistan against Pakistan”.

This commentary or fewer others just like it may have shaped up the minds and viewpoints of a comfort majority who seek the root causes of the Afghan war, though it is dimming the other side of the war played by the US-led coalition.

The key to a miraculous remedy to Afghanistan’s violence is within the reach of the Afghan government and its international military partners. The centralization of security on the Afghan borders with Pakistan to block unlawful crossings could give an immediate fix to the current US fiasco in Afghanistan. If the free flow of arms and mercenaries across the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan freezes, the peace may descend on the earth in Afghanistan.

The myth of a proxy war between the nemesis neighbors is a treacherous media hype, consciously or unconsciously. This media trend helps Pakistan to promote terrorism in the shadows of the exaggerated proxy war with India. According to Amar Sinha, Indian ambassador in Kabul, the flurry of media stories of a proxy war is meant to justify Pakistan’s support of terrorism. But now is there someone to pose who is behind Pakistan’s support to extremism.

Yes, the US is juggling all the sides of the war very meticulously that barely allows minds to turn at it. Some, but not all, American authors depict the Afghan war as a  product of deep-seated India-Pak row, which is making room for the US to carry on its multitasking process.

If the US was an arbitrator and only an observer of the war, it would have far earlier went into talks with India for a peaceful solution. We can deduce that, in the first place, India – with almost zero engagement in war- and then Pakistan are the targets of media’s war on terrorism. The latter country is no doubt an accomplice in the Afghan slaughter, but it is now entangled in the war agenda of Washington and despite going through ups and downs along the history, it understands that it may get severely hurt if it backs down from the support to Washington and most likely face the fate of Saudi Arabia in 2003.

Image result

Indian Home Minister Rajnath Singh (Source: Wikipedia)

Although, the world and domestic media pin the Afghan war on Pakistan and India’s hostility, India asserts it is in no battle with Pakistan and it is all media falsehood to disguise the real scenario. Indian Home Minister Rajnath Singh told media in March 2015 that:

“Pakistan is exploiting terrorism as a weapon in its proxy war against India”

What Indian high ranks actually mean to suggest here is that Pakistan take advantage of the ongoing US bogus counterterrorism battle and the US-facilitated outreach to the supreme Afghan authorities against India. Pakistan, not India, has set eyes on India’s deals with Afghan government and has not spared counterattacks on all of them.

The US is wishful of implicating India in Afghan conflict and deliberating over deployment of Indian forces alongside NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. This way, further fuel is added to the animosity which may possibly be used by the US to divert focus from its war agenda into minuscule encounters as such. The two states shares lengthy borders and there is no striking sign of clash in sight.

Pakistan is the lackey state of Washington taking infamy and risk of seclusion in the world. Its affinity with Washington and harboring of terrorists for a symbolic Afghan war is robbing it of large-scale economic opportunities. China’s economic corridor extending across the Baluchistan province and other restive regions is now grappling with major setbacks and is on the brink of cancellation.

The other element on top of Pakistan is China that nudges India into a solidified relationship with Afghan government. In 1960s, China went to war with India over territorial dispute and therefore edging towards Pakistan as well as making every effort to thaw tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

States like Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Ukraine have remained battlegrounds for proxy wars. Israel fired no single bullet in Syrian war which is the most concerned for it, and has had ample cash and arms pouring into the war zone from Arab region kingdoms and others. The proxies and puppet states in today’s global war have no second option in addition to agreeing. The superpowers initiate a proxy war in a fashion that most of the blames and war crimes become the sole liabilities of the lackey states.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India-Pakistan Proxy War in Afghanistan Is a Media Fabrication

The mass candlelight protests, which began in October 2016 and ultimately brought down the conservative and corrupt Park Geun-hye administration, have now subsided. The liberal Democratic Party leader Moon Jae-in has been elected president, and a new day seems to have dawned in South Korea. Yet, the atmosphere within the democratic labor movement is far from calm. While debate rages over the meaning of the ‘candlelight uprising’ and the strengths and limitations of the new administration, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and its affiliates are preparing for a ‘social general strike’ at the end of June and beginning of July.

Dignity for Low-wage Irregular Workers

South Korean labor unions are known for their frequent large-scale strikes and protest actions. In 2015, for instance, the national workers’ day rally and people’s mass mobilization organized together with farmers and other social groups on November 14, gained international attention due to its scale and the government’s aggressive response. Excessive police force led to the death of one participant, farmer Baek Nam-gi, who was hit straight on with a water cannon, and dozens of trade unionists were arrested and imprisoned in the crackdown that followed.

In 2016, a national strike against privatization by sixty thousand public sector workers fueled the anti-Park candlelight uprising. KCTU’s upcoming ‘social general strike’ will carry forward this practice of national protest, part of a labor movement tradition based in the recognition of the need for collective action to achieve social change. On the other hand, the KCTU has intentionally planned the upcoming strike to be different from past actions. Whereas the main force behind past actions has been KCTU’s traditional membership of politically conscious and regularly-employed[1] workers in large-scale workplaces, the vast majority of those participating in the upcoming strike will be low-wage irregular workers. Specifically, tens of thousands of education support workers, college campus cleaning workers, subcontracted workers at public hospitals and other public institutions, construction workers and irregular workers in the  services industry will walk off their jobs.

These workers will gather in Seoul for a major strike rally on June 30 and participate in separate regional and sector-specific actions into the first part of July. Further, as indicated by the term  ‘social’ general strike, the KCTU is making an effort to reach out to non-organized workers, students and community members to participate in the action by expressing support, either online or in person.

In addition to broad-based participation, ‘social’ also indicates KCTU’s goals of centralizing issues pertinent to organized and unorganized workers alike–low-wage, non-unionized irregular workers in particular–and re-awakening the public’s desire for deep economic and social reform, which was embodied in the candlelight uprising. Concretely, the KCTU has put forth the demand to increase the minimum wage (currently KRW 6,470 or roughly USD 5.7) to KRW 10,000 won per hour as a central issue in the strike. More than merely a wage issue, the demand is a step toward fundamentally altering the low-wage basis of the national economy.

In addition, the KCTU is calling for:

1) The reversal of Park Geun-hye’s regressive labor reforms and other anti-democratic policies;

2) Dismantling of the chaebol-centered economic system;

3) Democratization of government institutions and expansion of public services; and

4) Progressive labor law reform, including expansion of the right to unionize.

KCTU affiliates participating in the strike are also adding sector and workplace-specific demands in line with the KCTU’s overall framework.

Moon Jae-in’s Proposed Reforms and his Avid Fans

Image result

President Moon Jae-in (Source: Wikipedia)

The planned strike action comes less than two months after Moon Jae-in was elected in an early presidential election on May 9. Since taking office, President Moon has begun to move on a wide range of reforms, including, to name just a few, abandonment of the previous government’s plans for a government-written history textbook, re-opening of the investigation of the Sewol Tragedy in 2014, and new measures to combat climate change and pollution.

Moon, who made ‘creating a society that respects labor’ a main campaign promise, has also introduced several labor-related measures that appear to break substantially with the policies of the past administration. On May 12, shortly after his inauguration, Moon visited Incheon International Airport, where low-wage irregular workers employed by subcontractors of the public Incheon International Airport Corporation have been fighting for years for ‘regularization’ of their employment status, i.e. direct employment and improvement in wages and working conditions. During this meeting, Moon promised to regularize the status of all 10,000 workers at the airport and eradicate irregular employment throughout the public sector, as well as induce similar changes in the private sector.

In addition, Moon has established a ‘Jobs Creation Committee,’ the aim of which is to formulate a policy plan to rapidly increase good jobs throughout the economy, beginning with the public sector. He has also promised to increase the minimum wage to 10,000 won by the year 2020.

In light of Moon’s ‘reform drive,’ many have been vocally critical of the KCTU’s strike plans. Criticisms come from KCTU’s traditional enemies on the right, as well as Moon Jae-in’s avid liberal supporters, who defend everything and anything associated with the president. Although on opposite sides of the political spectrum, both criticize KCTU as needlessly militant and anti-government, and say that most of the strike demands are already reflected in Moon’s own policy platform. Both conservatives and liberals also accuse KCTU of being a ‘labor aristocracy’ seeking to protect the privileges of its high-paid, regularly-employed members.

These criticisms, however, misrepresent the KCTU, as well as the character of the social general strike and what KCTU is trying to achieve.

Aims of the Social General Strike and Limitations of Moon’s Reforms

First, the label ‘labor aristocracy’ ignores the extensive (albeit never sufficient) efforts KCTU has made over the last two decades to organize and improve the wages, working conditions and social status of low-wage irregular workers. As a result of years of ‘strategic organizing projects’ and several public campaigns (the most recent being the campaign for a 10 million won minimum wage), KCTU’s membership has moved from being comprised almost entirely of regular workers at large-scale enterprises to being 25% irregular workers.

This change in membership composition has been achieved in spite of the dearth of legal protections for irregular workers’ trade union activities and vicious union busting by employers. It is in fact close to impossible in many sectors for irregular workers to join and form unions without fear of dismissal. Many of KCTU’s affiliates, moreover, have an even higher percent of irregular workers in their membership than KCTU as a whole. The Korean Public Service and Transport Workers’ Union, which will be the largest force in the upcoming social general strike, is made up of roughly 40% irregular workers and is actively seeking a model of union organizing that fosters solidarity between high-wage regular and low-wage irregular workers in the public sector.

Second, critics of the social general strike ignore the fact that the action is planned not as a head-on confrontation with the Moon administration but as a demonstration of force against the chaebol[2] (corporate) elite and the pro-chaebol conservative ruling class, who may have supported Park’s impeachment but still seek to maintain the deeply unequal political and economic system that supports their interests. KCTU has tried to make clear that the strike is not an anti-government action but an effort to press Moon to stand up to these forces that impede social reform. In other words, through the strike, KCTU seeks to push the administration to the left in terms of the content and timeline of reform.

Finally, critics of the strike do not acknowledge the limitations of the Moon administration’s proposed economic and labor policies. For example, the administration has yet to put forth a clear plan for chaebol reform and has instead indicated it seeks the chaebol’s voluntary efforts at social responsibility. The administration lacks an analysis of the way in which chaebols restrict the development of small businesses, stifle the domestic creation of value[3], contribute to the creation of bad jobs and lead the way in union repression.

The administration is also stalling on ratification of core ILO conventions and revisions needed to bring South Korean labor laws in line with international standards. And most importantly, its proposal on regularization of the employment status of irregular workers in the public sector focuses superficially on the form of employment without adequately addressing the need for investment in improving wages and conditions and threatens to solidify rather than eradicate discrimination between irregular and regular workers.

Pushing Moon to the Left

As a president elected through a people’s uprising, Moon has come to symbolize for many the desire for real progressive change in South Korean society and has been given the mandate to actualize these desires.

A good deal of internal debate preceded KCTU’s decision to go forward with the social general strike. In addition to concerns about how the strike would be read, some KCTU affiliates expressed concerns about the potential challenge of mobilizing members, many of whom voted for Moon and continue to have high expectations in the new administration. This internal debate eventually led to the clarification of the goals, target and main force of the strike as described above.

The discussion continues, however, about how to view the new administration and what relationship KCTU should establish with it. Some are pushing for ‘cooperation’ in the fight against the chaebolsand reactionary forces, while others point to Moon’s limitations.

The most recent iteration of this debate has centered around whether to accept the administration’s proposal to participate in its Job Creation Committee. Reflecting on past experiences with tripartite bodies, in particular the Economic and Social Development Commission–used as a mechanism to enable broad-reaching neoliberal reforms in the wake of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis–many trade unionists have expressed strong reservations about KCTU joining the job-creation committee. They worry that the committee will be used to give the appearance of social consent to inadequate government policies.

June 30, 2017 – 57 thousand low wage precarious workers and other KCTU members gathered in Gwanghwamun for Social General Strike calling for 10 thousand won minimum wage, abolition of precarious work and the right to unionise. (Source: KCTU Facebook Page)

While publicly acknowledging these concerns, the KCTU’s Central Executive Committee voted on June 8 to participate and actively ‘intervene’ in the committee with the goal of “realizing the demands of the candlelight uprising for reform of the world of work and the eradication of low-wage precarious jobs.” The decision to participate in the committee, while simultaneously moving forward with the social general strike, is indicative of the democratic labor movement’s struggle to define the correct path that will ‘push the administration to the left.’

Fissures in the Neoliberal System: Opportunity for a New Direction

The development of this strategy will necessarily involve a great deal of debate as well as trial and error. The democratic labor movement finds itself in a situation very different from the last ten years of conservative rule and even the ten years of liberal rule before that. First, in addition to making Moon’s election possible, the candlelight uprising and the scandal that sparked it have created a fissure (although not a rupture) in the close alliance between Korea’s chaebol elite and the government. It also made transparency and accountability of government institutions a top priority for the incoming government.

Secondly, the contradictions of neoliberalism – a rapid decline in real wages, decrease in workers’ share of the national wealth and increase in inequality, unemployment and precarity – have led to its destabilization as a political-economic paradigm in South Korea and globally. While neoliberalism is far from over, governments around the world have been forced to introduce emergency measures (e.g. low interest rates, quantitative easing, etc.) and Keynesian/populist policies (e.g. minimum wage increases) that do not square comfortably with neoliberal ideology. At the same time, traditional neoliberal parties (whether they be politically moderate or conservative) have faced harsh judgment by voters.

In the United States, the failure of the labor movement and the left to break from their alliance with left-of-center neoliberals (the Democratic Party) meant that Donald Trump could present himself and his racist, nationalist and protectionist ideology as ‘the alternative’ to the status quo.

In South Korea, the candlelight uprising deposed a right-of-center neoliberal government and has replaced it with Moon Jae-in, left-of-center but still neoliberal. What distinguishes Moon from his predecessors is that he faces a new, uncertain moment, in which broad sectors of the electorate have voiced discontent with the neoliberal model, but no one has yet articulated a clear vision for where to go from here, i.e. what will replace the neoliberal paradigm. This is an opportunity for the labor movement and the left to suggest a new direction.

Immediate Tasks

To seize this opportunity, the South Korean labor movement needs a clear understanding of the current historical moment–in Korea and globally–and the character of the Moon administration within this context. This will require a clear analysis of Moon’s limitations as well as the possibilities that have been opened up to correct the anti-democratic and anti-worker policies of past administrations. Further, it demands recognition that much deeper reforms than the government–as the mediator of class interests at best and representative of capitalist interests in normal times–can possibly initiate on its own are needed to fundamentally address social inequality and insecurity.

In the immediate, KCTU will need to develop very clear policy proposals that expose the limitation of Moon’s own and find the most convincing way to present them to the public and the administration. To begin with, KCTU needs to put forth a clear roadmap for dismantling the chaebols’ economic and political stranglehold on South Korean society and regulating the multi-layer subcontracting system they control. An increase in the minimum wage has to be accompanied by chaebol and supply-chain reform to have maximum effect in eliminating low-wage work.

In addition, KCTU must put forth a policy on the ‘regularization of irregular workers’ that calls into question the very concept of ‘regularization.’ Rather than merely propose permanent employment as the goal, its policy must eradicate discrimination in wages and working conditions, as well as uphold the responsibility of parent companies toward all workers who produce value for them regardless of their form of employment. Further, KCTU needs to build broad social agreement about the importance of protecting the right of all workers to join trade unions and the right of unions to bargain and strike as an essential means to address social inequality.

Even more importantly, KCTU has to connect its policy demands to organizing and invest heavily in the expansion of its organizing capacity.

Fundamentally, the labor movement and the left need to articulate the limitations of concepts such as ‘income-led growth,’ which underpin Moon’s economic policies. Instead, we need to popularize a discourse that places primary importance not on ‘growth’ but on sustainability, equality and the fulfillment of human needs. Putting forth this vision will be an important step towards developing a political alternative that goes beyond Moon and his Democratic Party.

Wol-san Liem, Director of International and Korean Peninsula Affairs KCTU-Korean Public Service and Transport Workers Union

Notes

[1] In South Korea, the term ‘regular’ is used to refer to permanently-employed workers with job protection and relatively superior wages, conditions and benefits; and ‘irregular’ is used to refer to precariously-employed workers in a variety of employment relationships (including part-time, short-term, subcontracted and disguised employment).

[2]  ‘Chaebol’ refers to South Korea’s massive conglomerates (Samsung, LG, Hyundai, etc.), which are characterized by a unique form of circular investment that enables single families to dominate vast groups while actually owning only a small share in each company. The top ten chaebols account for roughly 80% of the national economy (GDP) and dominate multilayer subcontracting systems (supply chains), which play a central part in institutionalizing low-wage precarious work.[3] By relying on import of value-added intermediary goods and failure to invest in increasing labor productivity.  

[3] By relying on import of value-added intermediary goods and failure to invest in increasing labor productivity.

Featured image from Korean Confederation of Trade Unions via Zoom in Korea

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on South Korea’s KCTU’s Social General Strike and Labor Movement Priorities in the Moon Jae-in Era

Since President Trump took office, North Korea has conducted a flurry of missile tests, triggering a wave of condemnation by U.S. media and political figures. The reaction contains more than an element of fear-mongering, and it is sometimes implied that once North Korea has an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), it is liable to launch an unprovoked attack on the U.S. mainland.

What tends to be lacking in such reports is any sense of sober reflection, and much confusion is sown concerning the actual state of North Korea’s program. This article takes a closer look at North Korea’s recent missile launches and argues that they pose a threat–not to the safety of the U.S. population, as the corporate media claim, but to the United States’ strategic calculus in the region.

Pukguksong-2

First tested on February 11, the Pukguksong-2 is a medium-range ballistic missile based on the design of the submarine-launched Pukguksong -1. The main advantage the Pukguksong-2 has over North Korea’s other land-based ballistic missiles is that it relies on solid fuel. For that reason, the Pukguksong-2 is far more mobile and survivable than North Korea’s other medium-range missiles that outperform it. The other missiles are liquid-fueled and therefore hampered by the need to be accompanied by tanker trucks while on the move. Their necessity of a lengthy fueling process before launch makes them vulnerable to attack.

KN-15 parade.jpg

Pukguksong-2 / KN-15 on parade, 2017 (Source: LionFlyer / Wikimedia Commons)

Flying on a nearly vertical trajectory, the Pukguksong-2 travelled 500 kilometers and soared to an apogee of 550 kilometers. That translates into a range of 1,200 kilometers, were the missile to be fired at a regular trajectory using the same payload.

One of the reasons for the unusually steep trajectory of the test was so that technicians would be within technical monitoring range to gather data on performance. The unusual flight path may have also been undertaken, as North Korea indicates, to avoid the political sensitivities of overflying Japan.

The missile was again tested on May 21 and followed a trajectory similar to the first. Despite North Korea’s claim that the missile should go into mass production, more testing is needed to solidify reliability and accuracy. It does not appear that the reentry vehicle was tested on this occasion, as it lacked the fins or thrusters necessary for terminal guidance capability. According to missile expert John Schilling, it “will likely take at least five years” for the Pukguksong-2 to become “the mainstay of North Korea’s strategic missile force, and even then, only in a first-generation version with a non-maneuvering warhead.”

The differing performance of the two tests indicates that there are unmet challenges in the engine manufacturing process so that it can produce consistent results.

Hwasong-12

After three failed launches in April of this year, the intermediate-range Hwasong-12 finally achieved success on May 14. Unlike the Pukguksong-2, this missile is liquid fueled. By all accounts, the performance of the Hwasong-12 demonstrated a significant technological advance over any of North Korea’s other missiles. In the last test, the missile flew at a steep 85-degree angle and achieved a height of 2,111 kilometers. It is calculated that a normal trajectory would give the missile a range of 4,500 kilometers, making it capable of striking the U.S. strategic bomber force in Guam.

Hwasong-12 intermediate range ballistic missile (Source: Defence Blog)

More importantly, this marked North Korea’s first successful test of a reentry vehicle. A nuclear warhead must be able to withstand the enormous heat generated from reentering the earth’s atmosphere for it to reach its target. Without that capability, North Korea would not have an effective nuclear deterrent. South Korean monitoring equipment picked up data communications between the descending warhead and North Korean ground control, confirming the success of the test.

Anti-Ship Missiles

On May 29, North Korea tested an upgraded version of the Hwasong-7. Among the improvements were fins to improve stability during the boost phase, an engine in the middle section for speed control, and terminal guidance technology to provide greater accuracy. The missile is said to have a range of 1,000 kilometers and is intended to strike targets at sea.

Little more than a week later, North Korea launched several anti-ship cruise missiles, which demonstrated excellent maneuverability and precision. According to North Korean media, the missiles “accurately detected and hit the floating targets on the East Sea of Korea after making circular flights.” The flight distance was estimated at 200 kilometers, and like North Korea’s other missiles tested this year, the cruise missiles are newly designed.

The cruise missiles were fired from tracked transport vehicles that are capable of travelling across rough terrain, thus allowing them to go where they would be harder to spot and destroy.

The ICBM in North Korea’s Future

Western media, long on speculation and short on information, would have us believe that North Korea is on the verge of testing an ICBM any day now. There are technological challenges involved in developing an ICBM that will be much harder for North Korea to overcome than was the case with the Hwasong-12.

The longer the range of a ballistic missile, the higher the amount of total heat a reentry vehicle must be able to withstand. The rate of heat associated with range – and therefore speed – increases so rapidly that a successful test of an intermediate ballistic missile’s reentry vehicle says nothing about how it would fare in an ICBM. A reentry vehicle launched by an ICBM must absorb far more punishment than is the case with shorter-range missiles. It took the United States several years to master the challenge of designing a survivable ICBM reentry vehicle.

A nuclear warhead must be miniaturized to reduce the weight enough for it to be deliverable in a missile. As military technology specialists Markus Schiller and Theodore Postol point out,

“It is unlikely that North Korea now has a nuclear weapon that weighs as little as 1000 kg. It is also unlikely that such a first-generation nuclear weapon would be capable of surviving the unavoidable 50 G deceleration during warhead reentry from a range of nearly 10,000 kilometers.”

It is thought that the Hwasong-12 could provide the basis for developing an ICBM. However, the missile would need to be redesigned to add another stage to do so. Recently, North Korea ground tested a rocket engine, which U.S. officials speculated could be intended to power the last stage of an ICBM. Based only on satellite imagery, that conclusion is nothing more than supposition. Regardless of the nature of the engine test, a significant amount of work remains to be done to retool an existing missile as an ICBM and to perfect associated technology, such as the guidance system and reentry vehicle.

Moreover, before a missile can be considered operationally ready, it must undergo multiple tests to ensure that it meets performance and reliability standards. The Hwasong-12 was only successful in one of its four tests.

Threats and Provocations

It is an article of faith in the West that each missile test by North Korea is a “threat” or “provocation.” But is it true? Over the last several months, India tested its Agni-2 medium-range and Agni-3 intermediate-range ballistic missiles, as well as an Agni-5 ICBM, producing only yawns of indifference. Pakistan fired an Ababeel medium-range ballistic missile, capable of delivering multiple warheads, while China and Russia both tested ICBMs. The United States, as it was roundly condemning North Korea for its tests, launched Minuteman 3 and Trident missiles. None of these tests by nuclear powers were deemed provocative. Nor was note taken of the hypocrisy of the Trump administration in expressing outrage over North Korea doing what it was doing.

Objectively speaking, there is no difference between North Korea’s missile tests and the others, although it should be pointed out that the U.S. arsenal of nearly 7,000 nuclear warheads dwarfs that of North Korea.

As the North Korean foreign ministry observed,

“Not a single article or provision in the UN Charter and other international laws stipulates that nuclear test or ballistic rocket launch poses a threat to international peace and security.”

The political and economic might of the United States gave it the means to prod other members of the UN Security Council to agree to its demand to impose sanctions on North Korea. As a result, North Korea is the only nation singled out by UN sanctions that forbid it from testing the same types of missiles as other countries are free to do. There is no legal basis for this double standard, which is primarily a product of U.S. influence.

From the North Korean perspective, the large-scale military exercises that the United States regularly conducts in tandem with South Korea are threatening. These drills rehearse the invasion of North Korea, including decapitation operations to kill North Korean leaders. Recently, American B-1B bomber planes executed a series of flights over South Korea, practicing the carpet bombing of North Korea.Originally designed to deliver nuclear weapons, the B-1B underwent conversion to a conventional weapons only role ten years ago. The plane is still a formidable weapon, however, and can carry three times the payload of a B-52.

In the Western mindset, none of these actions can be construed as being “provocative” or a “threat” to North Korea. But it is easy enough to imagine the hysterical reaction if Russia were to conduct joint military exercises in Cuba, practicing the bombing and invasion of the United States, along with the assassination of U.S. political leaders.

Refusal to Recognize North Korea as a Nuclear State

Trump’s policy of “maximum pressure and engagement” is based on the principle that the United States will not recognize North Korea as a nuclear state. But what does this mean? North Korea, as everyone knows, is a nuclear state.

What the U.S. means is that it won’t recognize North Korea’s right to be a nuclear state. Why is this important?

According to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), only the five countries that already had nuclear weapons when the treaty went into force in 1970—the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China—are internationally recognized as nuclear weapon states. The treaty requires them to reduce their nuclear arsenal towards eventual elimination and prohibits all other signatories from possessing nuclear weapons.

Never mind that the five nuclear weapon states are far from achieving their commitment to disarmament and that the United States is spending $1 trillion to modernize its nuclear arsenal. The United States’ primary concern is the second half of the NPT’s stated goal—that no one else besides the five officially-recognized nuclear weapon states should have nuclear weapons. As such, North Korea’s nuclear and missile program, in the U.S.’ view, is an affront to this doctrine and the country should be punished accordingly.

But what about India, Pakistan and Israel—also countries with nuclear weapons that are not parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), you might ask. Does the United States refuse to recognize them as nuclear states?

Therein lies the greatest hypocrisy behind U.S. condemnation of North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests. Because the U.S. has no problem with India, Pakistan and Israel possessing nuclear weapons, it has seen no need to make such a pronouncement.

North Korea’s Accelerating Missile Development: Threat to U.S. Hegemony

It has not gone unnoticed that the pace of North Korea’s missile testing has accelerated in recent months. When the year began, North Korea found itself in a somewhat vulnerable position, given the Trump administration’s aggressive rhetoric. North Korea had a nuclear weapons program but no tested reentry vehicle–which meant that it had no means of delivery.  The north’s conventional arms are sufficient to inflict heavy damage on South Korea. But in a conflict, harm to U.S. forces would be relatively mild, especially if the U.S. launched a first strike to eliminate much of North Korea’s military capability. The window of opportunity for attacking North Korea would permanently close once it could demonstrate an effective means of delivering a nuclear weapon and the ability to strike U.S. warplanes stationed in Guam and aircraft carriers off the coast of the Korean Peninsula. Thus for North Korea, the race was on.

The North Koreans have taken note of the experience of Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya, and arrived at the conclusion that a small nation relying on conventional arms alone has no chance of deterring attack by the United States. North Korea says its nuclear program “is a legitimate and righteous measure for self-defense to protect the sovereignty and the right to existence” of the nation.

That is a conclusion the U.S. is keen to discourage. For the United States, it is a fundamental principle of its foreign policy that it should be able to attack any nation of its choosing, and that no country ought to have the means of defending itself. And therein lies the source of U.S. concern. The reason why stopping North Korea’s nuclear and long-range missile program is a priority for the Trump administration is not because it truly believes North Korea will launch an ICBM at the United States. Rather, it’s that if North Korea succeeds in establishing an effective nuclear deterrent, then this could have serious geopolitical implications for U.S. policy, as other targeted nations may follow North Korea’s example to ensure their survival.

For this reason, the United States has branded North Korea a pariah state and sponsored harsh UN sanctions. North Korea faces a dichotomy between policy objectives. If it does not denuclearize, then it risks succumbing to the economic strangulation imposed by the United States. But if it abandons its nuclear program, it becomes far more vulnerable to military strikes by a hostile U.S. The lesson of Libya’s fate after it abandoned its nuclear weapons program is not forgotten.

The United States declares that it will not engage in talks with North Korea unless it denuclearizes as a precondition while receiving nothing in return. That position shuts down any possibility of diplomacy, and it is hard to visualize any way out of the current impasse as long as Washington clings to that attitude. It is to be hoped that South Korean President Moon Jae-in can persuade the Trump administration to adopt a more flexible approach. The time has come for South Korea to take the lead in finding a peaceful resolution of the nuclear dispute.

Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and the Advisory Board of the Korea Policy Institute. He is a member of the Solidarity Committee for Democracy and Peace in Korea, a columnist for Voice of the People, and one of the co-authors of Killing Democracy: CIA and Pentagon Operations in the Post-Soviet Period, published in the Russian language. He is also a member of the Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific.

His website is https://gregoryelich.org

Featured image from KCNA via Zoom in Korea

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on North Korea’s Fast Track Missile Development: How Far It’s Come and Why It Has the U.S. on Edge

Planned False Flag CW Attack by Terrorists in Syria?

July 1st, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

Featured image: Victims of the sarin attack in Khan Sheikhoun (Source: One News Page)

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

According to Syria’s Foreign Ministry, US-supported terrorists plan another false flag CW attack, saying:

They intend “blow(ing) up (munitions) filled with poisonous materials in the near future in one of Daraa province areas” – a provocation giving Washington unjustifiable justification to strike Syrian forces again.

False flags are a longstanding American tradition, dating from the 19th century, acts of mass deception, incidents wrongfully blamed on innocent parties, used as pretexts for US aggression.

According to Syria’s Foreign Ministry, Washington intends using a staged CW attack, wrongfully blamed on government forces, “to justify a new act of aggression against Syria under false pretenses, similar to the US aggression on Shayrat airport.”

“(T)hreats” follow numerous cities, towns and villages liberated by Syrian and allied forces, greatly aided by Russian airpower – smashing ISIS and other US-supported terrorist groups.

“Syria reiterates that it has irretrievably removed the chemical program, as confirmed by the relevant international organizations, and that it doesn’t possess any chemical weapons, and that it strongly condemns the use of chemical weapons in any place and for any reason and under any pretext,” its Foreign Ministry stressed.

It “has not resorted to the use of any toxic chemicals since the beginning of the crisis at all, and it stresses that it fully cooperated with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) during the period following its accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention.”

Damascus “condemns and rejects” earlier and threatened US aggression against its military and defenseless civilians – supporting anti-government terrorists, flagrantly violating international law, wanting Syria destroyed, not liberated.

On Thursday, the State Department falsely accused Damascus of “continued use of chemical weapons and its failure to destroy its chemical weapons program in its entirety.”

It lied, claiming “Syria continues to fail to comply with its legal obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and UN Security Council Resolution 2118.”

Without any credible on-site inspections, the OPCW lied, claiming toxic sarin was used in Khan Sheikhoun on April 4.

The incident was a false flag, wrongfully blamed on Damascus. No evidence suggests residents were victims of sarin or any other CW.

None sought medical treatment. No antidotes or decontaminants were requested, no help of any kind.

No legitimate investigation was conducted. The OPCW stonewalled for many weeks. The only so-called evidence came from al-Qaeda-connected White Helmets videos – easily faked.

Images of Khan Sheikhoun showed neither their elements or anyone else wearing protective clothing – vital if toxic agents were present.

A so-called OPCW fact-finding mission pretended to investigate the alleged Khan Sheikhoun incident.

Claiming residents were “exposed to sarin” was a bald-faced lie – supported by no credible evidence. None exists. No April 4 CW attack occurred – none using sarin or any other toxin.

On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said falsely accusing Assad of planning “another” CW attack “very likely” signals further US aggression.

“The (phony) story will be the same.” A staged incident will happen in territory controlled by US-backed terrorists, wrongfully blamed on Assad’s government.

Pentagon aggression will follow, escalating conflict more than already.

Washington wants endless war, not resolution, undermining Russia good faith efforts to restore peace and stability to Syria.

A Final Comment

Will a false flag CW terrorist attack in Syria change US plans for a likely one-on-one meeting between Trump and Putin on the sidelines of next week’s G20 summit in Hamburg?

Will it change what’s discussed if a meeting occurs? Will further US aggression in Syria precede a meeting? How will Putin respond if it happens?

Will Astana and Geneva peace talks be more undermined than already? Will Washington escalate conflict, sabotaging hope for resolving it diplomatically?

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Planned False Flag CW Attack by Terrorists in Syria?

Venezuela: Right Wing Accelerates Coup Plans

July 1st, 2017 by Marco Teruggi

Featured image: The stolen helicopter used to attack the Supreme Court and Justice Ministry. (Source: Green Left Weekly)

The right-wing opposition has put its foot down on the accelerator, it is moving all of its pieces at once, and aims to shatter the balance of forces through a coup. It has made it clear: the opposition has June and July to achieve its objective.

It has declared that, backed by article 350 of the constitution, it does not recognise the government. Nor does it recognise the call for a National Constituent Assembly and it is organising to impede the elections for the assembly going ahead on July 30.

Translating these words into actions has meant a rise in clashes between state powers through its use of the attorney-general and National Assembly, largely unsuccessful attacks from the Organisation of American States, media pressure, ramping up attacks on the economy and a deepening of the violence, street terror and attacks on state security forces, particularly the National Bolivarian Armed Forces (FANB)

New elements

Within this violent scenario, some new elements have emerged in the last few weeks. These include systematic attacks on the La Carlota military base in Caracas, with the aim of demoralising and fracturing the FANB; outbreaks of violence in areas surrounding the presidential palace Miraflores; and the return of scenes of destruction in cities, like those that occurred in Maracay and nearby localities on June 26, where more than 40 establishments, from private shops to public institutions, were destroyed.

A similar plan was unleashed in more than 10 localities across the country during the past few weeks.

A new turning point occurred on June 27: the use of a helicopter — stolen from the La Carlota airbase — to attack the Ministry of Interior Relations, Justice and Peace with gun fire. The Supreme Court of Justice was also hit with four grenades made in Israel that came from Colombia.

All this took place only four streets away from Miraflores presidential palace, in the political centre of Venezuela.

This action generated a symbolic impact within both the ranks of the right-wing opposition and the pro-government Chavista movement. Among the opposition, accompanied by waves of rumours on social media, it generated the sensation of being close to the final target, of power itself, that finally the FANB had come onboard the call for a coup.

Among Chavismo, the impact was due both to the brazenness of the act, and the fact it provided definitive certainness — if anyone still had doubts — that a coup attempt is underway and has entered its decisive hours.

The right wing has enough force to submit localities to a reign of terror for several days in a row, carry out assaults on military and police barracks, unleash political and class hatred that has converted the lynching of Chavistas into a recurring practice. It can maintain almost daily mobilisations with a relatively stable number of participants and generate situations that convert themselves into quasi-generalised destruction and looting.

It is also able to make incursions into poorer neighbourhoods with the use of criminal groups to set up barricades, assassinate people and attack state institutions with grenades from a helicopter. It can make some government cadres crack — like the attorney-general — and win them to its side, and make a part of the population believe they were killed by the government.

In the coming days, we will see what else they are capable of. However, they seem to lack two elements needed to complete a coup: poor neighbourhoods mobilising behind their cause and a fracture in the FANB. Their key wager, which they are working on intensely, is to achieve a fracture within the FANB and other government sectors.

They need this to break the violent deadlock that has now gone on for months. That is why they are ratcheting up the level of violence, targeting attacks on security forces, and using terror as a method of social control.

Support from the United States is already underway via international pressure, funding for the right — whether directly to opposition parties or indirectly via NGOs that funnel this money towards maintaining the street pressure — and the training of paramilitaries. Intervention already exists under the table. Could it soon take another form?

The right is accelerating the pace and, at the same time, is displaying clear signs of desperation. It destroys and kills, but does not achieve its final objective.

However, it obtains intermediary objectives, such as submitting entire localities to violence, breaking down social ties, legitimising persecution levels — which is part of its plan for government — against Chavismo.

As the months go by, the country changes. It assimilates in an invisible manner the blows, hate, fear and distrust — elements that the right needs for its plan to violently reset the country.

Lastly, it is important to turn to the other factor, omnipresent and invisible, that permeates the day-to-day debates and concerns, as well as the possibilities of resistance or rupture: the economy.

Regressing

In recent weeks, the situation has worsened with rising prices, the illegal exchange rate — which sets prices — and with ongoing shortages of vital products such as medicines. These attacks are not a coincidence, but part of the pressure that seeks to suffocate the population and not allow any point of escape.

The reality is popular Venezuela has regressed in terms of various advances it has achieved through the Bolivarian revolution. This generates conditions that are conducive to the plans for looting and depolitisation that the right is promoting.

Reversing this trend is a challenge that Chavista leaders have not been able to resolve. This is its most critical bottleneck, the unresolved debate

These are defining days and weeks. What happened this week are steps in the escalation of opposition violence, of armed actions carried out by paramilitaries, criminal gangs linked to right-wing leaders, and shadowy sectors within the security forces.

There will be more deaths, because this is the opposition’s plan. Their now-or-never attitude is pushing the country to the brink. Their psychological and physical violence aims to increase the pressure to make the people cave in and open the doors of a historic revenge that the ruling classes of Venezuela, Latin America and US so desire.

Venezuela is facing its critical hour. Each day is key.

Translated by Federico Fuentes

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Venezuela: Right Wing Accelerates Coup Plans

Kurds May Face Turkish Army in Syria One-to-One

July 1st, 2017 by Sophie Mangal

Recently Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced his readiness to conduct a new military operation in the north of Syria to prevent the emergence of a Kurdish state there.

Turkey has already confirmed its seriousness on this issue by the recent air strikes carried out by Ankara at the positions of the Kurds and by continued armed clashes between the opposition sides. Moreover, Turkey has redeployed some of its armored units in the area of Azaz settlement.

In this regard, the Kurdish officials urged Assad and his partners to protect them from external threats.

According to the Syrian expert Ziad Shibli, the Syrian Kurds can face the Turkish aggression all alone due to some objective causes.

In fact, Kurds continue playing a double game in their own interests. By playing along with the U.S., the Kurdish authorities do their best to break ties with the Syrian government and its allies. They have sold their loyalty for arms supplies. Particularly, the Pentagon delivered more than 100 trucks loaded with weapons including 12,000 rifles, 10,000 machine guns, 4,000 grenade launchers and 300 mortars only for the past week.

However these weapons are used not for fighting ISIS. It’s not a secret that the Kurdish formations let terrorists flee from besieged Raqqa to strengthen their positions in Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor. Later these facts were confirmed by al-Arabiya. The channel also announced that Raqqa Civilian Council’ established by Kurds under the support of the U.S. amnestied dozens ISIS-terrorists.

Obviously, the actions of the Kurdish formations contradict the interests of Damascus and its main ally in fighting terrorism, Russia.

According to the Russian media, SDF-leaders ignored Russian military advisers who had persuaded the Syrian High Command to use its units to protect the Kurdish enclaves near Afrin and Manbij. But collaborating with the U.S. Kurds rose against the SAA.

Yet, just after a threat of direct clashes with Turkey appeared, SDF-leaders started thinking about the assistance of Damascus and Russian AF. Clearly, Kurds realize that they shouldn’t rely on the U.S. help in this issue. Unlikely, Washington will be against its NATO ally. If the contradictions on the Kurdish issue between Turkey and the U.S. get worse Ankara would ban using the Incirlik Air Base by the U.S. military.

Nobody likes traitors. Apparently, Kurds will stay alone with Turkish armed forces. Neither Damascus nor Moscow will provide any assistance to them. And only Kurdish leaders are responsible for that.

Sophie Mangal is a special investigative correspondent and co-editor at Inside Syria Media Center.

Featured image from Inside Syria Media Center

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Kurds May Face Turkish Army in Syria One-to-One

The Desert Hawks Brigade has deployed large reinforcements in order to support the expected Syrian army advance against ISIS in the Eastern Hama countryside.

A video showing a Desert Hawks Brigade military convoy appeared online showing two Shilka vehicles, 3 modified BMP-1 vehicles, 3 new BMP-2 vehicles, a T-72B1 battle tank, three T-90A battle tanks, and three Gvozdika self-propelled guns.  According to sources from the brigade, this convoy is just a part of the force that will participate in the operation.

Government forces are aiming to liberate the strategic ISIS town of Aqirbat as well as secure the road heading to the Palmyra.

The Syrian Army and its allies set up a fortified military base south of the Zaza triangle at the Al Tanf road.  The base includes fortifications, artillery pieces, and armored vehicles.  The Syrian army aims to strengthen its presence in the area in order to be ready for any possible advance by US-backed militant groups.

Government forces have captured some positions from ISIS 10 km east of the Arak gas field in the countryside of Palmyra.  The army also established control of nearly the entire road between the T2 and T3 pumping stations.

A battle is ongoing near the strategic Humaima village, located within 80 km from the ISIS-held town of al-Bukamal. Humaima and the T2 pumping station are mid-term goals of the Syrian military.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), backed up by the US-led coalition, have captured Hattin district and advanced on ISIS in the Nahda district of Raqqah city where an intense fight is ongoing.

Local sources report that the US-led coalition air force and military strikes by US Marines play a key role in the SDF strategy inside the city. The SDF simply calls in military strikes on any ISIS strong point that it sees in the nearby area. However, ISIS actively uses tunnels preventing SDF units from rapid advances.

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 from Al-Masdar News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Syria’s Desert Hawks Brigade Deploys Large Reinforcements for Battle Against ISIS

DAMASCUS – As the drive to push ISIS out of its remaining territories in Syria and Iraq rapidly advances, the U.S. and its allied forces have entrenched themselves in the southeastern Syrian border town of al-Tanaf, cutting off a major highway linking Damascus to Baghdad.

Defeating ISIS is Washington’s only stated military objective inside Syria. So what are those American troops doing there, blocking a vital artery connecting two Arab allied states in their own fight against terrorism?

“Our presence in al-Tanaf is temporary,” says Col. Ryan Dillon, spokesman for the Combined Joint Task Force of Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR), the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS, via phone from Baghdad.

“Our primary reason there is to train partner forces from that area for potential fights against ISIS elsewhere…and to maintain security in that border region.”

Dillon adds for emphasis:

“Our fight is not with the (Syrian) regime.”

But since May 18, when U.S. airstrikes targeted Syrian forces and their vehicles approaching al-Tanaf, American forces have shot down two Syrian drones and fired on allied Syrian troops several times, each time citing “self-defense.” In that same period, however, it doesn’t appear that the al-Tanaf-based U.S.-backed militants have even once engaged in combat with ISIS.

Bouthaina Shaaban, political and media advisor to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, is left bemused by that rhetoric:

“When asked what they’re doing in the south of Syria, they say they’re there for their ‘national security,’ but then they object to the movements of the Syrian army – inside Syria?”

She has a point. Under international law, any foreign troop presence inside a sovereign state is illegal unless specifically invited by the recognized governing authority – in this case, Assad’s government, the only Syrian authority recognized by the UN Security Council. Uninvited armies try to circumvent the law by claiming that Syria is “unable or unwilling” to fight ISIS and the threat to international security it poses. But “unwilling and unable” is only a theory, and not law, and since the Russians entered the Syrian military theater to ostensibly fight ISIS with the Syrians, that argument thins considerably.

Colonel Dillon acknowledges the point but argues that the Syrian army

“only just showed up recently in the area. If they can show that they are capable of fighting and defeating ISIS, then we don’t have to be there and that is less work for us and would be welcome.”

It’s not clear who made the U.S. arbiters of such a ruling. Syria’s fight against ISIS has picked up considerably in recent months, since four “de-escalation zones” were established during May negotiations in Astana among Russia, Turkey, and Iran. Reconciliation agreements among government forces and some militant groups in those zones – and the transfer of other militants to the northern governorate of Idlib – has meant that Syrian allied forces have been able to move their attention away from strategic areas in the west and concentrate on the ISIS fight in the east of the country.

An April 2017 report by IHS Markit, the leading UK security and defense information provider, asserts that the Islamic State fought Syrian government forces more than any other opponent over the past 12 months.

“Between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017,” says the organization, “43 percent of all Islamic State fighting in Syria was directed against President Assad’s forces, 17 against the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the remaining 40 percent involved fighting rival Sunni opposition groups – in particular, those who formed part of the Turkey-backed Euphrates Shield coalition.”

In other words, during the period when IS territorial losses were most significant, Syrian forces fought ISIS more than twice as often as U.S.-backed ones.

An American Wedge Between Syria and Iraq

So what’s with the continued U.S. presence in al-Tanaf, an area where there is no ISIS presence and where the Syrian army and its allies have been making huge progress against their militant Islamist opponents?

The above map commissioned by the author.

If you look at the map commissioned by the author above, there are approximately three main highway crossings from major Syrian centers into Iraq. The northern-most border highway is currently under the control of U.S.-backed Kurdish forces who seek to carve out an independent statelet called Western Kurdistan.

The Homs-to-Baghdad highway in the middle of the map cuts through ISIS-besieged Deir ez-Zor, where up to 120,000 civilians have been protected by some 10,000 Syrian troops since ISIS stormed its environs in 2014. While that border point to Iraq is currently blocked by the terror group, Syrian forces are advancing rapidly from the west, north, and south to wrest the region back from ISIS control.

The Damascus-to-Baghdad highway in the south of the country, which allied Syrian forces have largely recaptured from militants, could have easily been the first unobstructed route between Syria and Iraq. Until, of course, U.S.-led forces entrenched themselves in al-Tanaf and blocked that path.

The Syrians cleared most of the highway this year, but have been inhibited from reaching the border by a unilaterally-declared “deconfliction zone” established by U.S.-led coalition forces.

“It was agreed upon with the Russians that this was a deconfliction zone,” says CJTF spokesman Dillon.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov begs to differ:

“I don’t know anything about such zones. This must be some territory, which the coalition unilaterally declared and where it probably believes to have a sole right to take action. We cannot recognize such zones.”

Since regime-change plans fell flat in Syria, Beltway hawks have been advocating for the partitioning of Syria into at least three zones of influence – a buffer zone for Israel and Jordan in the south, a pro-U.S. Kurdish entity along the north and north-east, and control over the Syrian-Iraqi border.

But clashes with Syrian forces along the road to al-Tanaf have now created an ‘unintended consequence’ for the U.S.’s border plans. Syrian allied troops circumvented the al-Tanaf problem a few weeks ago by establishing border contact with Iraqi forces further north, thereby blocking off access for U.S. allies in the south. And Iraqi security forces have now reached al-Waleed border crossing, on Iraq’s side of the border from al-Tanaf, which means U.S.-led forces are now pinned between Iraqis and Syrians on the Damascus-Baghdad road.

When Syrians and Iraqis bypassed the al-Tanaf area and headed northward to establish border contact, another important set of facts was created on the ground. U.S. coalition forces are now cut off – at least from the south of Syria – from fighting ISIS in the northeast. This is a real setback for Washington’s plans to block direct Syrian-Iraqi border flows and score its own dazzling victory against ISIS. As Syrian forces head toward Deir ez-Zor, U.S.-backed forces’ participation in the battle to liberate that strategic area will now be limited to the Kurd-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) from the north, while Syrian forces have established safe passage from the north, south, west – and potentially from the east, with the aid of allied Iraqi forces.

Why Washington Wants That Border

Re-establishing Syrian control over the highway running from Deir ez-Zor to Albu Kamal and al-Qaim is also a priority for Syria’s allies in Iran. Dr. Masoud Asadollahi, a Damascus-based expert in Middle East affairs explains:

“The road through Albu Kamal is Iran’s favored option – it is a shorter path to Baghdad, safer, and runs through green, habitable areas. The M1 highway (Damascus-Baghdad) is more dangerous for Iran because it runs through Iraq’s Anbar province and areas that are mostly desert.”

If the U.S. objective in al-Tanaf was to block the southern highway between Syria and Iraq, thereby cutting off Iran’s land access to the borders of Palestine, they have been badly outmaneuvered. Syrian, Iraqi, and allied troops have now essentially trapped the U.S.-led forces in a fairly useless triangle down south, and created a new triangle (between Palmyra, Deir ez-Zor, and Albu Kamal) for their “final battle” against ISIS.

“The Americans always plan for one outcome and then get another one that is unintended,” observes Iran’s new envoy to Syria, Ambassador Javad Turk Abadi.

He and others in Damascus remain optimistic that the border routes long been denied to regional states will re-open in short order.

“Through the era of the Silk Road, the pathway between Syria, Iran, and Iraq was always active – until colonialism came to the region,” explains Turk Abadi.

In the same way that Western great powers have always sought to keep Russia and China apart, in the Middle East, that same divide-and-rule doctrine has been applied for decades to maintaining a wedge between Syria and Iraq.

“In the history of the last half century, it was always prevented for Syria and Iraq to get close, to coordinate. When (former Syrian president) Hafez al-Assad and (former Iraqi president) Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr almost reached a comprehensive agreement, Saddam Hussein made a coup d’etat and hung all the officers who wanted rapprochement with Syria,” says Shaaban, who has just published a book on Hafez Assad’s dealings with former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Saddam then launched an eight-year war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the latter lost road access through Iraq for more than two decades. In early 2003, U.S. troops invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam, and occupied the country for the next nine years. During that era, Iranian airplanes were often ordered down for inspections, instigated by U.S. occupation forces interested in thwarting Iran’s transfer of weapons and supplies to the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah and other allies.

By the time U.S. troops exited Iraq in late 2011, the Syrian conflict was already under way, fully armed, financed, and supported by several NATO states and their Persian Gulf allies.

“When those borders are re-opened,” says Asadollahi, “this will be the first time Iran will have a land route to Syria and Palestine” – though others point out that the Iranians have always found ways to transport goods undetected.

“Our army is now almost at the border and Iraqis are at their border – and we are not going to stop,” insists Shaaban.

Syrian and Iraqi forces have not yet checkmated American forces operating in their military theaters. There is still talk of an escalation that may pit the United States against Syria’s powerful Russian ally, a dangerous development that could precipitate a regional or global war.

But in Baghdad, the U.S.-led coalition spokesman Colonel Dillon struck a slightly more nuanced tone from the more belligerent threats sounded in Washington:

“We’re not in Syria to grab land. If the Syrian regime can show they can defeat ISIS, then we’re fine with that. The Waleed border crossing is a good sign that shows these capabilities. We are open to secure borders both on the Syrian and Iraqi side. We’re not there with the intent to block anything, we’re there to defeat ISIS and train forces for that.”

The fact is, US-trained militants in the al-Tanaf garrison are not fighting ISIS today, and they suffered a “crippling defeat” in June 2016 when they last launched a major offensive against the terror group, 200 miles from al-Tanaf. Factoring in geography, balance of field forces and momentum, it is implausible that US troops and their proxies on the southern Syrian-Iraqi border can achieve their stated objectives. It is time for them to surrender their positions to the Syrian state.

Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Mideast geopolitics, based in Beirut.

Featured image from Krill Makarov / Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dispatch From the Middle East: U.S. Buildup All About Iran

US and Israeli Collusion for Escalated War on Syria?

July 1st, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

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

The fundamental goals of both countries are regime change and destroying Syrian sovereignty. They partner in each other’s wars.

Both seek regional hegemony, wanting independent Syria and Iran transformed into pro-Western vassal states, their hydrocarbon resources looted, their people subjugated, their countries balkanized for easier control.

The road to Tehran runs through Damascus. The diabolical scheme involves taking down Syria first, naked aggression the strategy, isolating Iran, then launching a similar plan to replace Islamic Republic governance with pro-Western rule.

That’s how imperialism works, the human cost of no consequence to achieve objectives. Russian objections and warnings to Washington and its rogue allies accomplish nothing.

Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov calling White House “statements on Syrian armed forces getting ready to use chemical weapons…complete nonsense…assumptions based on” nothing won’t deter whatever actions Washington may have in mind.

On Wednesday, it’s unclear what Sergey Lavrov meant by saying Russia’s “reaction will be dignified and proportionate to the situation that may take shape.”

Dealing with hostile actions by Washington and its rogue allies against Syria diplomatically doesn’t work. Repeated US-led aggressive acts show likely more coming, maybe incidents far more serious than already.

Russia’s failure to act more decisively against US-led aggression is an invitation for more. Washington knows it can get away with escalated war on Syria, justifying the unjustifiable with phony pretexts – as long as Russia does nothing more than complain.

US spy planes increased flights off Syria’s coast. The likely nuclear-armed USS GHW Bush aircraft carrier is scheduled to arrive in Haifa, Israel on July 1 – purportedly for a four-day visit.

The warship operates in eastern Mediterranean waters, participating in US naked aggression on Syria.

On Wednesday evening local time, IDF warplanes struck Syrian military positions for the fourth time in recent days.

This time Quneitra in Syrian-controlled Golan was targeted – again on the phony pretext of errant projectiles landing (harmlessly) in the illegally Israeli occupied Heights.

Smoke rise from Syrian village as a result of fighting near the city of Quneitra, in the Golan Heights, 24 June 2017. An Israeli army spokesman reported that in response to over ten projectiles launched from Syrian soil which hit Israel, Israeli aircraft targeted the position from which the launches originated and struck tanks belonging to the Syrian regime in the Northern Syrian Golan Heights. An official protest has been filed with United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF). Photo by: Ayal Margolin- JINIPIX

Smoke rise from Syrian village as a result of fighting near the city of Quneitra, in the Golan Heights, 24 June 2017.  (Source: Ayal Margolin- JINIPIX / Jewish News)

They were likely fired by US and Israeli-supported terrorists to provoke a hostile reaction. Repeated incidents escalate conflict, resolving it getting harder because Washington and its rogue allies want war, not peace.

When the latest incident occurred, Netanyahu was in northern Israel Katzrin, commemorating the establishment of the town 40 years earlier.

Commenting on the latest cross-border Israeli aggression, he warned that

“(t)hose who fire into our territory will encounter a swift response.”

During commemorative ceremonies, he arrogantly said

“(w)e are always amazed that there is still someone who says we will return the Golan.”

“The Golan is ours and the Golan will always be ours. The Golan is ours because it belonged to our forefathers, and because it was taken back by us due to Syrian aggression.”

Israel seized Golan territory by June 1967 naked aggression, illegally occupying it, lawlessly annexing it in 1981. The world community considers it Syrian territory.

Each year a General Assembly resolution titled “The Occupied Syrian Golan” affirms the illegality of Israeli occupation and annexation – flagrantly violating Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), calling for complete Israeli withdrawal from all illegally occupied Arab territories, including Golan.

Security Council Resolution 479 (1981) called Israel’s annexation of Golan illegal.

On Tuesday, the IDF declared occupied Golan near Syria’s border a “closed military zone,” prohibiting civilian access.

Does Israel intend using it as a launching pad for further aggressive cross-border provocations?

Do US-supported terrorists plan another CW attack, maybe a major one, falsely blamed on Syrian forces?

Will the Trump administration use a CW attack on Syrian territory, if one occurs, to escalate aggression on government and allied forces more than already?

Will Russia again only act rhetorically, not decisively, if this scenario happens? Are events heading toward escalated conflict, undermining Moscow-led efforts to resolve things diplomatically?

Syria remains a hugely dangerous regional flashpoint. US rage for dominance risks potential conflict with Russia and Iran in the battle over whether the country’s sovereignty will be saved or destroyed.

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US and Israeli Collusion for Escalated War on Syria?

A Otan e o neonazismo na Europa

June 30th, 2017 by Manlio Dinucci

A Ucrânia, de fato já na Otan, quer agora entrar oficialmente na organização. O parlamento de Kíev, votou no dia 8 de junho por maioria (276 contra 25) uma emenda legislativa que torna prioritário esse objetivo.

A sua admissão na Otan não seria um ato formal. A Rússia é acusada pela Otan de ter anexado ilegalmente a Crimeia e de conduzir ações militares contra a Ucrânia. Em consequência, se a Ucrânia entrasse oficialmente na Otan, os demais 29 membros da Aliança, com base no Artigo 5, deveriam “ajudar a parte atacada empreendendo ações julgadas necessárias, inclusive o uso da força armada”. Em outras palavras, deveriam declarar guerra à Rússia.

O mérito de ter introduzido na legislação ucraniana o objetivo de entrar na Otan é do presidente do parlamento Andriy Parubiy. Cofundador em 1991 do  Partido nacional-social ucraniano, segundo o modelo do Partido nacional-socialista de Adolf Hitler; chefe das formações paramilitares neonazistas, usadas em  2014 no golpe da Praça Maidan, sob a direção dos EUA e da Otan, e no massacre de Odessa; chefe do Conselho de Defesa e Segurança Nacional que, com o Batalhão Azov e outras unidades neonazistas ataca os civis ucranianos de nacionalidade russa na parte oriental do país e efetua com esquadrões especiais espancamentos de militantes do Partido Comunista, devastando as suas sedes e queimando livros no perfeito estilo nazista, enquanto o mesmo Partido está para ser posto oficialmente na ilegalidade.

Este é Andriy Parubiy que, como presidente do parlamento ucraniano (cargo que lhe foi conferido pelos seus méritos democráticos em abril de 2016), foi recebido em 5 de junho no Palácio Montecitorio pela presidenta da Câmara, Laura Boldrini. “A Itália – sublinhou Boldrini – sempre condenou a ação ilegal realizada há anos em uma parte do território ucraniano”. Assim, ela avalizou a versão da Otan  segundo a qual a Rússia teria anexado ilegalmente a Crimeia, ignorando o fato de que a escolha dos russos da Crimeia de separar-se da Ucrânia e reingressar na Rússia foi tomada para impedir de ser atacada, como os russos do Donbass, pelos batalhões neonazistas e as demais forças de  Kíev.

O cordial colóquio foi encerrado com a assinatura de um memorando de entendimento que “reforça ulteriormente a cooperação parlamentar entre as duas assembleias, tanto no plano político como no administrativo”. Reforça-se, assim, a cooperação entre a República italiana, nascida da Resistência contra o nazi-fascismo, e um regime que criou na  Ucrânia uma situação análoga àquela que levou ao advento do fascismo nos anos 1920 e do nazismo nos anos 1930.

batalhão azov 2

O batalhão Azov, cuja marca nazista é representada pelo emblema decalcado do símbolo das SS do Reich, e incorporado na Guarda nacional, foi transformado em unidade militar regular e promovido  ao status de regimento de operações especiais. Foi, assim, dotado de veículos blindados e peças de artilharia. Com outras formações neonazistas transformadas em unidades regulares, é treinado por instrutores estadunidenses da 173ª divisão aerotransportada, trasferidos de Vicenza (Itália) para a Ucrânia, ao lado de outros instrutores da Otan.

A Ucrânia é assim transformada em “berço” do renascido nazismo no coração da Europa. Para Kíev confluem neonazistas de toda a Europa, inclusive da Itália. Depois de treinados e postos à prova em ações militares contra os russos da Ucrânia no Donbass, regressam aos seus países. Doravante, a Otan vai rejuvenescer as fileiras da Gládio.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Publicado em Il Manifesto, 15 de junho de 2017.

O artigo em italiano : È Nato il neonazismo in Europa

Tradução de José Reinaldo Carvalho para Resistência

Manlio Dinucci é geógrafo e jornalista.

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on A Otan e o neonazismo na Europa

Um atacante suicida atingiu o quarteirão diplomático fortemente protegido em Cabul com um caminhão carregado de bomba durante a hora de pico na manhã de 31 de maio, matando mais de 100 pessoas e ferindo mais de 400. Não houve reivindicação de responsabilidade pelo ataque.

“Presenciei muitos ataques, retirei pessoas feridas de muitos locais explodidos, mas posso dizer que nunca vi um ataque tão horrível como o desta manhã”, disse o motorista de ambulância Alef Ahmadzai à Associated Press. “Havia chamas em todas as partes, e muitas pessoas encontravam-se em estado crítico”

Contactada momentos após o ataque, Friba, líder da Associação Revolucionária das Mulheres do Afeganistão, disse:

Todo mundo ainda está impactado. A cidade morreu com a explosão.

Em uma breve entrevista, a líder de mulheres afegãs fala sobre um dos piores ataques suicidas no Afeganistão em muitos anos, e sobre o escárnio de “Guerra ao Terror” dos Estados Unidos em seu país.

Friba, que não menciona o nome verdadeiro por razões de segurança enquanto a RAWA atua clandestinamente, desmascara uma vez mais o governo e a inteligência local, e a coalizão liderada pelos EUA que há 16 anos prometeu libertar seu povo, especialmente as mulheres.

Corrupção e aliança com terroristas, de acordo com a líder da RAWA, permeia todos os poderes em seu país, inclusive as forças estrangeiras.

Traidores que vendem seu país para forasteiros obviamente não se preocupam com seu povo, nem com sua segurança

Friba afirma também que a insegurança aumentou em seu país após a invasão dos EUA em outubro de 2001, e que a solução não reside em nenhuma força estrangeira, apenas nas mãos do povo afegão.

Não passa sequer um mês sem um ou dois ataques que deixam dezenas de mortos e centenas de entes queridos de luto.

Uma realidade não mostrada no Ocidente por uma mídia predominante sustentada por fabricantes de armas, o que suscita uma vez mais a questão: há vidas humanas que valem mais que outras para os ocidentais?

A ‘Guerra ao Terror’ não é mesmo travada contra terroristas, mas apenas contra aqueles grupos terroristas que não cumprem as ordens dos Estados Unidos. Assim como os EUA, o governo afegão fantoche também usa grupos terroristas para seus propósitos. Não é segredo que os Estados Unidos alimentam ativamente o terrorismo no Afeganistão e na região para atacar seus rivais, a Rússia e a China.

“A maioria dos poderes regionais e os EUA/OTAN estão fortemente envolvidos na promoção do terrorismo. Se a Índia apoia algum grupo terrorista, é imediatamente atacada pelos EUA com o Paquistão em seus calcanhares”, diz a feminista afegã, para quem a solução de seu país está nas mãos do povo afegão, e não de invasores. “O fim da ocupação dos EUA/OTAN deve ser o primeiro passo da nossa luta por justiça, paz e a democracia. Ocupação e terrorismo são as duas faces de uma mesma moeda”.

Abaixo, a entrevista completa com a Friba.

Edu Montesanti: O que aconteceu exatamente, e por que as forças afegãs, financiadas e treinadas pelo Exército dos EUA, não podem proteger seu país há 16 anos da invasão da coalizão liderada pelos EUA no Afeganistão já que ataques como este são frequentes, e até crescem mês a mês em número e em intensidade?

Friba: O número de mortos aumentou para mais de 100 agora com mais de 400 feridos. No entanto, estas são estatísticas oficiais que não podemos confiar inteiramente, e as baixas podem ser maiores que isso. A insegurança no Afeganistão tem sido a maior dificuldade que nosso ovo enfrentou após a invasão dos EUA.

Para começar, a “Guerra ao Terror” não é mesmo travada contra terroristas, mas apenas contra aqueles grupos terroristas que não cumprem as ordens dos EUA. Isso significa que os EUA e seus aliados não têm como alvo o Taliban nem outros grupos terroristas que lutam as forças afegãs, uniformemente. Na verdade, soldados afegãos testemunharam que os helicópteros das forças estrangeiras derrubassem armas nas áreas de Taliban e o pagamento de enormes subornos aos talibans.

Não é segredo que os EUA alimentam ativamente o terrorismo no Afeganistão e na região para atacar seus rivais, Rússia e China – a crescente instabilidade e a mudança da presença terrorista para o norte do Afeganistão, é a prova dessa política.

O aparelho afegão é composto de criminosos jihadistas, lacaios de países estrangeiros e cujas próprias vidas dependem do apoio de seus mestres estrangeiros. Traidores que vendem o país para estrangeiros, obviamente, não se preocupam com seu povo nem com sua segurança. Seu único objetivo é encher os bolsos com o dinheiro de países estrangeiros e, em troca, permitir que eles influenciem o Estado através dos mais altos escalões mantendo seus laços mafiosos, traficando drogas (muitos oficiais do governo afegão proeminentes são figuras da máfia e senhores da droga), praticando sequestro e outras atividades criminosas.

Essa natureza mercenária gananciosa do Estado também se traduz em corrupção nos altos escalões do Ministério das Forças Armadas e da Defesa. Esses órgãos têm sido atingidos por casos de corrupção de alto nível com escândalos que vão desde a captura de terras a casos de “soldados fantasmas” e roubo de combustível na casa dos milhões de dólares, passando por acusações de conluio com os talibans.

Enquanto os jovens afegãos morrem na linha de frente de guerra todos os dias, os correligionários da fé taliban no governo afegão propõem “conversas de paz”, chamando os brutais talibans de “irmãos aborrecidos”. Eles libertaram inúmeros terroristas perigosos das prisões ao longo destes anos. É natural que toda essa situação mata o estado de ânimo e a disposição dos jovens soldados afegãos, que morrem em batalhas todos os dias para lutar contra esses terroristas sem chance de questionar.

Essas forças estão lutando por um governo e por militares que não se preocupam com eles, mas profundamente envolvidos em corrupção e circulando com muito dinheiro. Um governo que acolhe os assassinos de braços abertos, apesar de inúmeros massacres cometidos por eles. E um governo cujos apoiantes estrangeiros fornecem, a esses inimigos, armas e dinheiro!

Esses soldados foram abandonados por seus superiores quando estavam sob o cerco do Taliban, e vários ataques sangrentos contra esses soldados levaram a suspeitas de conluio interno. Como esses jovens podem lutar com alta disposição em uma situação assim?
Hoje, o propósito da maioria dos soldados afegãos é ganhar algum dinheiro para as famílias nesta situação de pobreza extrema e desemprego através dos salários que são pagos [pelo engajamento bélico], de maneira que a intenção não é lutar contra o Taliban pois eles não veem nenhuma diferença importante entre os talibans, os generais do Exército e os funcionários de alto escalão que possuem um passado sangrento e sombrio, envolvidos em crimes de guerra.

Isto tudo para não mencionar que a força da Polícia e do Exército já está devastada pelo analfabetismo, ela dependência de drogas e pela má administração. Todas estas são razões pelas quais as forças afegãs têm fracassado continuamente nos últimos quinze anos.

É curioso que, novamente, um lugar muito seguro tenha sido atacado no Afeganistão – há meses, a área militar afegã foi fortemente atacada pelos talibans. O que você pode dizer sobre a Inteligência afegã?

A situação descrita acima também se estende à Inteligência afegã. Assim como os EUA, o fantoche governo afegão também usa grupos terroristas para seus propósitos e se faz de cego diante de terroristas, cumprindo ordens de seus chefes estrangeiros.

De acordo com o ex-chefe da Inteligência, Rahmatullah Nabil, funcionários nos mais altos escalões do governo garantem os interesses de diferentes países estrangeiros, continuam gozando de sua posição e do apoio do presidente – ou seja, são “intocáveis”. HanifAtmar, consultor sênior de Segurança Nacional e Masoom Stanekzai, chefe de Inteligência, são chamados de “terno e gravata” do Taliban pelo nosso povo devido à falta de ação contra os talibans e aqueles que estão dentro do governo servindo as agências de Inteligência, que apoiam a Taliban.

A corrupção e o absoluto colapso da liderança militar significam que os talibans podem, facilmente, penetrar na capital, nas bases militares, nos ministérios, nos hospitais militares e agora na área diplomática. Embora comissões tenham sido executadas para a investigação de todos esses incidentes, nunca se compartilha seus resultados com o público. Todos sabem que tais ataques complexos são possíveis graças à ajuda das agências afegãs de segurança, e da Inteligência.

Nenhum grupo reivindicou responsabilidade pelo ataque do último dia 31 de maio: o que é dito no Afeganistão sobre o autor desse ataque?

O Taliban negou qualquer responsabilidade e a Inteligência afegã afirmou que a Rede Haqqani, no Paquistão, realizou o ataque com a ajuda da Inteligência paquistanesa. O alvo específico do ataque também é desconhecido, o que poderia ter oferecido pistas sobre qual país estava por trás do ataque. O Afeganistão tornou-se o centro da guerra da Inteligência entre o Ocidente e seus rivais regionais, Rússia, China, Irã e Índia.

A maioria dos poderes regionais e os EUA/OTAN estão fortemente envolvidos na promoção do terrorismo e na concepção de planos que utilizam grupos terroristas como arma estratégica. Se a Rússia ou o Irã apoiarem um determinado líder ou grupo do Taliban, ele ou eles são imediatamente assediados pelos EUA.

Da mesma forma, se a Índia apoia algum grupo terrorista, é imediatamente atacada pelos EUA com o Paquistão em seus calcanhares. Nesta situação complexa e nebulosa, é muito difícil verificar exatamente qual agência de Inteligência está por trás de tais ataques; mas os EUA sabem muito bem, e podem ter conhecimento prévio de tais ataques, mas nunca revelam essa informação. Assim se dá o jogo no Afeganistão hoje.

O que deve acontecer para que ataques como este tenham fim?

Já dissemos isso antes, e diremos novamente: a única solução para esta situação está nas mãos do povo do Afeganistão. O fim da ocupação dos EUA/OTAN deve ser o primeiro passo da nossa luta por justiça, paz e a democracia. Ocupação e terrorismo são as duas faces de uma mesma moeda.

Se nosso povo estiver mobilizado e organizado sob uma liderança verdadeiramente democrática e nacional, e levanta-se contra seus inimigos – fundamentalistas islamitas dentro e fora do governo, e seus chefes estrangeiros -, só então nosso país pode escapar deste atoleiro.

 

Artigo original : The Solution is in the Hands of the People of Afghanistan: The US Must Leave for Peace to Reign in Afghanistan

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Ataque Suicida em Cabul. EUA Deve Retirar-Se para que a Haja Paz no Afeganistão: Entrevista com RAWA

A estratégia de tensão da Otan

June 30th, 2017 by Manlio Dinucci

O que aconteceria se o avião do secretário estadunidense da Defesa Jim Mattis, em voo da Califórnia ao Alasca ao longo de um corredor aéreo sobre o Pacífico, fosse interceptado por um caça russo da aeronáutica cubana? A notícia ocuparia as primeiras páginas, suscitando uma onda de preocupadas reações políticas.

Inversamente, não se mexeu sequer uma folha quando em 21 de junho o avião do ministro russo da Defesa Sergei Shoigu, em voo de Moscou ao enclave russo de Kaliningrado pelo corredor sobre o Mar Báltico, foi interceptado por um caça F-16 estadunidense da aviação polonesa que, depois de se aproximar ameaçadoramente, teve que se afastar com a intervenção de um caça Sukhoi SU-27 russo. Uma provocação programada, que faz parte da estratégia da Otan visando a aumentar na Europa, dia após dia, a tensão com a Rússia.

De 1º a 16 de junho se desenvolveu no Mar Báltico, perto da costa russa e com a motivação oficial de defender a região da “ameaça russa”, o exercício da Otan “Baltops” com a participação de mais de 50 navios e 50 aeronaves de guerra dos Estados Unidos, França, Alemanha, Grã Bretanha, Polônia e outros países como Suécia e Finlândia, não membros, mas parceiros da Aliança.

Enquanto isso, de 12 a 23 de junho, realizou-se na Lituânia o exercício “Iron Wolf” que viu empenhados, pela primeira vez, dois grupos de batalha da Otan “com presença avançada potenciada”: o da Lituânia sob comando alemão, compreendendo tropas belgas, holandesas e norueguesas e, a partir de 2018, também francesas, croatas e tchecas; e o da Polônia, sob comando estadunidense, incluindo tropas britânicas e romenas.

Blindados Abrams da 3ª Brigada blindada dos EUA, transferida à Polônia em janeiro último, entraram na  Lituânia através do Suwalki Gap, um trecho de terreno plano ao longo de uma centena de quilômetros entre Kaliningrado e a Bielorússia, unindo-se aos blindados Leopard do batalhão alemão 122 de infantaria mecanizada. O Suwalki Gap, adverte a Otan exumando o aparato propagandístico da velha guerra fria, “seria uma passagem perfeita através da qual os blindados russos poderiam invadir a Europa”.

Em plena atividade estão também os outros dois grupos de batalha da Otan: o da Letônia sob comando canadense, que inclui tropas italianas, espanholas, polonesas, eslovenas e albanesas; e o da Estônia sob comando britânico, com tropas francesas e, a partir de 2018, também dinamarquesas.

“As nossas forças estão prontas e posicionadas no  caso em que seja necessário para enfrentar a agressão russa”, assegura o general Curtis Scaparrotti, chefe do Comando europeu dos Estados Unidos e ao mesmo tempo Comandante supremo aliado na Europa.

Não são apenas os grupos de batalha da Otan “com presença avançada potenciada” que estão por ser mobilizados. De 12 a 29 de junho se desenvolve no Centro da Otan de treinamento das forças conjuntas, na Polônia, o exercício “Coalition Warrior” cujo escopo é experimentar a mais avançada tecnologia para dar à Otan a máxima prontidão e interoperatividade, em particular no confronto com a Rússia. Participam mais de mil cientistas e engenheiros de 26 países, entre os quais os do Centro da Otan para a pesquisa marítima e experimentação com sede em La Spezia.

Obviamente, Moscou não está com as mãos abanando. Depois que o presidente Trump visitar a Polônia em seis de julho, a Rússia terá no Mar Báltico um grande exercício naval conjunto com a China.

Talvez conheçam em Washington o antigo provérbio: “Quem semeia ventos, colhe tempestade”.

Manlio Dinucci

 

 

Artigo publicado em Il Manifesto, 27 de junho de 2017.

O artigo em italiano : Strategia Nato della tensione L’arte della guerra

Tradução de José Reinaldo Carvalho para o Resistência.

Manlio Dinucci é geógrafo e jornalista.

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on A estratégia de tensão da Otan

Selected Articles: Global Destruction and US Foreign Policy

June 30th, 2017 by Global Research News

Global destruction is perhaps the underpinning for the US foreign policy. It seeks to destabilize genuine representative democracies so as to install their pseudo/puppet governments. It’s the Washington Consensus and and they’re not ready to give up! What are the implications of their actions? Read our articles below…

A re-built Syria which controls its own central bank and can issue its own currency as it needs with no outside control and no debt to the International Monetary Fund or anyone else, (The most fundamental and essential of freedoms that most western countries have not experienced for at least a hundred years.) which, because of this,  is able to offer its citizens, even during the war, free education and higher education, health care and extremely low or non existent utility charges is totally anathema to the real leaders of the western world. (Marcus Godwyn)

*     *     *

U.S. Retreats From Al-Tanf – Gives Up on Occupying South East Syria

By Moon of Alabama, June 30, 2017

The U.S. is giving up its hopeless position at the Syrian-Iraq border crossing near  al-Tanf in south east Syria. The U.S. military had earlier bombed Syrian forces when they came near that position but it then found itself outmaneuvered, cut off from the north and enclosed in a useless area.

Washington Has Been at War for 16 Years: Why?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, June 30, 2017

For sixteen years the US has been at war in the Middle East and North Africa, running up trillions of dollars in expenses, committing untold war crimes, and sending millions of war refugees to burden Europe, while simultaneously claiming that Washington cannot afford its Social Security and Medicare obligations or to fund a national health service like every civilized country has.

After US-Backed Bombing Sparks Famine in Yemen, US Media Insists ‘US Not the Problem’

By Adam Johnson, June 30, 2017

Not only does Diehl ignore the US’s role in supplying arms, giving logistical supporting and even facilitating torture on behalf of Saudi Arabia and its allies in Yemen (a complicity so deep the US State Department itself warned the US could be liable for war crimes), he actually writes, “the United States is not the problem here.”

Why the West Will Not and Cannot Let Syria Live in Peace

By Marcus Godwyn, June 29, 2017

The fact that different branches of Islam and above all, the fact that the many Orthodox Christians in Syria live in peace with each other burns the western, fractional reserve, debt enslaving banking elites as holy water burns a vampire.

Ex-Weapons Inspector: Trump’s Sarin Claims Built on ‘Lie’ By Scott Ritter, June 30, 2017

Having defined the creation of the object (the non-existent chemical weapon) and the means by which it was created (the flawed theatrics of the White Helmets), we move on to the third, or formal cause, which constitutes the expression of what the object is.

*     *     *

Truth in media is a powerful instrument.

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

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research 

Featured image from Oriental Review

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Global Destruction and US Foreign Policy

The Sovershenno Secretno newspaper (Top Secret) continues its investigation into the crash of the  Malaysian Boeing over the Donbass. The newspaper has published another portion of documents that establish Kiev’s guilt in the tragedy.

Newspaper journalists have obtained a map, namely a secret flight plan, that was made and personally signed the day before the flight, on July 16, 2014, by the pilot of the 299th tactical aviation brigade, Captain Vladislav Voloshin. The plan was also approved by commander of the A4104 military unit, Colonel Gennady Dubovik.

Ukraine persistently claims that there was no military aircraft flying in the area the day when the tragedy occurred. Yet, the newly published documents prove that Ukrainian officials lie.

Pravda.Ru held a brief interview with Sergei Sokolov, editor-in-chief of the Sovershenno Secretno newspaper.

“This time, the material is very extensive, there are scanned copies of documents and transcripts of  conversations with pilots of the Ukrainian aviation. It became known that Ukraine was using its warplanes on the tragic day. What does the newly discovered information say?”

“These documents show that there were orders given to use combat aircraft. Conversations with servicemen of the Chuguev Airborne Division testified that there were sorties made. We try to be objective in this, but we know that the version promoted by the international commission in the Netherlands prevails. According to that version, it was a Russian Buk missile system that shot the plane down. We believe that this version of the investigation is biased and not credible, because the documents that we publish testify that there are other facts that need to be taken into account and carefully analyzed by the international commission in the Netherlands.”

“How was all this information obtained?”

“Strictly speaking, when we received audio recordings of conversations with servicemen of the Chuguevsky airborne unit, it became clear that an unknown person talked to them and made those recordings. In general, it goes about a special operation to document facts of the crimes committed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.”

“Do you think that the destruction of the Boeing of Malaysia Airlines was a well-planned operation?”

“Judging from the documents that we have published, the SBU of Ukraine speaks about the destruction of the facts of the special operation. Such a conclusion is possible.”

“What can you say about those who ordered the destruction of the passenger aircraft?”

“If it goes about a state-run special operation, it is clear that this was the Ukrainian administration. In our article, we pointed out a strange coincidence. On the eve of the tragedy, two top officials of the Ukrainian administration visited the air force unit in Chuguev: Yatsenyuk, who then served as  the Prime Minister of Ukraine, and Parubiy. They also visited the tactical aviation brigade in Nikolayev. Strictly speaking, this is a coincidence, but we have published a photo, on which Yatsenyuk walks near SU-25 flight 08. It is the fighter jet, which Captain Voloshin could pilot, according to the flight map.”

“Is there any hope that your materials will show influence on the course of the investigation in the Netherlands?”

“I would very much like to believe so, because it really hurts me to see people applauding to unprofessional Bellingcat reports with photoshopped images.”

Featured image: Flight MH17 Malaysian Airlines wreckage (Source: Ian56)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Kiev Regime Conducted Special Operation to Destroy Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17

Featured image: Emir of Qatar Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani (Source: Flickr)

In the event you have noticed the hullabaloo about Qatar and wonder what it is about, it is about Al Jazeera, a news organization, established by the Emir who rules the oil and gas sheikdom on the Persian Gulf. Al Jezeera is far more professional than any news organization in the West. Al Jazeera’s  problem is that it covers the actual news and tells the truth. This is unacceptable to the Saudis, the United Arab Emirates, and to Washington.  

At the time of the US invasion of Iraq the Crown Prince of the UAE requested that Washington bomb Al Jazeera so that the Arab world would not be inflamed by truthful reporting of the US attack on Iraq. In April 2003 Al Jazeera’s Baghdad office in Iraq was struck by a US missile, killing one journalist and wounding another. Of course, Washington claimed it was just a mistake. 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/uae-crown-prince-asked-us-to-bomb-al-jazeera-says-2003-cable/5596718  

Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world—$129,700 in 2016—a sum to which American per capita income compares very poorly.

Qatar also hosts the largest US military base in the Mideast. This fact makes the list of demands or else that Saudi Arabia has handed to Qatar perplexing. Essentially, the Saudis accuse Qatar of “supporting terrorism” because the Emir permits Al Jazeera to tell the truth. The second demand on the list is that Qatar close down Al Jezeera. 

The Emir is proud of Al Jazeera, and he should be. On the other hand Qatar shares a land border with Saudi Arabia.  But the Saudis are bogged down as Washington’s proxies in a war with Yemen. Does Saudi Arabia want a second front? What would Washington’s response be to a Saudi attack on a country that hosts Washington’s largest military base in the Middle East?

Is Qatar to be incorporated into Saudi Arabia? If so, the problem returns of the infidel having military troops in the country that protects the holy shrine of Mecca. What is certain is that Washington is not going to let go of its largest base in the Middle East.

Still, Washington hates Al Jazeera. So, can we expect that Washington will pressure the Emir to comply with the Saudi demand? What if the Emir instead ordered Washington out and installed the Russians, or the Iranians with whom the Emir is on speaking terms? If the Emir could evade the CIA assassination attempts, he could single-handedly change the course of history.

Only the corrupt Saudi monarchy and the idiots in Washington could create such an opportunity for a mere Emir. If I were the Emir, I would be on the telephone with Vladimir Putin.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Saudi Arabia Has Handed the Emir of Qatar an Opportunity to Redirect History

Trump administration officials are walking back the White House announcement of its plans to fake another “chemical weapon attack” in Syria.

There are plenty of reasons why the U.S. would want to accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons but zero sane reasons for the Syrian government to use such. Russia and Syria have long insisted on sending chemical weapon inspectors to the airbase the Trump administration claims is at the center of its “chemical” fairy tale. The U.S. has held the inspectors back. The claims make thereby zero sense to any objective observer.

The walk back, as well as the statement itself, may not be serious at all. This White House seems unpredictable and the U.S. military, the intelligence services and the White House itself have no common view or policy. One day they claim the U.S. will leave Syria after ISIS is defeated, the next day they announce new bases and eternal support for the Syrian Kurds.

The way the White House statement came out, without knowledge of the relevant agencies and little involvement of the agency principals, was not cynical but just dumb. It sounds like the idea was dropped by Natanyahoo to his schoolboy Jared Kushner who then convinced his father in law to issue the crazy statement. Now officials are send out with the worst argument ever to claim that the White House “warning” made sense.

“The elephants did not climb up the trees. Warning them off was successful,” they say. “The trees were saved!”

It appears that they took the warning seriously,” Mattis said. “They didn’t do it,” he told reporters flying with him to Brussels for a meeting of NATO defense ministers.He offered no evidence other than the fact that an attack had not taken place.

*

I can tell you that due to the president’s actions, we did not see an incident,” [U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki] Haley told the House Foreign Affairs Committee during a hearing Tuesday.[..]
[…]

“I would like to think that the president saved many innocent men, women and children,” Haley continued.

Haley “would like to think” a lot of stuff – unfortunately she is not capable of such. A bit later she issued an egocentric tweet about UN peacekeeping that will surely increase U.S. political standing in the world (not):

I can even agree with Haley that UN peacekeeping has gotten way out of hand. To have UN mandated troops spreading Cholera in Haiti and raping their way through various countries does not help anyone. But the way to end this is to stop handing out mandates for such missions. To (re-)mandate undertrained/underpaid peacekeeping forces in the UN Security Council while cutting the budget for them is irresponsible. It will corrupt the troops and their behavior even more.

UN peacekeepers are often an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. By cutting them down the U.S. and Haley are limiting their own political options. The White House “warning”, which had to be defused within a day, has a similar effect. People will become less inclined to believe any U.S. claims or to follow up on U.S. demands. Both statements have limited future policy options.

Will the Trump administration come to regret such moves?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on White House Encouraged After Elephants Abstain From Climbing Trees

New York Times Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard

June 30th, 2017 by Robert Parry

The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.

On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.

In the Times’ White House Memo of June 25, correspondent Maggie Haberman mocked Trump for “still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.”

However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman’s ridicule of Trump in place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence “assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”

The Times’ grudging correction was vindication for some Russia-gate skeptics who had questioned the claim of a full-scale intelligence assessment, which would usually take the form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a product that seeks out the views of the entire Intelligence Community and includes dissents.

The reality of a more narrowly based Russia-gate assessment was admitted in May by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan in sworn congressional testimony.

Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking claim came from a

“special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.

Clapper further acknowledged that the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 assessment on alleged Russian hacking were “hand-picked” from the CIA, FBI and NSA.

Yet, as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you “hand-pick” the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. For instance, if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided report that they did.

Politicized Intelligence

In the history of U.S. intelligence, we have seen how this selective approach has worked, such as the phony determination of the Reagan administration pinning the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and other acts of terror on the Soviet Union.

CIA Director William Casey and Deputy Director Robert Gates shepherded the desired findings through the process by putting the assessment under the control of pliable analysts and sidelining those who objected to this politicization of intelligence.

The point of enlisting the broader intelligence community – and incorporating dissents into a final report – is to guard against such “stove-piping” of intelligence that delivers the politically desired result but ultimately distorts reality.

Another painful example of politicized intelligence was President George W. Bush’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD that removed State Department and other dissents from the declassified version that was given to the public.

Since Clapper’s and Brennan’s testimony in May, the Times and other mainstream news outlets have avoided a direct contradiction of their earlier acceptance of the 17-intelligence-agencies canard by simply referring to a judgment by “the intelligence community.”

Hillary Clinton at the Code 2017 conference on May 31, 2017. (Source: Consortiumnews)

That finessing of their earlier errors has allowed Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats to continue referencing this fictional consensus without challenge, at least in the mainstream media.

For instance, on May 31 at a technology conference in California, Clinton referred to the Jan. 6 report, asserting that

“Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence voters in the election.”

The failure of the major news organizations to clarify this point about the 17 agencies may have contributed to Haberman’s mistake on June 25 as she simply repeated the groupthink that nearly all the Important People in Washington just knew to be true.

But the Times’ belated correction also underscores the growing sense that the U.S. mainstream media has joined in a political vendetta against Trump and has cast aside professional standards to the point of repeating false claims designed to denigrate him.

That, in turn, plays into Trump’s Twitter complaints that he and his administration are the targets of a “witch hunt” led by the “fake news” media, a grievance that appears to be energizing his supporters and could discredit whatever ongoing investigations eventually conclude.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

Featured image from Wikipedia

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New York Times Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard

Featured image: Sarin gas victim in Syria, as reported in April 2017. (Photo from Ninian Reid / Flickr)

On the night of June 26, the White House Press Secretary released a statement, via Twitter, that, “the United States has identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children.”  The tweet went on to declare that, “the activities are similar to preparations the regime made before its April 4 chemical weapons attack,” before warning that if “Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price.”

A Pentagon spokesman backed up the White House tweet, stating that U.S. intelligence had observed “activity” at a Syrian air base that indicated “active preparation for chemical weapons use” was underway. The air base in question, Shayrat, had been implicated by the United States as the origin of aircraft and munitions used in an alleged chemical weapons attack on the village of Khan Sheikhun on April 4. The observed activity was at an aircraft hangar that had been struck by cruise missiles fired by U.S. Navy destroyers during a retaliatory strike on April 6.

American journalist Seymour Hersh

The White House statement comes on the heels of the publication of an article by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in a German publication, Die Welt, which questions, among many things, the validity of the intelligence underpinning the allegations leveled at Syria regarding the events of April 4 in and around Khan Sheikhun. (In the interests of full disclosure, I had assisted Mr. Hersh in fact-checking certain aspects of his article; I was not a source of any information used in his piece.) Not surprisingly, Mr. Hersh’s article has come under attack from many circles, the most vociferous of these being a UK-based citizen activist named Eliot Higgins who, through his Bellingcat blog, has been widely cited by media outlets in the U.S. and UK as a source of information implicating the Syrian government in that alleged April chemical attack on Khan Sheikhun.

Neither Hersh nor Higgins possesses definitive proof to bolster their respective positions; the latter draws upon assertions made by supposed eyewitnesses backed up with forensic testing of materials alleged to be sourced to the scene of the attack that indicate the presence of Sarin, a deadly nerve agent, while the former relies upon anonymous sources within the U.S. military and intelligence establishments who provide a counter narrative to the official U.S. government position. What is clear, however, is that both cannot be right—either the Syrian government conducted a chemical weapons attack on Khan Sheikhun, or it didn’t. There is no middle ground.

The search for truth is as old as civilization. Philosophers throughout the ages have struggled with the difficulties of rationalizing the beginning of existence, and the relationships between the one and the many. Aristotle approached this challenge through what he called the development of potentiality to actuality, which examined truth in terms of the causes that act on things. This approach is as relevant today as it was two millennia prior, and its application to the problem of ascertaining fact from fiction regarding Khan Sheikhun goes far in helping unpack the White House statements regarding Syrian chemical preparations and the Hersh-Higgins debate.

According to Aristotle, there were four causes that needed to be examined in the search for truth — material, efficient, formal and final. The material cause represents the element out of which an object is created. In terms of the present discussion, one could speak of the material cause in terms of the actual chemical weapon alleged to have been used at Khan Sheikhun. The odd thing about both the Khan Sheikhun attack and the current White House statements, however, is that no one has produced any physical evidence of there actually having been a chemical weapon, let alone what kind of weapon was allegedly employed. Like a prosecutor trying a murder case without producing the actual murder weapon, Syria’s accusers have assembled a case that is purely circumstantial — plenty of dead and dying victims, but nothing that links these victims to an actual physical object.

A group of White Helmets without full protective gear hosing down children after an alleged chemical attack. (Photo from hurriyetdailynews.com)

Human Rights Watch (HRW), drawing upon analysis of images brought to them by the volunteer rescue organization White Helmets, of fragments allegedly recovered from the scene of the attack, has claimed that the material cause of the Khan Sheikhun event is a Soviet-made KhAB-250 chemical bomb, purpose-built to deliver Sarin nerve agent. There are several issues with the HRW assessment. First and foremost, there is no independent verification that the objects in question are what HRW claims, or that they were even physically present at Khan Sheikhun, let alone deposited there as a result of an air attack by the Syrian government. Moreover, the KhAB-250 bomb was never exported by either the Soviet or Russian governments, thereby making the provenance of any such ordinance in the Syrian inventory highly suspect.

Sarin is a non-persistent chemical agent whose military function is to inflict casualties through direct exposure. Any ordnance intended to deliver Sarin would, like the KhAB-250, be designed to disseminate the agent in aerosol form, fine droplets that would be breathed in by the victim, or coat the victim’s skin. In combat, the aircraft delivering Sarin munitions would be expected to minimize its exposure to hostile fire, flying low to the target at high speed. In order to have any semblance of military utility, weapons delivered in this fashion would require an inherent braking mechanism, such as deployable fins or a parachute, which would retard the speed of the weapon, allowing for a more concentrated application of the nerve agent on the intended target.

Chemical ordnance is not intended for precise strikes against point targets, but rather delivery of the agent to an area. For this reason, they are not dropped singly, but rather in large numbers. (The ab-250, for instance was designed to be delivered by a TU-22 bomber dropping 24 weapons on the same target.) The weapon itself is not complex—a steel bomb casing with a small high explosive tube—the burster charge—running down its middle, equipped with a nose fuse designed to detonate on contact with the ground or at a pre-determined altitude. Once detonated, the burster charge causes the casing to break apart, disseminating fine droplets of agent over the target. The resulting explosion is very low order, a pop more than a bang—virtually none of the actual weapon would be destroyed as a result, and its component parts, readily identifiable as such, would be deposited in the immediate environs. In short, if a KhAB-250, or any other air delivered chemical bomb, had been used at Khan Sheikhun, there would be significant physical evidence of that fact, including the totality of the bomb casing, the burster tube, the tail fin assembly, and parachute. The fact that none of this exists belies the notion that an air-delivered chemical bomb was employed by the Syrian government against Khan Sheikhun.

Continuing along the lines of Aristotle’s exploration of the relationship between the potential and actual, the efficient cause represents the means by which the object is created. In the context of Khan Shiekhun, the issue (i.e., object) isn’t the physical weapon itself, but rather its manifestation on the ground in terms of cause and effect. Nothing symbolized this more than the disturbing images that emerged in the aftermath of the alleged chemical attack of civilian victims, many of them women and children. (It was these images that spurred President Trump into ordering the cruise missile attack on Shayrat air base.) These images were produced by the White Helmet organization as a byproduct of the emergency response that transpired in and around Khan Sheikhun on April 4. It is this response, therefore, than can be said to constitute the efficient cause in any examination of potential to actuality regarding the allegations of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government there.

The White Helmets came into existence in the aftermath of the unrest that erupted in Syria after the Arab Spring in 2012. They say they are neutral, but they have used their now-global platform as a humanitarian rescue unit to promote anti-regime themes and to encourage outside intervention to remove the regime of Bashar al-Assad. By White Helmet’s own admission, it is well-resourced, trained and funded by western NGOs and governments, including USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development), which funded the group $23 million as of 2016.

A UK-based company with strong links to the British Foreign Office, May Day Rescue, has largely managed the actual rescue aspects of the White Helmet’s work. Drawing on a budget of tens of millions of dollars donated by foreign governments, including the U.S. and UK, May Day Rescue oversees a comprehensive training program designed to bring graduates to the lowest standard—”light,” or Level One—for Urban Search and Rescue (USAR). Personnel and units trained to the “light” standard are able to conduct surface search and rescue operations—they are neither trained nor equipped to rescue entrapped victims. Teams trained to this standard are not qualified to perform operations in a hazardous environment (such as would exist in the presence of a nerve agent like Sarin).

The White Helmets have made their reputation through the dissemination of self-made videos ostensibly showing them in action inside Syria, rescuing civilians from bombed out structures, and providing life-saving emergency medical care. (It should be noted that the eponymously named Oscar-nominated documentary showing the White Helmets in action was filmed entirely by the White Helmets themselves, which raises a genuine question of journalistic ethics.) To the untrained eye, these videos are a dramatic representation of heroism in action. To the trained professional (I can offer my own experience as a Hazardous Materials Specialist with New York Task Force 2 USAR team), these videos represent de facto evidence of dangerous incompetence or, worse, fraud.

The bread and butter of the White Helmet’s self-made reputation is the rescue of a victim—usually a small child—from beneath a pile of rubble, usually heavy reinforced concrete. First and foremost, as a “light” USAR team, the White Helmets are not trained or equipped to conduct rescues of entrapped victims. And yet the White helmet videos depict their rescue workers using excavation equipment and tools, such as pneumatic drills, to gain access to victims supposedly pinned under the weight of a collapsed building. The techniques used by the White Helmets are not only technically wrong, but dangerous to anyone who might actually be trapped—the introduction of excavators to move debris, or the haphazard drilling and hammering into concrete in the immediate vicinity of a trapped victim, would invariably lead to a shifting if the rubble pile, crushing the trapped victim to death. In my opinion, the videos are pure theater, either staged to impress an unwitting audience, or actually conducted with total disregard for the well-being of any real victims.

Likewise, the rescue of victims from a hazardous materials incident, especially one as dangerous as one involving a nerve agent as lethal as Sarin, is solely the purview of personnel and teams specifically equipped and trained for the task. “Light” USAR teams receive no hazardous materials training as part of their certification, and there is no evidence or even claim on the part of the White Helmets that they have undergone the kind of specialist training needed to effect a rescue in the case of an actual chemical weapons attack.

This reality comes through on the images provided by the White Helmets of their actions in and around Khan Sheikhun on April 4. From the haphazard use of personal protective equipment (either non-existent or employed in a manner that negates protection from potential exposure) to the handling of victims and so-called decontamination efforts, everything the White Helmets did was operationally wrong and would expose themselves and the victims they were ostensibly treating to even greater harm. As was the case with their “rescues” of victims in collapsed structures, I believe the rescue efforts of the White Helmets at Khan Sheikhun were a theatrical performance designed to impress the ignorant and ill-informed.

I’m not saying that nothing happened at Khan Sheikhun—obviously something did. But the White Helmets exploited whatever occurred, over-dramatizing “rescues” and “decontamination” in staged theatrics that were captured on film and rapidly disseminated using social media in a manner designed to influence public opinion in the West. We don’t see the actual rescue at the scene of the event—bodies pulled from their homes, lying in the streets. What we get is grand theater as bodies arrive at the field hospital, with lots of running to and fro and meaningless activity that would actually worsen the condition of the victims and contaminate the rescuers.

Through their actions, however, the White Helmets were able to breathe life into the overall narrative of a chemical weapons attack, distracting from the fact that no actual weapon existed and thus furthering the efficient cause by which the object—the non-existent chemical weapon—was created.

Having defined the creation of the object (the non-existent chemical weapon) and the means by which it was created (the flawed theatrics of the White Helmets), we move on to the third, or formal cause, which constitutes the expression of what the object is. In the case of Khan Sheikhun, this is best expressed by the results of forensic testing of samples allegedly taken from victims of the chemical attack, and from the scene of the attack itself. The organization responsible for overseeing this forensic testing was the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, or OPCW. Through its work, the OPCW has determined that the nerve agent Sarin, or a “Sarin-like substance,” was used at Khan Sheikhun, a result that would seemingly compensate for both the lack of a bomb and the amateurish theatrics of the rescuers.

During an OPCW training course on emergency response to chemical incidents, participants learn to use protective gear. (Source: UN)

The problem, however, is that the OPCW is in no position to make the claim it did. One of the essential aspects of the kind of forensic investigation carried out by organizations such as the OPCW—namely the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of a crime—is the concept of “chain of custody” of any samples that are being evaluated. This requires a seamless transition from the collection of the samples in question, the process of which must be recorded and witnessed, the sealing of the samples, the documentation of the samples, the escorted transportation of the samples to the laboratory, the confirmation and breaking of the seals under supervision, and the subsequent processing of the samples, all under supervision of the OPCW. Anything less than this means the integrity of the sample has been compromised—in short, there is no sample.

The OPCW acknowledges that its personnel did not gain access to Khan Sheikhun at any time. However, the investigating team states that it used connections with “parties with knowledge of and connections to the area in question,” to gain access to samples that were collected by “non governmental organizations (NGOs)” which also provided representatives to be interviewed, and videos and images for the investigating team to review. The NGO used by the OPCW was none other than the White Helmets.

The process of taking samples from a contaminated area takes into consideration a number of factors designed to help create as broad and accurate a picture of the scene of the incident itself as well as protect the safety of the person taking the sample as well as the integrity of the crime scene itself (i.e., reduce contamination). There is no evidence that the White Helmets have received this kind of specialized training required for the taking of such samples. Moreover, the White Helmets are not an extension of the OPCW—under no circumstances could any samples taken by White Helmet personnel and subsequently turned over to the OPCW be considered viable in terms of chain of custody. This likewise holds true for any biomedical samples evaluated by the OPCW—all such samples were either taken from victims who had been transported to Turkish hospitals, or provided by non-OPCW personnel in violation of chain of custody.

Lastly, there is Aristotle’s final cause, which represents the end for which the object is—namely, what was the ultimate purpose of the chemical weapons attack on Khan Sheikhun. To answer this question, one must remain consistent with the framework of examination of potential to actuality applied herein. In this, we find a commonality between the four causes whose linkage cannot be ignored when assessing the truth of what happened at Khan Sheikhun, namely the presence of a single entity—the White Helmets.

There are two distinct narratives at play when it comes to what happened in Khan Sheikhun. One, put forward by the governments of the United States, Great Britain, France, and supported by the likes of Bellingcat and the White Helmets, is that the Syrian government conducted a chemical weapons attack using a single air-delivered bomb on a civilian target. The other, put forward by the governments of Russia and Syria, and sustained by the reporting of Seymour Hersh, is that the Syrian air force used conventional bombs to strike a military target, inadvertently releasing a toxic cloud from substances stored at that facility and killing or injuring civilians in Khan Sheikhun. There can be no doubt that the very survival of the White Helmets as an organization, and the cause they support (i.e., regime change in Syria), has been furthered by the narrative they have helped craft and sell about the events of April 4 in and around Khan Sheikhun. This is the living manifestation of Aristotle’s final cause, the end for which this entire lie has been constructed.

The lack of any meaningful fact-based information to back up the claims of the White Helmets and those who sustain them, like the U.S. government and Bellingcat, raises serious questions about the viability of the White House’s latest pronouncements on Syria and allegations that it was preparing for a second round of chemical attacks. If America has learned anything from its painful history with Iraq and the false allegations of continued possession of weapons of mass destruction on the part of the regime of Saddam Hussein, it is that to rush into military conflict in the Middle East based upon the unsustained allegations of an interested regional party (i.e., Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress) is a fool’s errand.

It is up to the discerning public to determine which narrative about the events in Syria today they will seek to embrace—one supported by a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist who has made a career out of exposing inconvenient truths, from My Lai to Abu Ghraib and beyond, or one that collapses under Aristotle’s development of potentiality to actuality analysis, as the manufactured story line promoted by the White Helmets demonstratively does.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.  He is the author of “Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West’s Road to War” (Clarity Press, 2017).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ex-Weapons Inspector: Trump’s Sarin Claims Built on ‘Lie’

THAAD Deployment Opposed by New South Korea Moon Jae-in Government

June 30th, 2017 by Dr. Konstantin Asmolov

On June 8, 2017, a representative of the presidential administration of the Republic of Korea told reporters that the deployment of US missile defense systems on South Korea territory should be suspended until the completion of a full-fledged environmental impact assessment of the land plot to be transferred to the US military for these very purposes.

As it turns out, even though the site covers some 70 hectares in all, the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Korea decided to transfer the plot in stages. In the first stage, a total area of ​​32 hectares was transferred to the US military, with this amount having been chosen to avoid the full-scale environmental assessment that is required when constructing any facilities on an area of ​​more than 33 hectares. The remaining 38 hectares promised in accordance with the agreement shall be provided later.

The THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) complex is located on an area covering ​​10 hectares. However, this is the minimum area required to accommodate the missile launchers, with the total area of ​​the military base, including facilities and the security zone, amounting to 70 hectares. In the opinion of the new authorities of the Republic of Korea, in an attempt to accelerate the deployment of THAAD, the previous authorities had deliberately underwent serious violations. However, incumbent president Moon Jae-in does not consider the deployment of the missile defense system a priority task for which the law should be ignored. As a result, he has gone ahead and given personal instructions for everything to be checked.

Naturally, part of the missile system already delivered to the country should not be returned back. Nonetheless, the environmental assessment could last from six months to a year, or even longer (it effectively lasted two years for Guam). Under these conditions, it follows that the missile defense complexes are unlikely to be deployed in 2017, as originally planned. In addition, the presidential administration has ordered a fact-finding mission on the people who were involved in planning the allocation of the land for the deployment of the THAAD missile defense system specifically to avoid a full-scale environmental assessment.

True, there is a bottleneck in that, since the land was transferred to the US side in accordance with the U.S.-South Korea Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), it is not subject to the laws of the Republic of Korea. However, there are indications that Moon Jae-in’s administration is choosing to ignore this.

The environmental assessment has been preceded by another scandal, connected with the fact that the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Korea knowingly refrained from providing information on the import of additional four launchers for the US THAAD missile defense system. According to the presidential administration representative, this fact was revealed based on an investigation conducted on May 30 within military circles. The initial draft of the report referred to the importation of six launchers, but afterwards this proposal was deleted. In addition, according to the Report of the Ministry of Defense of May 26, Head of the National Security Agency Chun Yi Yong also only indicated that the THAAD missile defense systems had been deployed without explanation. As the high-ranking official of the administration emphasized,

“Not a single word on the four additional THAAD launchers was mentioned in the May 26 report that was forwarded by the Head of the Defense Policy Department of the Ministry of Defense to the Head of the National Security Agency Administration and the first and second deputies.”

It was also found out that the military department chose not to report the deployment of four “additional” THAAD missile systems to the Consultative Committee on State Planning, which is now engaged in work on developing the main directions of the policy of the new government, in the process reviewing cases from the previous administration.

News on the import of the additional four launchers became known on May 26 by the First Deputy Chief of the National Security Agency Li Sang Cholyu, who received this information from one of the military officials. The Deputy Chief then immediately personally contacted Defense Minister Han Min-goo on May 28, who confirmed the reports, thinking that his subordinates had already long reported all the detailed information.

As a result, President of the Republic of Korea Moon Jae-in described the whole situation as “extremely shocking” and sought to find out who had made the decision to import the facilities, and why this was not reported in the Ministry of Defense report to the new government.

On May 31, Minister of Defense of the Republic of Korea Han Min-goo and Head of the National Security Agency under the President Kim Kwang-jin were summoned to the President Administration to clarify the circumstances. Han Min-goo was asked on the reasons for the deletion of the information on the import of an additional four launchers from the report for the presidential administration. He replied that he had not given such an instruction.

On the same day, Moon Jae-in met with Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who was in Seoul on a visit, and noted that all measures being taken with respect to THAAD are the internal affairs of the South Korean government, and that they are not aimed at changing previous agreements, and are whatsoever not a kind of message to the American side. The new Government of the Republic of Korea is serious on the issue of THAAD deployment on South Korean territory, since the decision to implement this project was taken by the authorities of the two countries in order to counter the North Korean threat, but in the process of project implementation, the principles of democracy and the procedure itself were violated.

Meanwhile, on May 16, a representative of the US Department of Defense announced that the first stage in the supply and installation of components was completed. It turns out that the information that six THAAD missile systems had been delivered to the Republic of Korea was by no means a secret. Later, Pentagon representative Jeff Davis, who confirmed that the deployment of THAAD on the territory of Republic of Korea is a procedure that is being conducted openly. On June 5, Head of the Anti-Ballistic Defense Department of the Pentagon James Schilling and Commander of the US Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea General Vincent Brooks met with the Head of the National Security Agency Chon Yi Yong and explained to him the technical capabilities of the THAAD missile defense complexes and the reasons for their deployment.

President Moon Jae-in

As a result, it was found that the decision to remove those parts of the document that indicated that four more launchers had been brought into the country from the report to President Moon Jae-in and his assistants was adopted by the Head of Policy Department of the Ministry of Defense Wu Xing-ho. At the same time, Prime Minister Hwang Gyo-an, who acted as president of the country after the impeachment of Park Geun-hye, also supported the deployment of the US anti-missile system. Wu reported all the reasons why he had been removed from his administrative position.

However, on June 1, 2017, Chong Yi-yon, who had arrived in the United States to discuss the details of the upcoming South Korean-American summit, stated that the deployment of THAAD on the Korean Peninsula may take a little longer, and that this was due to the need to check the impact of this project on the environment. At the same time, Chong immediately clarified that the problem surrounding THAAD was being caused by purely procedural violations and that there would not be an obstacle to the development of South Korean-US relations.

What conclusions can be drawn out of this? Although the story with the digging out of figures from the report seems somewhat strange to the author, the author rather believes in the hardware games inside the Ministry of Defense and in the organizational disorder inherent in this structure, rather than in the conspiracy of generals and a conscious attempt at sabotage designed to place Moon before the fact. It is another matter that Moon cleverly took advantage of this opportunity, and raised eyebrows in a situation in which he could have demonstrated his desire to fight the deployment of THAAD, without having real power and capabilities for this.

Setting his will in opposition to Trump’s will is something Moon is not yet in a position to do. Under direct confrontation, the option we discussed in the previous article is too likely (the Americans could activate a whole set of measures of economic pressure, and in exchange for the removal of this pressure, the THAAD project would have to be allowed to continue. Based on his communication with the President of the Republic of Korea, the same Dick Durbin has openly said that if South Korea does not need THAAD, the US could always find ways of spending the USD 923 million. However, had he been living in the Republic of Korea, he would have liked to have as many anti-missile systems capable of ensuring protection against hundreds of North Korean missiles that would be directed to the south in the event of war. “Considerations on national security must prevail”.

The idea of pushing the question through the National Assembly, which Moon was planning as a presidential candidate, is also potentially dangerous. Even the People’s Party, which is the one closest to Moon in a number of positions in general, is in favor THAAD deployment, which means that Moon would probably not achieve the necessary majority in the parliament. And when the ruling party proposed holding parliamentary hearings on the concealment of military information with regards to the importation of the four launchers, the representative of the opposition party Free Korea immediately stated that the plan for holding hearings was not going to be considered, as such actions could damage the South Korean-US alliance and also lead to the disclosure of state secrets.

On the other hand, getting the question out on a referendum is also risky, since, according to the latest polls, along with the protesters, there are enough people who believe that the deployment of the US missile defense system now or in the future would protect the country from the North Korean threat. In addition, Moon is very much afraid of being called a socialist or pro-North Korean element, and imposing a discussion along the line of “if you are against THAAD, you support the DPRK” is not too difficult for a political technologist.

Therefore, the only remaining way out is to rely on issues related to the environment assessment. It is highly probable that, among the supporters of this move, there will be a sizeable number of specialists who will convincingly explain that the deployment of THAAD in this area poses a deadly threat to a rare and endemic species of subflora fauna, and, therefore, the US missile defense system must be placed elsewhere. In this regard, Moon is hoping to enter a “no peace, no war” situation in which, on the one hand, the placement of THAAD would be postponed indefinitely, but at the same time, all obligations would not be formally violated.

However, in actuality, such a strategy comes with a number of dangers. For example, the opposing party too can also find its ecologists who will no less convincingly prove that the claimed species of subflora fauna are neither rare nor endemic at all, and are also able to breed in captivity, from which their existence in the virtual space is completely matched with the placement of THAAD.

The only thing that can save Moon is a situation in which, because of some incident (a real one, not provoked), it would be possible to carry out a mass mobilization of public opinion similar to what Roh Moo-hyun organized fifteen years ago when, in 2002, two schoolgirls crossing a road were run over by an American armored personnel carrier. By re-inflating anti-American hysteria on this unpleasant history, Roh managed to achieve his set political goals, including assuming the presidency. With weekly mass demonstrations such as “the people’s promenades for impeachment” behind him, Moon theoretically can improve his position by bargaining with the United States, demonstrating that the whole country is against the deployment of the US missile defense system, and in the changed situation, he could not fail to then follow the people’s opinion and cancel the force majeure circumstances and previous arrangements.

But for this, such an emergency must occur. Meanwhile, until it does occur, Seoul shall continue playing a double game. On June 9, the presidential administration reported that, despite the change of hands of political power in the Republic of Korea, the new government is still very serious about THAAD, and is ready to continue close cooperation with the US. However, it is adhering to the need to comply with a number of procedures aimed at determining the justification for the project, ensuring its transparency, and conducting a review of the impact of THAAD on the ecology of the location area. According to South Korean media, such statements are aimed at creating more favorable conditions for preparing for a bilateral summit by alleviating the concerns of the American side.

Against this backdrop, on June 11, Reuters reported that when US diplomats openly asked the South Korean side whether the current environmental assessment is an attempt to abandon the project of the deployment of the missile defense, they confirmed that cooperation in this area shall continue, and all previous and current agreements will be respected. Head of the Defense Ministry Han Min-goo, during a meeting with Pentagon Chief James Mattis, also assured his American counterpart that Seoul is not making any attempts to cancel the agreements on this matter. According to him, the problems that have arisen in the South Korean society in this regard are related only to the lack of transparency in the deployment of the missile defense systems. Seoul shall solve the problem “in a spirit of alliance” with Washington.

But how is THAAD already operating on the ground? As per media reports, there are currently constant disruptions due to problems with electricity. And until a constant supply of electricity is provided, generators, which in turn require fuel, shall continue powering the system. Attempts to run the system on the ground have already been blocked by protesters twice. As a result, fuel is currently being imported using helicopters, and according to media reports, on days when the DPRK was testing new medium-range missiles, the whole system was down.

What the attempt to play a double game will end up producing, and whether the new authorities in Seoul will have enough courage to raise the question, are issues that are going to be discussed in the following articles on this topic.

Konstantin Asmolov, Ph.D. (History), leading researcher at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image from New Eastern Outlook

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on THAAD Deployment Opposed by New South Korea Moon Jae-in Government

Prisoners Exchange in the Ukraine. Conflict Is a Human Rights Issue

June 30th, 2017 by Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli

Featured image: First slide in “Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War” (Source: The Indicter)

Ukraine and the Democratic Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk should pursue a prompt solution for the prisoners exchange. From an international legislation perspective, the exchange of prisoners should not be viewed as an issue of war-behaviour primarily focused on the interests of the belligerent parties, but on the human rights of those held prisoners.

Ukraine should discontinue delaying that process. On a simple contextual observation, one could say that the repeatedly objections put forward by the Ukrainian government in implementing the exchange of prisoners with the Donbass republics, may correspond to a general behaviour of human rights disregarding, e.g. the one demonstrated against domestic journalists, anti-war activists, Donbas pensioners, etc., etc.

However, there are also legal issues. The requirements by the Geneva Convention regarding human treatment of prisoners, is mandatory to all belligerent forces. And this is independent if one any of those forces refuses to recognize a “state of war” (See article 2 of the Convention), [1] as it has been the case of the Ukraine government, which since long has categorized its military action against the armed forces of the independent Donbas republics as only an “antiterrorist operation”.

Besides, the Geneva Convention makes clear that no distinctions it should be made between regular forces and “militias” or “voluntary” participants in the armed conflict (Article 4). Most interesting, the Convention takes particular care of mentioning the people that spontaneously take arms against military invading the places where they live. Reports from Ukraine categorizing those prisoners as “terrorists and mercenaries” are neither truthful, nor congruent with a lawful and a human-rights stance towards the treatment of the captive.

The international legislation also makes mandatory the “immediate” or “with no delay” sending back of prisoners which may be affected by a variety of health issues, apart of the wounded, etc. In other words, if the “repatriation” process takes the form of prisoners exchange, it should also consider that for those prisoners, the government of Ukraine has scarce possibility of manoeuvre or delays in agreeing with the implementation of such exchange.

Provided that Ukraine really would wish to be considered as a EU candidate country, it should start by behaving in abiding to basic human rights and international instruments, such as the above-cited Geneva Convention of 1949, And it should be added that there are two other legislation bodies with reference to prisoners of war: one before (1916) and another addenda-set of 1977, and which we may consider as complementing each other.

Now it has passed long over a year since Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France developed the ceasefire agreement in Minsk (February 2015). In addition, the recent April talks of the Normandy Four leaders also dealt specifically with the issue of prisoners’ exchange.

In spite of declarations of goodwill, Ukraine, nevertheless, continues making objections to an implementation of prisoners’ exchange, originally planned for early July this year. Ukraine’s representative in the Trilateral Contact Group, Mr Leonid Kuchma, declared few days ago:

“We have still not approved it, there are still differences on the list…they (the DPR and the LPR) have 15 people more on the list than we are holding.”(“Kyiv Post”, 22 June 2017).

But, would it really the inclusion or exclusion of a dozen people justify a delay which is detrimental for prisoners of both sides?

Furthermore, the Ukrainian government’s protracted delay to comply with the signature of the promised law that would grant amnesty to the participants in the eastern Ukraine conflict (see Minsk agreements) is a main obstacle for a comprehensive, all-for-all prisoner exchange solution.

Against the background of the negotiations on prisoners’ exchange, we find the unsettled issue of the military conflict. Ukraine blames the Donetsk and Luhansk republics for problems around the captives’ swap, but those prisoners are the result of military hostilities initiated by Ukraine at the Junta-times, against the population of Donbass. It is there where the core of the ‘prisoners-problem’ is, and therefore its ultimate solution resides: Stop the military aggression against the Donbass folks; respect their civil rights; honour the pensions to the Donbas elderly.

At present times, when a purported Kiev military victory over the people of Donbass seems further unrealistic than ever, Ukraine appears instrumenting the human rights of prisoners, including those from it own personnel, to obtain some scores in the current negotiation to halt a military conflict they seemingly cannot win.

Significantly, Mr Leonid Kuchma, the Ukraine representative in those talks, replied in May this year to the question on possible time frame for concluding the prisoners’ swap:

“Regarding this situation generally, no one can ever say when all this will end.” (Interfax-Ukraine, 17-05-2017)

Our organization Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights advocates for a political / diplomatic solution for the Ukraine conflict.

Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli is professor emeritus of epidemiology, medicine doktor i psykiatri (PhD, Karolinska Institute), and formerly Research Fellow at Harvard Medical School. He is the founder and chairman of Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights and editor-in-chief of The Indicter. Also publisher of The Professors’ Blog, and CEO of Libertarian Books – Sweden. Author of “Sweden VS. Assange – Human Rights Issues.” Op-ed articles published in Dagens Nyheter (DN), Svenska Dagbladet (Svd), Aftonbladet, Västerbotten Kuriren, Dagens Medicin,  Läkartidningen and other Swedish media. He also has had exclusive interviews in DN, Expressen, SvD and Aftonbladet, and in Swedish TV channels (Svt 2, TV4, TV5) as well as in international TV (e.g. UK, Norway, Italy TG, Television Nacional Chile, RT, Russia Channel 1, Rossiya 24, etc.) and media (DN, SvT, Aftonbladet, Expressen, Aftenposten,Ystad Allehanda,Tass, Izvestia, El Telégrafo, etc.)

Reachable via email at [email protected][email protected]

Follow the professor on Twitter at @Professorsblogg

Note

[1] Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.

This article was published in Izvestia 30 June 2017.

Translation by Izvestia journalist Anna Khalitova.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Prisoners Exchange in the Ukraine. Conflict Is a Human Rights Issue

Featured image: Aged and Women had to die of starvation under the rule of King Leopold II in Congo. (Source: Annoyz View)

Canada’s 150th anniversary offers a unique opportunity to shed light on some darker corners of Canadian history. One of the dustier chapters is our contribution to one of the most barbarous regimes of the last century and a half.

In a bid to extract rubber and other commodities from his personal colony, Belgian King Léopold II instituted a brutal system of forced labour in the late 1800s. Individuals and communities were given rubber collection quotas that were both hard to fulfill and punishable by death. To prove they killed someone who failed to fulfill a quota soldiers from the Force Publique, the colonial police, were required to provide a severed hand. With Force Publique officers paid partly based on the number collected, severed hands became a sort of currency in the colony and baskets of hands the symbol of the Congo Free State.

King Leopold II (Source: Annoyz View)

Between 1891 and 1908 millions died from direct violence, as well as the starvation and disease, caused by Leopold II’s terror. A quarter of the population may have died during Leopold’s reign, which sparked a significant international solidarity movement that forced the Belgian government to intervene and buy the colony.

Halifax’s William Grant Stairs played an important part in two expeditions that expanded Leopold II’s immensely profitable Congolese venture. The Royal Military College of Canada trained soldier was one of 10 white officers in the first-ever European expedition to cross the interior of the continent and subsequently Stairs led an expedition that added 150,000 square kilometres to Leopold’s colony.

In 1887 Stairs joined the Emin Pasha Relief Expedition, which was ostensibly designed to “rescue” the British-backed governor of Equatoria, the southern part of today’s South Sudan. Scottish merchant William MacKinnon asked famed American ‘explorer’ Henry Morton Stanley to lead a relief effort. At the time of the expedition Léopold II employed Stanley, who had been helping the king carve out the ‘Congo Free State’. Seeing an opportunity to add to his colony, Leopold wanted Stanley to take a circuitous route all the way around South Africa, up the Congo River and across the interior of the continent.

One of ten whites, Stairs quickly became second-in-command of the three-year expedition. Read from a humanistic or internationalist perspective, the RMC graduate’s diary of the disastrous expedition is incredibly damning. Or, as Canadian Parliamentary Poet Laureate George Elliott Clarke put it,

“Stairs’ account of his atrocities establishes that even Canadians, blinded by racism, can become swashbuckling mass murderers.”

Stairs’ extensive diary, which he asked to be published upon his and Stanley’s death, makes it clear that locals regularly opposed the mission. One passage notes,

“the natives made a tremendous noise all night and canoes came close to us, the natives yelling frantically for us to go away” while another entry explains,

“the natives destroyed their food rather than let it fall into the hands of the invaders.”

Stairs repeatedly admits to “ransacking the place”. A December 11, 1887 diary entry notes:

Out again at the natives, burned more houses and cut down more bananas; this time we went further up the valley and devastated the country there. In the afternoon [white officer, A. J. Mounteney] Jephson and I went up to some high hills at the back of the camp and burnt all we could see, driving off a lot of natives like so much game. I managed to capture some six goats and yesterday I also got six, which we gave to the men. The natives now must be pretty sick of having their property destroyed in the way we are doing, but it serves them right as they were the aggressors and after taking our cloth, fired on us.

On a number of occasions the expedition displayed mutilated bodies or severed heads as a “warning” to the locals. Stairs notes:

I often wonder what English people would say if they knew of the way in which we go for these natives; friendship we don’t want as then we should get very little meat and probably have to pay for the bananas. Every male native capable of using the bow is shot. This, of course, we must do. All the children and women are taken as slaves by our men to do work in the camps.

Stairs led numerous raiding parties to gather “carriers”, which were slaves in all but name. According to The Last Expedition,

“[the mission] routinely captured natives, either to be ransomed for food, to get information, or simply to be used as guides for a few days.”

To cross the continent the expedition relied on its superior firepower, which included the newly created 600-bullet-per-minute Maxim gun. Stairs describes one battle, stating that his men were “ready to land and my Maxim ready to murder them if they should dare to attack us.” On another day the firearm aficionado explained,

“I cleaned the Maxim gun up thoroughly and fired some 20 or 30 rounds at some howling natives on the opposite bank.”

Twenty months into the mission Stairs coyly admits

“by what means have we traveled over 730 miles of country from the Congo to the lake? Why by rifle alone, by shooting and pillaging.”

Image result for William Grant Stairs Congo

William Grant Stairs (Source: Pinterest)

Beyond the immediate death and destruction, the Emin Pasha Relief Expedition opened new areas of the African interior to Arab slave traders and it is thought to be the source of a sleeping sickness epidemic that ravaged the region. The expedition was also devastating for its participants. With little food and much abuse from the white officers, only 253 of the 695 African porters and soldiers who started the mission survived. Additionally, hundreds of other Africans who became part of the expedition at later stages died as well.

There are disturbing claims that some white officers took sex slaves and in one alarming instance even paid to have an 11-year-old girl cooked and eaten. This story scandalized the British public.

For his part, Stairs became almost pathologically inhumane. His September 28, 1887 diary entry notes:

It was most interesting, lying in the bush and watching the natives quietly at their days work; some women were pounding the bark of trees preparatory to making the coarse native cloth used all along this part of the river, others were making banana flower by pounding up dried bananas, men we could see building huts and engaged at other such work, boys and girls running about, singing, crying, others playing on a small instrument common all over Africa, a series of wooden strips, bent over a bridge and twanged with the thumb and forefinger. All was as it was every day until our discharge of bullets, when the usual uproar of screaming of women took place.

Even with some criticizing the expedition in Britain, Stairs’ efforts were celebrated in Canada. An honouring committee established by the mayor of Halifax decided to give him a sword made in London of Nova Scotia steel and the city organized a reception attended by the Lieutenant-Governor with a military band playing “Here the Conquering Hero Comes.”

Within two years of the Emin Pasha Relief Expedition Stairs helped King Leopold II conquer the resource-rich Katanga region of the Congo. Suggested to Leopold by British investors and having already impressed Stanley with his brutality, Stairs headed up a heavily armed mission that swelled to 2,000.

The goal of the expedition was to extend Leopold’s authority over the Katanga region and to get a piece of the copper, ivory and gold trade. Stairs’ specific objective was to get Msiri, the ruler of the region, “to submit to the authorities of the Congo Free State, either by persuasion or by force.” In his diary Stairs says more or less as much, writing that his goals were “above all, to be successful with regard to Msiri … to discover mines in Katanga that can be exploited … to make some useful geographic discoveries.” Investigating the area’s suitability for European settlement and for raising domestic animals were other aims of the mission.

As leader of the mission Stairs prepared a daily journal for the Compagnie du Katanga. It details the terrain, resources and inhabitants along the way as well as other information that could assist in exploiting the region. It also explains his personal motivations for taking on the task despite spotty health.

“I wasn’t happy [garrisoned with the Royal Engineers in England] in the real sense of the word. I felt my life passing without my doing anything worthwhile. Now I am freely making my way over the coastal plain with more than 300 men under my orders. My least word is law and I am truly the master.”

Later, he describes his growing force and power.

“I have thus, under my orders, 1350 men — quite a little army.”

Stairs admitted to using slaves even though Leopold’s mission to the Congo was justified as a humanistic endeavour to stop the Arab slave trade. He wrote about how “the anti-slavery society will try and jump upon me for employing slaves as they seem to think I am doing… however, I don’t fancy these will disturb me to a great extent.” The RMC graduate also regularly severed hands and reportedly collected the head of an enemy.

Congolese were whipped with chicotte for failing to reach their quota (Source: Annoyz View)

The expedition accomplished its principal objective. Stairs had Msiri killed and threatened Msiri’s brothers with the same fate unless they accepted Leopold as sovereign. After securing their submission Stairs divided the kingdom between Msiri’s adopted son and brothers.

Stairs used a series of racist rationalizations to justify conquering Katanga. He describes the population as “unfortunate blacks who, very often, are incapable of managing their own affairs” and asked in the introduction of his diary:

“Have we the right to take possession of this vast country, take it out of the hands of its local chiefs and to make it serve the realization of our goals? … To this question, I shall reply positively, yes. What value would it have [the land he was trying to conquer] in the hands of blacks, who, in their natural state, are far more cruel to one another than the worst Arabs or the wickedest whites.”

At another point Stairs cites another standard colonial justification:

“Only rarely do the natives think of improving their lot — that’s the great weakness among the Africans. Their fathers’ ways are theirs and their own customs will be those of their sons and grandsons.”

While Stairs died in the Congo his exploits were lauded in Ottawa when Senator W.J. Macdonald sought to move “a parliamentary resolution expressing satisfaction for Stairs’ manly conduct.” There’s a Stairs Street in Halifax and two brass plaques honour him at the RMC (one for Stairs alone and another dedicated to him and two others). The main plaque reads:

“William Grant Stairs, Captain the Welsh Regiment. Born at Halifax Nova Scotia 1 July 1863. Lieutenant Royal Engineers 1885-91. Served on the staff of the Emin Pasha Relief Expedition 1887 under the leadership of H.M. Stanley and exhibited great courage and devotion to duty. Died of fever on the 9 June 1892 at Chinde on the Zambesi whilst in command of the Katanga Expedition sent out by the King of the Belgians.”

Another plaque was erected for Stairs (and two others) at St. George Cathedral in Kingston, Ontario. And a few hundred kilometers to the southwest “Stair’s Island” was named in his honour in Parry Sound.

Stairs was one of hundreds of Canadians who helped conquer different parts of Africa at the turn of the 20th century. Accounts of Canada’s first 150-years are incomplete without this chapter in our history.

Yves Engler is the author of A Propaganda System: How Canada’s Government, Corporations, Media and Academia Sell War and Canada in Africa: 300 years of aid and exploitation. Read other articles by Yves.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada’s Dark History in Africa: Killing Natives and Seizing Their Land for Leopold II in Congo

Featured image: US-trained Arab fighters were transferred from al-Tanf to north east Syria. (Source: @ColoniumKoeln / Twitter)

The U.S. is giving up its hopeless position at the Syrian-Iraq border crossing near  al-Tanf in south east Syria. The U.S. military had earlier bombed Syrian forces when they came near that position but it then found itself outmaneuvered, cut off from the north and enclosed in a useless area.

Al-Tanf is in the blue area with the two blue arrows at the bottom of the map. It will soon be painted red as liberated and under Syrian government control.

Source: Al Watan Online – See bigger picture here

A more expressive version of the map:

Source: Doloroso

To recap:

The U.S. plan was to move from al-Tanf north towards the Euphrates river and to thereby capture and control the whole south-east of Syria. But Syria and its allies made an unexpected move and prevented that plan. The invaders are now cut off from the Euphrates by a Syrian west-to-east line that ends at the Iraqi border. On the Iraqi side elements of the Popular Military Unites under the command of the Iraqi government are moving to meet the Syrian forces at the border.The U.S. invaders are now sitting in the mid of a piece of rather useless desert around al-Tanf where their only option is to die of boredom or to move back to Jordan from where they came.

Syria Summary – The End Of The War Is Now In Sight – June 13

The U.S. military even moved a HIMARS missile launcher with 300 km reach from nearby Jordan to al-Tanf. That was a laughable stunt. It made no difference in capabilities from the earlier launcher position in Jordan just a few miles west. But someone the U.S. military believed that showing off such weapons in a doomed area would impress Syrian or Russian forces and change the facts of life. It didn’t. It was clear that the U.S. would have to move out.

That now seems to happen. A knowledgeable source just posted:

TØM CΛT‏ @TomtheBasedCat – 3:38 PM – 29 Jun 2017 
LolEvidently Tanf FSA really are being flown to Shaddadi. Plan C is in effect.

There were several rumors to this regard since yesterday and the above now confirms them. Lol indeed.

About 150 or so U.S. trained Arab fighters will be flown from al-Tanf to north-east Syria where they will join the (hated) Kurdish forces. They may later try to reach the ISIS besieged Deir Ezzor from the north or get pushed into some suicide mission against another ISIS position. The Syrian army will approach and liberate Deir Ezzor most likely from the south and east. It is unlikely that it will let U.S. proxy forces take part in that. The U.S. contingent will move west out of al-Tanf and back into Jordan. The Syrian and Iraqi forces will take over the Al Waleed border crossing at al-Tanf and the regular commercial traffic on the Damascus-Baghdad road will resume.

The various propagandists who argued for a big U.S. mission to occupy the whole Iraqi-Syrian border and all of east Syria have lost. The “Shia crescent” between Iran and Lebanon they claimed to prevent with such a move was never a physical road connection and certainly nothing the U.S could fight by any physical means. Their pushing for a U.S. occupation of east Syria and incitement of a larger conflict has for now failed.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Retreats From Al-Tanf – Gives Up on Occupying South East Syria

We thought that Senator Sanders was on track to introduce and advocate for a national improved Medicare for All bill, but Tuesday he stated publicly at a Planned Parenthood rally that his priorities are to first defeat the Republican health plan, then to improve the Affordable Care Act with a public option or allowing people to buy-in to Medicare, and then we can work for single payer.

This was confirmed by his deputy communications director Josh Miller-Lewis who said

“[Sanders has] said many times over the last six months that we need to move toward a Medicare-for-all system, but in the short-term we should improve the ACA with a public option and by lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55.”

This is the line being used by the Democrats to take the single payer movement off track. It’s the same line that worked so effectively in 2009-10. I wrote about that with Kevin Zeese in 2013 in “Obamacare: The Biggest Insurance Scam in History.”

We have to be smarter than that this time. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a huge bail out for the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries at a time when almost 50 million people in the US were without health insurance. It set up markets to sell insurance that everyone was mandated to buy, unless they were covered by a public insurance, hired people to sell the insurance and subsidized the purchase of health insurance with $100 billion every year. Think about it – that $100 billion is going straight into the bank accounts of the private health insurance companies who are designed to spend as little as they can on actual health care.

Neither another public insurance nor an option to buy into Medicare will solve the healthcare crisis in the United States. They won’t cover the tens of millions who are still without health insurance. They won’t get rid of the co-pays and deductibles that make people with health insurance avoid or delay seeking care due to cost. They won’t bring down the prices of health services and pharmaceuticals. They won’t end bankruptcy due to medical illness.

Only a National Improved Medicare for All single payer healthcare system will achieve those goals.

We are already spending enough on health care in the US to provide comprehensive health care to everyone. We have a bill that lays out the framework for a National Improved Medicare for All healthcare system: HR 676. A majority of Democrats in the House have signed on to it as co-sponsors.

So, why are they trying to convince us to accept a public option or a Medicare buy-in? It’s because they are corrupted by money – campaign contributions that they receive from the corporations that profit from the current system. You may say, well Bernie doesn’t take corporate money, so why would he go along with this charade? It may be because he has greater allegiance to the Democratic Party than he has to the supporters of Medicare for All, his base. He may fear losing positions on committees or his new position of leadership within the party.

What do we do?

We have to be clear and uncompromising in our demand for National Improved Medicare for All NOW! We can’t put this fight off any longer because those in power will always try to knock us off course. The people and their families who are suffering under the current healthcare (non)system can’t wait any longer.

We have to put Bernie back on track!

Flood his office with phone calls: 202 224 5141.

Image result

Senator Elizabeth Warren (Source: Wikipedia)

Contact your Senators and urge them not to support a public option or Medicare for some. Tell them to support National Improved Medicare for All now. And ask them if they would like to be the single payer champion and introduce a senate companion bill to HR 676.

Perhaps Senator Elizabeth Warren is that champion. She admitted this week that the ACA was a conservative model and that the next step is single payer. She is urging Democrats to support Medicare for All.

Keep organizing and mobilizing for National Improved Medicare for All. The next series of events will be around Medicare’s birthday at the end of July. Click here to read the call to action.

Social movements have always been told that they are asking for too much. National Improved Medicare for All is not too much – it is what we need. And we will win this struggle!

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bernie Sanders Has His Priorities Backwards; We Can’t Delay Medicare for All

Washington Has Been at War for 16 Years: Why?

June 30th, 2017 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

“What Planet Earth, and the creatures thereon, need more than anything is leaders in the West who are intelligent, who have a moral conscience, who respect truth, and who are are capable of understanding the limits to their power”. Paul Craig Roberts

For sixteen years the US has been at war in the Middle East and North Africa, running up trillions of dollars in expenses, committing untold war crimes, and sending millions of war refugees to burden Europe, while simultaneously claiming that Washington cannot afford its Social Security and Medicare obligations or to fund a national health service like every civilized country has.

Considering the enormous social needs that cannot be met because of the massive cost of these orchestrated wars, one would think that the American people would be asking questions about the purpose of these wars. What is being achieved at such enormous costs? Domestic needs are neglected so that the military/security complex can grow fat on war profits.

The lack of curiousity on the part of the American people, the media, and Congress about the purpose of these wars, which have been proven to be based entirely on lies, is extraordinary. What explains this conspiracy of silence, this amazing disinterest in the squandering of money and lives?

Most Americans seem to vaguely accept these orchestrated wars as the government’s response to 9/11. This adds to the mystery as it is a fact that Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Iran (Iran not yet attacked except with threats and sanctions) had nothing to do with 9/11. But these countries have Muslim populations, and the Bush regime and presstitute media succeeded in associating 9/11 with Muslims in general.

Perhaps if Americans and their “representatives” in Congress understood what the wars are about, they would rouse themselves to make objections.

So, I will tell you what Washington’s war on Syria and Washington’s intended war on Iran are about. Ready?

There are three reasons for Washington’s war, not America’s war as Washington is not America, on Syria. The first reason has to do with the profits of the military/security complex.

The military/security complex is a combination of powerful private and governmental interests that need a threat to justify an annual budget that exceeds the GDP of many countries. War gives this combination of private and governmental interests a justification for its massive budget, a budget whose burden falls on American taxpayers whose real median family income has not risen for a couple of decades while their debt burden to support their living standard has risen.

The second reason has to do with the Neoconservative ideology of American world hegemony. According to the Neoconservatives, who most certainly are not conservative of any description, the collapse of communism and socialism means that History has chosen “Democratic Capitalism,” which is neither democratic nor capitalist, as the World’s Socio-Economic-Political system and it is Washington’s responsibility to impose Americanism on the entire world. Countries such as Russia, China, Syria, and Iran, who reject American hegemony must be destabilized and desroyed as they stand in the way of American unilateralism.

The Third reason has to do with Israel’s need for the water resources of Southern Lebanon. Twice Israel has sent the vaunted Israeli Army to occupy Southern Lebanon, and twice the vaunted Israeli Army was driven out by Hezbollah, a militia supported by Syria and Iran.

To be frank, Israel is using America to eliminate the Syrian and Iranian governments that provide military and economic support to Hezbollah. If Hezbollah’s suppliers can be eliminated by the Americans, Israel’s army can steal Southern Lebanon, just as it has stolen Palestine and parts of Syria.

Here are the facts: For 16 years the insouciant American population has permitted a corrupt government in Washington to squander trillions of dollars needed domestically but instead allocated to the profits of the military/security complex, to the service of the Neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony, and to the service of Israel.

Clearly, Amerian democracy is a fraud. It serves everyone but Americans.

What is the likely consequence of the US government serving non-American interests?

The best positive outcome is poverty for the 99 percent. The worst outcome is nuclear armageddon.

Washington’s service to the military/security complex, to the Neoconservative ideology, and to Israel completely neglects over-powering facts.

Israel’s interest to overthrow Syria and Iran is totally inconsistant with Russia’s interest to prevent the import of jihadism into the Russian Federation and Central Asia. Therefore, Israel has put the US into direct military conflict with Russia.

The US military/security complex’s financial interests to surround Russia with missile sites is inconsistent with Russian sovereignty as is the Neoconservatives’ emphasis on US world hegemony.

President Trump does not control Washington. Washington is controlled by the military/security complex (watch on youtube President Eisenhower’s description of the military/security complex as a threat to American democracy), by the Israel Lobby, and by the Neoconservatives. These three organized interest groups have pre-empted the American people, who are powerless and are uninvolved in the decisions about their future.

Every US Representative and US Senator who stood up to Israel was defeated by Israel in their re-election campaign. This is the reason that when Israel wants something it passes both houses of Congress unanimously. As Admiral Tom Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said publicly,

“No American President can stand up to Israel.”

Israel gets what it wants no matter what the consequences are for America.

Adm. Moorer was right. The US gives Israel every year enough money to purchase our government. And Israel does purchase our government. The US government is far more accountable to Israel than to the American people. The votes of the House and Senate prove this.

Unable to stand up to tiny Israel, Washington thinks it can buffalo Russia and China. For Washington to continue to provoke Russia and China is a sign of insantity. In the place of intelligence we see hubris and arrogance, the hallmarks of fools.

What Planet Earth, and the creatures thereon, need more than anything is leaders in the West who are intelligent, who have a moral conscience, who respect truth, and who are are capable of understanding the limits to their power.

But the Western World has no such people.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington Has Been at War for 16 Years: Why?

In February, the government of Alberta signed a ten-year framework agreement with the Métis Nation of Alberta, emphasizing a relationship based on recognition, respect, and cooperation. In March, Alberta and the Blackfoot Confederacy signed a protocol agreement on how they will work together on economic development and other areas of concern to both parties. These agreements, of course, are only two of many instances of Indigenous people in the mainstream media recently.

In December and January, the government of Canada faced challenges from Indigenous youth and leaders on pipeline development. And in January, actress Jane Fonda came to Alberta in solidarity with Indigenous political leaders to express concern over the oil industry, new pipeline developments, and the irreparable environmental destruction to the boreal forest and waters in Indigenous traditional territories where the oil sands industry operates.

Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation expressed disappointment that the Alberta government is still approving new oil projects and that his

“people are still being diagnosed with cancer at an alarming rate … [Neither] the federal [nor] the provincial government has done anything [in] regards to a health study that we keep lobbying for. Nor does industry want this health study to commence.”

In February, Indigenous people also made news with a court decision that finds Canada liable for harm caused by the removal of Indigenous children from their homes between 1965 and 1984 and placed in non-Indigenous care, and again regarding frustration over delays to begin the process of an inquiry into Canada’s missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. In March, many publicly expressed outrage at a Canadian Senator’s comments that residential schools were “well-intentioned.”

These events and contestations are all happening roughly a year after the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report. As a result of decades of work by Indigenous political leaders, lawyers, educators, and activists, Indigenous rights and issues seem to be gaining increasing recognition in provincial and federal politics, economics, and the courts.

In Alberta, where resource extraction is a factor in many areas of political, economic, and everyday community relations, it is important to understand how Indigenous rights and issues interact with the oil industry and the provincial government, especially given the power and influence the industry has in the province.

In this article, we discuss 10 key facts that all Albertans should be aware of as we work to understand and evaluate these ongoing events.

1. We are all treaty people

All Canadians – settlers and Indigenous peoples alike – are treaty people. Although settlers (individuals who are not Indigenous) may not always be cognizant of it, treaties in Canada apply to everyone in the country. The treaties detail promises, obligations, and benefits of both Indigenous and settler populations with regard to the coexistence of both populations on land traditionally occupied by Indigenous peoples. There are three treaties in Alberta which include 45 First Nations:

  • Treaty 6 was signed at Carlton and Fort Pitt in 1876 and covers central Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is home to 16 Alberta First Nations.
  • Treaty 7 was signed at the Blackfoot Crossing of Bow River and Fort Macleod in 1877 and covers southern Alberta. It is home to five Alberta First Nations.
  • Treaty 8 was signed at Lesser Slave Lake in 1899 and covers portions of Northern Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and part of Northwest Territories. It is home to 24 Alberta First Nations.

Treaties in Alberta

Treaties in Alberta. For complete map, see Southern Chiefs Organization.

This map illustrates historical treaties dating from 1763 to 2005. More contemporary agreements referred to as modern treaties continue to be negotiated in areas without previously settled claims. However, the modern treaty negotiation process has been stalled as of late, and some British Columbia First Nations which have not signed treaties are questioning whether treaties are the best route for advancing their rights in light of recent court decisions on Indigenous rights and title.

2. About 23,000 Indigenous people live in Alberta’s oil sands region

Six percent of Alberta’s total population is Indigenous, and approximately 23,000 Indigenous people from 18 First Nations and six Métis settlements live in Alberta’s oil sands region.

A 2016 CBC publication discusses an unreleased government report that finds the government of Alberta is failing Indigenous peoples in the oil sands region, specifically with negative repercussions to their land, rights, and health as a result of industrial development in the region. The article describes the report as “damning,” pointing to the prioritization of economic interests over traditional land use, the violation of treaty rights, and claims by Indigenous communities that the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan was being used against their interests.

Oil Sands deposits in Alberta

Source: Socialist Project

The detrimental health effects of oil sands development for Indigenous people is not a new topic in Alberta political discussions. An Edmonton Journal video from 2010 engages Indigenous people in Fort Chipewyan about the heightened rate of deaths by cancer in the community and how these deaths are seen to be a direct result of the pollution of the land, air, and wildlife by industrial activity. When Indigenous people living in areas close to industry engage in their traditional lifestyles of living off the land, including consuming wildlife, they are at heightened exposure to pollutants in the ecosystem. However, these concerns don’t seem to be taken seriously by oil corporations and the provincial and federal governments.

3. A long history of colonialism has deeply shaped the relationship between First Nations and the state in Alberta and across Canada

Land settlements in Western Canada were initially completed for the sake of creating stability for industry to move in (Slowey & Stefanick, 2015). The widespread systemic racism Indigenous peoples and communities still face in Alberta and across Canada is rooted in the colonial past and present, and these colonial relations undergird the development and current operations of the oil and gas industry in the Prairies and British Columbia.

In BC, for example, until its recent electoral defeat, Christy Clark’s fossil-fuel-industry-friendly Liberal government and extractive industries – not just fossil fuels, but them in particular – had been anxious for greater “certainty” about Indigenous rights and title in relation to proposed developments, and was driving the push to make deals. The BC Liberal government’s enthusiasm in recent years to make more deals with First Nations to enable further resource extraction is a contemporary extension of the colonial development model, but in a somewhat more accommodating form.

The process of colonization created incredible inequalities and inequities for Indigenous peoples, seen manifesting today in intergenerational trauma related to drastically heightened levels of incarceration of Indigenous individuals, breakdown of Indigenous families as Indigenous children are taken into the care of inadequate welfare systems, under-employment of Indigenous peoples, reduced access to basic human and citizenship rights including education, health care, safe water, housing, and an epidemic of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls (Alook, 2016).

Ongoing efforts, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, attempt to recognize the problematic past and present of the Canadian nation-state. It is promising that February’s agreement between Alberta and the Métis Nation of Alberta emphasizes a nation-to-nation approach, however, more telling will be in how this agreement and other related issues continue to unfold.

4. Indigenous scholars emphasize the fundamental differences between dominant Western and Indigenous forms of knowledge

A 2010 publication by Parkland Institute, As Long as the River Flows: Athabasca River Use, Knowledge, and Change, illustrates the connectedness of Indigenous peoples with the land and the water, pointing to how their unique relationship with these ecosystems provides an opportunity to observe subtle, incremental changes over time that, as they add up, may be indicative of significant changes to the land and water.

For example, traditional land use practices include spending a great deal of time on the land hunting, trapping, and fishing. When the land, waterways, and wildlife change, it is Indigenous people who are in the best position to observe these changes. When Indigenous people’s health conditions change in specific patterns in line with their location and their traditional land use practices – such as increased rates of specific forms of cancer in communities close to or downstream from oil industry activity – Indigenous people are well-positioned to observe those changes as well.

Image result

Athabasca River (Photo from KAIROS Canada)

The Parkland Institute report focuses on community knowledge of the Athabasca River in the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Mikisew Cree First Nation, discussing how the river and its tributaries have changed in recent decades, emphasizing concern over lower water levels and reduced water quality. The report is an attempt to translate treaty rights and cultural needs into a form that can be readily applied to policy and decision-making in the region, demonstrating a recognition of the need to translate Indigenous knowledge into a format more digestible to Western-trained policymakers and representatives of industry and government.

One of the recurring themes in Indigenous scholarship is the emphasis on relationality among various Indigenous peoples both within and beyond Canada. Immutable relationality between land, people, and other creatures is fundamental to the worldviews of Indigenous people around the globe but is generally not present or well-understood by Western scholars and educators.

Throughout her career, world-renowned Indigenous scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith has been studying the important differences between Indigenous and Western knowledge, including the Western notion of the individual as a basic unit of society compared to Indigenous understandings of individuals as members of the community, where communal ownership and membership is prioritized over the individual.

Unfortunately, Western knowledge is almost always positioned above Indigenous knowledge in hierarchies of knowledge. This means that Indigenous concerns are not often taken seriously, because the knowledge that those concerns are based on is devalued since it diverges from the dominant Western model of knowledge. This Eurocentric hierarchy of knowledge underpins the systemic racism Indigenous people continue to experience across Canada and other settler colonial states, such as the United States, Australia, and Aotearoa/New Zealand.

5. Impact assessments used to evaluate oil development proposals often present insufficient empirical evidence and have difficulty incorporating concerns and knowledge of Indigenous people

Impact assessments required for new oil industry developments are one area where differing knowledge systems are not functioning well together.

A 2013 article by social scientist Clinton Westman that includes case studies of multiple impact assessments explores the importance of traditional land use for Indigenous peoples, and the difficulty of formal impact assessments to account for this. Westman explains that impact assessments are a tool used to make claims about the future, often with an insufficient basis in empirical evidence.

Westman analyzes assessments that posit benefits to projects but do not include sources or calculations upon which they’ve based their claims. One assessment in his study claims that a project will benefit Indigenous people by improving fishing in the area once it is reclaimed because people will be able to fish in “pit lakes,” despite the fact that other sources indicate concern over fish tainting.

Westman’s research shows that impact assessments have difficulty incorporating the concerns raised by Indigenous peoples about their lived experiences and practical relationship with the land. These assessments generally avoid topics that are not readily rendered into technical understandings, meaning that topics outside those boundaries are overlooked, including spiritual, cosmological, and existential understandings that form the basis of Indigenous cultural traditions and practices, including fundamental relationships between people, the land, and wildlife. These understandings differ from traditional Western ideas about spirituality and how individuals exist in the world and are important elements of evaluating potential impacts of oil industry projects.

When assessors do not possess an in-depth understanding of Indigenous cultures and practices, they are unable to make educated and appropriate assessments about the impacts on those cultures and practice from potential oil industry activity in the future. Through the use of technical concepts and discourse, impact assessments serve as blueprints for the allocation of political and natural resources; politics and rights (including treaty rights) generally do not factor in.

These assessments then, which are a crucial part of adjudicating potential new oil industry developments, are inadequate to truly assess impacts and to appreciate the gravity of these impacts on Indigenous people and their traditional land use practices.

6. Education and career pathways for Indigenous youth need to improve

Although one of the priorities of the framework agreement signed between Alberta and the Métis Nation of Alberta is to increase economic opportunities to enhance individual and community well-being through numerous avenues, including increasing educational achievement as well as increased employment training, a troubling history of problematic arrangements between Indigenous communities, the state, and industry casts a shadow over the process of developing new arrangements.

A 2009 report by Alison Taylor, Tracy Friedel, and Lois Edge of the University of Alberta’s Department of Educational Policy Studies examines the pathways for First Nation and Métis youth in the oil sands region. The report finds that although Indigenous peoples in the region have improved educational attainment and employment opportunities compared to Indigenous peoples elsewhere in the province, they are still lagging behind in educational achievement and career opportunities when compared to non-Indigenous people in the region.

The authors explain that there is no shortage of policies and programs targeting Indigenous education and job training, however the outcomes are not reflective of the investments. This is because Indigenous people face undue challenges in terms of a lack of quality education from primary school upwards, additional challenges for Indigenous youth who have to leave their communities to attain education, heavy involvement of industry that can lead to fragmentation of education and training, and the limited control Indigenous communities have over education in the region.

The pathways report finds that Indigenous youth are often streamed out of the provincial school system and into the labour market, specifically into unskilled or semi-skilled contract work that does not require a diploma. The lack of a diploma is then a significant barrier to future career opportunities with large industrial employers. The report concludes that the time commitment, expense, and absence of guaranteed employment afterwards may be a disincentive for Indigenous youth to return to school to upgrade their education.

7. Indigenous youth are a growing population with important future workforce implications

Indigenous youth are the fastest growing population in Alberta. This population could be a major human resource, which is useful in a province where we often see labour shortages. The 2016 Alberta Labour Force Profile of Indigenous People found that the proportion of Indigenous people aged 15–24 was 23.7% and those aged 25–54 was 58.1%. The corresponding shares of all Albertans were 15.2% and 55.6%, respectively, in 2016.

8. Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) aren’t the way to finance economic development in Northern Alberta

In the final decade of the 44-year Alberta Progressive Conservative dynasty, public-private partnerships (P3s) increasingly became the preferred model for financing economic development in Northern Alberta. After its 2015 rise to power, the NDP has begun to move the province away from P3s toward more publicly financed capital projects.

PPP Canada describes P3s as “a long-term, performance-based approach to procuring public infrastructure that can enhance government’s ability to hold the private sector accountable for public assets over their expected lifespan.”

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) is more critical of P3s. The CCPA argues that although public-private partnerships are often touted as lowering risk and cost to the public, they in fact do the opposite, but the complexity and misleading accounting of P3s muddies that reality.

The CCPA shows many P3s drastically exceed costs and do not achieve expected returns. This research also demonstrates that the private sector does not better manage risk, and that risk cannot ever be transferred to private businesses because it’s the government that is ultimately responsible for providing public services and infrastructure. The CCPA concludes that P3s are not only concerning for the public, but also negative for the economy.

A 2011 study by social scientists Alison Taylor and Tracy Friedel analyzed the relationship between government, private business, and Indigenous communities by focusing on P3s aimed at economic development in Northern Alberta. Taylor and Friedel explain that P3s aimed at increasing economic well-being and employment opportunities are sold on notions of equality and cooperation. In practice, however, P3s are often more associated with the suppression of alternative forms of education and training, growing inequities within and among Indigenous communities in the area, and generally a lack of government accountability to those communities.

9. Most Indigenous people in Alberta are educated, employed, and urban

Indigenous people in Alberta increasingly live in urban areas. In 2016, Edmonton had the largest portion of the off-reserve Indigenous population at 38.7% of all Indigenous people living off-reserve in Alberta, followed by Calgary at 17.8%.

The 2016 Alberta Labour Force Profile of Indigenous People finds that 43.8% of Alberta’s Indigenous labour force living off-reserve has completed a post-secondary education. Related to point number six above, this is in part a story of inequity in educational access for urban/off-reserve Indigenous people compared to those in rural areas or reserves. Although, many Indigenous people who currently live in urban areas had to move from rural communities and reserves as teenagers or adults to access educational and employment opportunities.

The average employment rate for Indigenous people living off-reserve in 2016 was 60.6%, compared to the general Alberta employment rate of 66.8% (the government of Alberta doesn’t produce on-reserve labour force statistics). Indigenous men had a higher employment rate than Indigenous women in 2016 at 65.9% and 55.5%, respectively. The Canadian labour force participation rate in January 2017 was 65.9%.

A 2016 report by Natural Resources Canada sees major oil sands corporations Suncor, Syncrude, and Shell boasting to have spent between $2.5 and $1.7 billion on contracts with Indigenous-owned contractors and businesses. Notably absent from the Natural Resources Canada report are data on the number of Indigenous people employed directly by Alberta oil producing corporations and what types of jobs Indigenous people work in the industry.

The 2016 Alberta Labour Force Profile of Indigenous People finds that about half of employed Indigenous people living off-reserve in Alberta work in four industries: construction (15.9%), retail trade (11.9%;), health care and social assistance (11.7%), and forestry, fishing, mining, and oil and gas (8.7%).

The profile also shows there are five occupational groups that Indigenous people living off-reserve occupy at higher rates compared to the Alberta population in general.

Compared to 63.2% of the general Alberta population, almost 74.4% of Alberta Indigenous people in 2016 worked in:

  • Business, finance, and administration (Indigenous 17%; Alberta 16.3%)
  • Sales and service (Indigenous 24.3%; Alberta 22.6%)
  • Trades, transport, and equipment operators and related occupations (Indigenous 24.4%; Alberta 18.1%)
  • Unique to primary industry (Indigenous 5.3%; Alberta 3.3%)
  • Unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities (Indigenous 3.4%; Alberta 2.9%)

10. The Treaty Alliance Against New Pipeline Development is a major new initiative in the longstanding opposition to Alberta oil sands development

The Treaty Alliance Against New Pipeline Development was signed in September 2016 and commits over 50 First Nations and Tribes from Canada and the United States to work together to stop proposed oil sands pipeline, tanker, and rail projects on their lands and waters.

In an effort to promote a more sustainable and equitable future and in the context of a resurgence in Indigenous sovereignty, these Nations and Tribes are uniting as caretakers of the land and water to oppose these oil industry projects.

The Treaty includes bans on the following pipelines specifically, which if built would lead to significant growth of oil sands production:

  • Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion
  • TransCanada’s Energy East Pipeline
  • TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline
  • Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline
  • Enbridge’s Line 3 Pipeline

In January, multiple First Nations launched legal challenges to the newly approved Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion project. The court challenges are based on claims of inadequate consultation and the risk to water in nearby communities. Chief Lee Spahan of Coldwater said,

“For Coldwater, this is about our drinking water. It is our Standing Rock.”

Conclusion

These 10 items are only some of the important things to be mindful of as we begin to understand the complex relationship that Indigenous people have with the state and with resource development in Alberta and elsewhere. Educating ourselves on the complex relationships between Indigenous and settler peoples, communities, and the state is an important step toward meaningful reconciliation, and an effort we must continually engage in.

Many Indigenous peoples and communities are connected to the resource extraction industry in numerous and complex ways – further complicating this is the long history of colonialism that shapes the relationship between people and the state. Moving forward, governments, industry, and settler populations need to appreciate the fundamental differences between dominant Western knowledge and forms of Indigenous knowledge which can further complicate these relationships. With Indigenous youth being the fastest growing population in the province, Alberta’s future will be tied to this population. However, with education and career pathways for this population currently limited, Alberta needs to appropriately invest in Indigenous youth to support their future.

Ongoing and new industry developments need to do more to engage with and respect Indigenous peoples. The current practice of impact assessments is proving to be inadequate, and public-private partnerships are similarly problematic. Indigenous peoples are increasingly working together to oppose developments that negatively impact them through efforts such as the Treaty Alliance Against New Pipeline Development.

Finally, a fact that needs to shape these discussions going forward is that we are all treaty people living on land that must be understood through these agreements.

While the information shared in this blog is based on research, it is important to note that much past research on Indigenous people was not done in the spirit of equality, respect, and meaningful engagement. Unfortunately, some current research continues this colonial knowledge relationship. Best efforts have been made in researching this piece to ensure Indigenous perspectives are prioritized and placed at the centre of the issues.

When we hear the government of Alberta discussing First Nations and Métis relations in a nation-to-nation context, we observe efforts to move forward in the spirit of equity and respect. However, it is important that we continue to monitor these issues to ensure encouraging words are more than just rhetoric, and are followed up with action rooted in the same spirit of mutual recognition, reconciliation, and respect.

Dr. Angele Alook is proud member of Bigstone Cree Nation and a speaker of the Cree language. She recently successfully defended her PhD in Sociology from York University. Angele currently works in the labour movement as a full-time researcher for the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees.

Nicole Hill is a PhD student in the sociology department at the University of Alberta and a research assistant at the Parkland Institute. She is a graduate of Athabasca University’s Master of Arts in Integrated Studies program where she focused on equity studies.

Ian Hussey is a research manager at Parkland Institute, where he designs, conducts, and manages political economy, labour, and climate research.

This article was first published by the Parkland Institute.

Featured image from Socialist Project

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Northern Alberta: The Rights of Indigenous People, Oil Pipelines and Resource Extraction

Featured image: Horn of Africa map (Source: New World Encyclopedia)

A dispute over territory involving the Horn of Africa states of Djibouti and Eritrea was reignited in the aftermath of the withdrawal of Qatari military forces stationed on the border of the countries on June 13.

Doha had served as a mediator in competing claims over Ras Doumeira Mountain and Island on the Red Sea coast near Bab al-Mandab Strait, a strategic shipping lane. Qatari troops were stationed in the area to prevent the potential of a resumption of armed clashes which erupted between Djibouti and Eritrea during June 10-13, 2008.

Qatari military forces serving as peacekeepers pulled out their personnel without any stated reasons. Speculation surrounding the Qatari moves suggests that the burgeoning split among the Gulf monarchies with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain making demands on Doha amid the imposition of an economic embargo, prompted the withdrawal from Ras Doumeira.

Djibouti and the self-declared independent Somaliland are supporting the position of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain against Qatar. Somalia, Sudan and Ethiopia which are also supporting the claims against Qatar have as well called for talks to resolve the differences within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

Eritrea, which allows the UAE and Saudi Arabia to utilize its port at Assab for military purposes partly related to the ongoing war in Yemen, has taken a cautious line diplomatically on the confrontation despite being affected by the split in the GCC. Nevertheless, most media accounts indicate that Asmara is siding with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain in their differences with Doha.

Seaport facilities and airports in Eritrea have been upgraded to accommodate the continuous bombardments of Yemen by Saudi and UAE warplanes aimed at defeating the Ansurallah movement which the GCC says is supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Yemen has been subjected to daily airstrikes and ground operations since March 2015 aimed at driving the Ansurallah (Houthis) from large swaths of territory inside the most impoverished nation in the Middle East.

Qatar has been accused by other GCC states of funding international terrorism, maintaining a Turkish military base on its territory and assisting the foreign policy aims of Tehran. Doha has categorically rejected the allegations and refuses to agree to the conditions called for by Riyadh, the UAE and Bahrain.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain with the support of Egypt on June 23 presented thirteen demands for Qatar to adhere to within ten days. These issues include the closing of Al Jazeera television network, the downgrading of relations with Iran, halting the funding of 59 targeted individuals and 12 entities labelled as terrorists such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and ISIS, and the removal of the Turkish military base in Doha.

Origins of the Present Territorial Dispute and its International Implications

The disagreements involving Eritrea and Djibouti over Ras Doumeira are directly a by-product of the demarcation of African colonized territories during the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries where the European imperialist states of Italy and France carved up the area. Later in 1935, Rome and Paris decided to apportion significant areas in Djibouti (then French Somaliland) to Eritrea then under Italian control.

Eritrea-Djibouti Map of Border Dispute Over Ras Doumeira (Source: AFP)

After the defeat of Italian imperialism led at the time by Benito Mussolini during World War II, Eritrea became a British Protectorate and was eventually federated to Ethiopia in 1952. Later in 1962, Eritrea was incorporated into Ethiopia over the objection of the people in the former Italian controlled outpost.

Djibouti did not win its independence from France until 1977 which was relatively late in comparison to other previously colonized East African states. Eritrea proclaimed independence in 1991 after the three decades-long armed struggle and the collapse of the Ethiopian government of Mengistu Haile Mariam that same year. Two years later, in 1993, an internationally-supervised election in Eritrea garnered the state recognition by the-then Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the United Nations.

In April 1996, just five years after Eritrea had gained independence, the new government nearly went to war with Djibouti after Asmara was accused of shelling the disputed territory of Ras Doumeira. The crisis deepened by April 16, 2008 when Djibouti reported that Eritrean troops had established military fortifications digging trenches on the border near Ras Doumeira.

The Djibouti government sent a letter to the United Nations requesting intervention saying a revised map published by Asmara claimed Ras Doumeira as Eritrean land. Conversely, Eritrea claimed it had no territorial problems with Djibouti denying that troops had been deployed to the border areas.

Former Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi responding to the escalating tensions on May 15, 2008 asserted that the disagreement was a “threat to the peace and security of the whole Horn of Africa” noting Addis Ababa had no choice other than securing its trading route through Djibouti if war erupted. Ethiopia, a landlocked state, has been dependent upon Djibouti for access to the Red Sea since Eritrea declared independence in 1991.

On June 10 of the same year, the Djibouti government reported that 21 Eritrean troops in the area defected to their side of the border. Eritrea demanded the repatriation of the soldiers opening fire on the Djibouti forces.

Clashes continued for three days claiming the lives of an estimated 140 soldiers on both sides of the conflict. Djibouti called up retired military and police units to engage in the battle.

France, which has a large military base along with the United States at Camp Lemonnier, provided logistical and technical support to Djibouti. The fighting ended after three days. Later in 2010, Qatar agreed to station 450 troops in the Ras Doumeira border area to prevent further fighting. The UN said in 2009, that Eritrea had failed to withdraw its forces from the Ras Doumeira areas under dispute.

The withdrawal of Qatari soldiers has raised the specter of renewed clashes between the two nations. Djibouti’s UN Ambassador Mohammed Idriss Farah claims that Eritrea has moved into the areas previously held by Qatari troops.

Djibouti has filed a formal complaint with the African Union (AU) over the alleged activity of Eritrean troops. Farah stated that:

“Eritrean troops occupied the Dumeira Mountain immediately after Qatar’s peacekeepers left. Sometimes the Eritrean troops go to the top of the mountain and return on the other side. What makes this one different is that they moved in right after the peacekeepers left.”

Eritrean envoy to the AU, Araya Desta, said of the current situation:

“We don’t want to take any of Djibouti’s land. The last time we had some skirmishes. It was unnecessary.”

AU Must Take Decisive Action to Avoid Border War

The AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) issued a statement after the complaint filed by Djibouti over differences with Eritrea. The continental organization convenes its bi-annual summit in Ethiopia on July 3-4.

According to the PSC:

“The Chairperson of the Commission, Moussa Faki Mahamat, is following the recent developments between the Republic of Djibouti and the State of Eritrea in the aftermath of Qatar’s decision to withdraw its peacekeeping troops at the Djibouti- Eritrea border. The Chairperson of the Commission appeals for calm, restraint and stresses that the AU is fully seized with the matter. He highlighted that the AU Commission, in close consultations with the authorities in Djibouti and Eritrea, is in the process of deploying a fact-finding mission to the Djibouti-Eritrea border. The Chairperson of the Commission stands ready to assist Djibouti and Eritrea to normalize their relations and promote good neighborliness within the framework of relevant AU instruments.”

(http://www.peaceau.org/en/article/press-release-au-commission-calls-for-restraint-on-the-djibouti-eritrea-border)

These developments in the Horn of Africa are a continuation of the conflicts emanating from unresolved European colonial-era border demarcations. Also the current split within the western-allied Gulf Arab governments and the dependence of these African states for economic revenue generated through usage of their territory and waterways, which has compelled AU member-states such as Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea and Egypt to side with the anti-Qatari forces does not bode well for continental security in the long term.

Moreover, the political and security interests of various states in the Middle East which routinely work in conjunction with U.S. foreign policy interests are inevitability the concern of the AU. Consequently, Africa has to pay close attention to events unfolding within the GCC countries and their allies and seek the resolution of these conflicts in a manner which curtails the potential for a destabilizing impact on continental states.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Divisions Among Gulf Arab States Increases Instability in the Horn of Africa

In mid-2016 the Chinese ocean shipping company COSCO succeeded in acquiring a controlling stake in the Greek port of Piraeus. This was the culmination of more than a decade of preparation and prior part ownership, and it represents an important piece in the complex jigsaw of China’s One Belt One Road internationalization strategy linking Europe with Eurasia.

Along the way there were major setbacks, and in particular a narrowly avoided ejection of COSCO from Piraeus by the newly elected Syriza government, the far left government elected in Jan 2015 by a Greek people exhausted by the austerity imposed by European creditors. This threatened ejection was narrowly avoided by a more comprehensive set of negotiations, which would have seen China funding the Greek government through purchase of its Treasury bills – thereby enabling the Greeks to get around sanctions being imposed by the European Central Bank.

China’s entry to Europe via Greece, putting in place an essential piece in Beijing’s greater One Belt One Road strategy, must rank as one of the most delicious episodes of blowback in recent history. Institutions like the European Central Bank (ECB) can take sole responsibility for strangling Greece. It was deaf to all pleas for a constructive engagement and restructuring of the debt – as told vividly by Yanis Varoufakis, former Finance Minister of Greece who lived through the entire shameful episode, in his recently published memoirs, Adults in the Room. But as the EU institutions applied the pressure, so they fostered a determined effort on the part of the Greek government to slip the noose. This was done most effectively by allowing China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) to purchase a majority stake in the port of Piraeus. What had started as a demand by the European institutions that Greek public assets be privatized in a ‘fire sale’, became the means to allow China to penetrate Europe’s defences, and build a major transport hub – encompassing rail, road and sea – linking Europe with Eurasia.

While Varoufakis was forced to resign his ministerial position in July 2015, his actions in helping to bring the Chinese and Greek authorities together have borne abundant fruit. While the Chinese had expressed interest in modernizing and expanding Piraeus as far back as 2008, when COSCO acquired a part stake in Pier II at Piraeus, by the time the Syriza government was elected in Jan 2015 there was a real danger that the new ministers would respond to populist pressure and expel the Chinese. Varoufakis describes how he was able to get past these entrenched positions, and create the foundations for a relationship between China and Greece that would give Greece a ‘Get out of Jail’ card from the debtor’s prison imposed by the Europeans.

What happened is a matter of public record. In mid-2016 COSCO was authorized by the Greek government to purchase an initial 51% stake in the Piraeus port, at a cost of $316 million, to be followed by a further 16% stake within five years, at a further cost of $99 million. (For background, see ‘How a Greek port became a “dragon head”’ by Andreea BrinzaThe Diplomat, April 25 2016). So much has been on the public record. But Varoufakis’ memoirs flesh out the story, and add further details that reveal what a clear case of blowback this is.

Since being catapulted to global fame in his brief career as the Finance Minister of Greece, from February to July in 2015, Varoufakis has been performing like a man possessed. On top of the two editions of his global analysis of US economic power, using the metaphor of the Global Minotaur, he has also published a lengthy account of the European dilemmas created by the mismanagement of the Eurozone (And the Weak Suffer What They Must?) and most recently his memoirs, Adults in the Room. This latter book provides a vivid and detailed account of his confrontation with the European creditors who were holding Greece to ransom. There is much in this outpouring of personal memoir and robust analysis that is of great value. But one thing in particular struck me as worthy of comment. This is Varoufakis’ first hand commentary on his negotiations with China over the mooted investment by COSCO in the port of Piraeus and wider involvement of China in offering a way out of the Greek debt tragedy.

Piraeus Port Authority

China had been looking for an entry into Europe as part of its One Belt One Road strategy, which involves multiple new maritime and land routes linking the parts of Eurasia. In this endeavor the Greek port of Piraeus plays an important role. China’s COSCO the shipping and ports giant made waves when it was announced in 2008 that it would be allowed to own and operate Pier II of the Piraeus port. It used the intervening years to substantially upgrade and expand this operating base, and to turn Piraeus into a major transport hub, with rail links into Europe such as the Chinese financed high speed rail link between Hungary and Serbia.

What Varoufakis reveals (and I don’t think this is available through any other source) is that as Finance Minister he was setting up a much more comprehensive deal than COSCO merely becoming the owner and operator of the port of Piraeus – subject to all necessary safeguards for employment continuity and labor conditions. What Varoufakis was seeking was to secure a way around the strangulation being imposed by the European Central Bank (ECB) in Frankfurt. The ECB was effectively refusing to allow the Greek government to issue Treasury bills, which would have provided one legitimate means to allow it to meet repayments to the ECB and IMF, at least in the short term. The ECB justified this hostile act on grounds that it was protecting Greek banks from purchasing worthless assets. But as Varoufakis explains, this was reversing causality. The T-bills would have been worthless only because the ECB was stopping banks from purchasing them. And so the noose was tightened – in the Eurozone area where the ECB set the rules. But Varoufakis describes how China was seen as a potential player beyond the remit of the ECB – and as one that could potentially break the impasse.

Varoufakis was sufficiently savvy to know that the Chinese had to be offered a substantial incentive to help out – and reviving their bid to enable COSCO to take over the running of Piraeus was a prospect that fitted the bill. And so a grand scheme was set in motion. China would bid for Greek T-bills at the public auctions staged by the Greek government, in sums large enough to break the government’s funding drought. Sums of $1.5 billion were mentioned, for the month of March, with up to $10 billion ultimately being made available. And in return COSCO would be allowed to purchase a controlling stake in the port of Piraeus (subject to all appropriate safeguards). This would provide China entry to Europe, via rail, road and sea, enabling China’s One belt One Road strategy to close the gap between Europe and Eurasia. And it would be done right under the noses of the European institutions that were set on strangling Greece in order to make it an example for other weak indebted countries like Spain, Portugal or Ireland.Had this grand scheme been allowed to come to fruition, the Greek story and the Eurozone crisis might have had a very different outcome. Had China proceeded to bid for $1.5 billion in Greek T-bills, this would have enabled the Greek government to demonstrate to the world that some players in the market valued the T-bills, and so overturn the ECB argument that it could not release liquidity to the Greek economy. And this in turn would have forced the ECB to treat the Greek economy as a ‘normal’ player in the Eurozone, and allow it to begin substantial repayments, allowing for good faith renegotiation of the terms of indebtedness. And this would have ended the arguments that insisted that austerity was the only ‘treatment’ for the disease of imbalance within the Eurozone, with creditor countries like Germany putting unbearable pressure on debtor countries like Greece. And Varoufakis might have been able to stay on as Minister of Finance, and might have been able to proceed with his proposals for sensible restructuring of the Greek debt.

But none of this came to pass – and the reason (as revealed by Varoufakis at page 320/321 of his memoirs) is that the Chinese side never went ahead to make the purchases of the T-bills as agreed. Instead they made bids at two successive auctions of just $100 million each – certainly substantial, but nothing like the agreed bids of $1.5 billion that would have broken the logjam. And the reason they were so cautious, again according to Varoufakis, is that they were covertly warned off – by the German Ministry of Finance. As he tells the story (p. 321), “Someone had apparently called Beijing from Berlin with a blunt message: stay out of any deals with the Greeks until we are finished with them.” This was conveyed to Varoufakis by his Greek Prime Minister, who had sought clarification of what was going on with the Chinese premier in Beijing.

Now this account may or may not be true. Varoufakis is a credible witness — both because of his own reputation as well as the generally credible nature of his account of the prolonged negotiations between the Greek side and the Europeans over the terms of Greece’s indebtedness. As a claim it deserves some comment or corroboration from the Chinese side – as there is unlikely to be any public comment from the German side or the ECB. Until there is any further comment corroborating or failing to corroborate the story, let us allow that it is likely to be true.

If that is the case, then the Germans shot themselves in the foot by blocking Greece in this way. Effectively their actions in strangling the country forced Greece to find an alternative source of funding, and China was available as a player. While it didn’t deliver on the immediate funding plan negotiated by Varoufakis –it did deliver as a player in the privatization program that the Greek Syriza government was forced to endure. And this is what enabled China to extend its control to include the European port of Piraeus – in spite of objections (no doubt voiced behind the scenes) by the Germans and the European institutions which would see Chinese logistics firms as competitive threats.

The wider story then is that this episode, while failing to provide a circuit-breaker that might have unlocked the Greek crisis and led to a very different outcome, did in fact allow China to enter southern Europe via the purchase by COSCO of a controlling stake in the port of Piraeus. This is blowback for the Europeans, and in particular for the Germans. Had they not been so obstinate in strangling the Greek economy, and insisting so hard on austerity, then the Greek government might not have been so keen to welcome the Chinese as new owners of their port. This episode reveals that in a multipolar world, there are limits to a strategy of imposing ideologically driven austerity on a single country by squeezing its banks and enforcing fire sale privatizations. In the case of Greece this strategy has succeeded in its narrow aims of keeping Greece as a subservient partner in the Eurozone – but at the cost of allowing China to establish its bridgehead in Europe’s transport networks that will be of major long-term strategic significance. And the story provides insight into China’s strategy, where the long-term goals are set and then actions are taken to implement these goals as opportunities present themselves. Greece’s Eurozone crisis was the perfect opportunity for China to sow its ‘dragon head’ investments in Europe, with the port of Piraeus as the focal point of the strategy.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China’s Takeover of the Port of Piraeus in Greece: Blowback for Europe

Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl took a massive, human rights-violating catastrophe—the US-assisted Saudi bombing of Yemen for the past two-and-a-half years, and the massive famine it’s caused—and somehow turned it into a write-up on how good and noble the United States is. The Washington Post whitewashed the US’s role in the crisis and turned Saudi Arabia’s primary defender in the Senate, Lindsey Graham, into an unsung hero—a true masterwork in public relations reality inversion.

Diehl framed the topic as something both public and media have ignored, insisting, “No One Is Paying Attention to the Worst Humanitarian Crisis Since World War II” (6/25/17). This is a bold rhetorical gambit, not least because Diehl himself hasn’t made Yemen a topic of an article since the bombing first began in February 2015. “No one’s noticing this thing I just noticed” is a great way to frame oneself as a moral visionary, without the arduous work of ideological coherence.

Not only does Diehl ignore the US’s role in supplying arms, giving logistical supporting and even facilitating torture on behalf of Saudi Arabia and its allies in Yemen (a complicity so deep the US State Department itself warned the US could be liable for war crimes), he actually writes,

“the United States is not the problem here.”

In fact, he paints the US as a lone moral voice:

Notwithstanding the anti-foreign aid posture of the Trump administration, the United States is not the problem here. By early June, Washington had pledged nearly $1.2 billion in relief to the four countries [meaning Yemen and South Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria, also facing famine], including a supplement of $329 million announced on May 24. There’s more coming, thanks to a bipartisan coalition in Congress, spearheaded by Republican Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, that inserted $990 million for famine relief into this year’s budget.

Painting Graham as the savior of Yemen—when, more than any other US politician, he defends and advocates on behalf of the country bombing Yemen—is uniquely perverse and craven. The article continued like a State Department press release:

But Graham and other key legislators have already made clear that [cuts to foreign aid] won’t happen. “For all the chaos,” Beasley told me, “Democrats and Republicans still come together for hungry children.”

If “Democrats and Republicans” want to “come together for hungry children,” then why did 48 Republicans and five Democrats block a vote two weeks ago to cut off arms to Saudi Arabia, which is currently bombing those children? (An estimated 10,000 civilians have been killed in the US-backed airstrikes, in a country where 50 percent of the population is under 16.)

If Trump is supposed to be the savior of besieged Yemeni children, why not mention Trump’s recent lovefest with the Saudi regime that’s killing them? One is left to ask what moral universe Diehl occupies where the US can act as both arsonist and someone bringing a couple of blankets to the fire victims, and get fawning credit for the latter.

But then Diehl has a long history of taking the worst, most violent excesses of US empire and suggesting they are, in fact, good. In 2011 (10/9/11), he wrote that

the Arab Spring, in short, is making the invasion of Iraq look more worthy — and necessary — than it did a year ago. Before another year has passed, Syrians may well find themselves wishing that it had happened to them.

And, as FAIR (12/23/14) noted at the time, Diehl also completely rewrote 70 years of US/Soviet relations and bilateral talks to uphold his weird, fringe position that the US shouldn’t directly engage with Cuba. His M.O. is clear, and his shame seemingly nonexistent.

Omitting US’s responsibility for the carnage in Yemen, while a journalistic crime in its own right, is par for course with most media (FAIR.org2/23/17). Diehl  takes it one step further: Under the pretext of feigning outrage over a very real famine, Diehl attempts to recast the US not as one of the disaster’s primary drivers, but as the only country that can save the day; a noble, moral beacon in a sea of unseemly Arabs.

Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org.

Featured image: Rubble from airstrikes in Yemen (Source: FAIR)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on After US-Backed Bombing Sparks Famine in Yemen, US Media Insists ‘US Not the Problem’

For all those who have become awake and conscious or otherwise put; have escaped the western media pit of lies and brainwashing, the six year long resistance of the Syrian people in the face of the US Deep State and its terrorist proxy troops ISIS, Al Qaeda et al has been a deeply tragic but historically heroic inspiration to us all. They survived four years almost totally alone until Russia entered to fight the US, EU, Israeli proxy terrorist fighters that were gaining ground on government held territory in Syria.

The Russian campaign has been exemplary, resulting in, at the time of writing in a total reversal for the aggressors. Many are rightly praising the the Heroic Syrian Arab army and its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies. I have been saying all along however that this optimism is misplaced as the forces that actually run the western world simply cannot let Syria rise from the ashes.

A re-built Syria which controls it’s own central bank and can issue it’s own currency as it needs with no outside control and no debt to the International Monetary Fund or anyone else, (The most fundamental and essential of freedoms that most western countries have not experienced for at least a hundred years.) which, because of this,  is able to offer its citizens, even during the war, free education and higher education, health care and extremely low or non existent utility charges is totally anathema to the real leaders of the western world. The fact that different branches of Islam and above all, the fact that the many Orthodox Christians in Syria live in peace with each other burns the western, fractional reserve, debt enslaving banking elites as holy water burns a vampire.

The neo-cons, i.e. the people who actually run the US Deep State are hell bent on total world domination and they are achieving this through control of every country’s central bank and their freedom to issue their own currency as they need and a ruthless war on culture facilitated by the ever increasing rate at which education is dumbed down with the help of main stream media. In just thirty years they have succeeded in turning the average westerner into a zombie who’s “understanding” of the world is completely founded on lies and often total reality inversions and who’s powers of thought and objective reasoning, as well as a sense of any meaningful self and a place in history have been reduced to almost zero.

A resurgent Syria will be a shining example to the whole world of what life can be like without the neo-con iron grip on the money supply, education system, media, sport, art and all the rest.

A resurgent, whole Syria will be a block to the much touted “Greater Israel” and to the western plans for gas pipes from Qatar to Europe (whatever may or may not be happening with Qatar right now). Last but anything but from least, is the fact that Syria’s survival will be a massive spanner in the works of their ultimate goal of subduing, conquering and dismembering Russia which is of course the number one reason why Russia came to Syria’s aid in the first place! That is why they will not and from their Satanic point of view, cannot, allow it to allow Syria to survive!

At the time of writing (evening June 26 in Europe) seemingly coordinated reports are coming in from the US, UK, France that another chemical attack on the Syrian people and “innocent little children” by its own government and president is being prepared and is due any minute and that the west will make President Assad and his military “pay a very heavy price” “when or maybe even before it occurs”. (preemptive strike)

Now all sane, informed, awake people in the world know that the government of Syria has never used chemical weapons on anybody and never will. We know that this was only ever western lies to help domestic public opinion accept yet another western destruction of free humanity and culture as with Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and now Syria hence bringing them them ever closer to their absolute domination of the entire world and the enslavement of every human soul. Hence what we are seeing here is yet another attempt to use the same tired old lie to justify a western regime change action followed by the destruction of secular, civilized Syria.

Were a major western, Israeli attack on Syria to take place, that would put Russia in a difficult position which is precisely why some of the hotter heads in the western elite may just decide to risk it.

The Russian government and people absolutely do not want war and Russia has repeatedly shown a very “Zen” ability to dissolve all the aggressive provocations the west has thus far thrown at her in Ukraine as in Syria. One does not have to be a military or geopolitical expert to see that if Russia resists militarily, this could risk escalating very fast all the way to WWIII. This is something that Russia wants to avoid at nearly all costs but were the situation to become existential, that would be another matter and as many have already commentated, the Russians are informed and ready which cannot be said in any way of western populations.

The Russian campaign in Syria has resulted in a very low casualty count so far but a very high profile one. All deaths of male and female Russian service personnel in Syria (Except secret agents we may presume) have been publicized on mainstream media. All are felt as a great loss but some were especially moving. The young reconnaissance soldier who found himself hopelessly surrounded by ISIS fighters who called down a missile strike on himself to avoid being captured and to make sure the terrorists were all killed: which they were. The pilot who was shot down by a Turkish fighter and then machine gunned by western backed terrorists as he parachuted to earth hanging helplessly in the air. All Russia saw his legs kicking out as the bullets entered him. It would be very hard, maybe even impossible for Russian public opinion to except that all that heroism and sacrifice was for nothing. That Russia must just let the west and Israel overthrow the legitimate government, hand the country over to the Islamist terrorists and their masters and come home with her tail between her legs and start to reinforce the Russian borders.

The Russian government has always said that it is in Syria to defeat the terrorists rather than to “prop up”, as the western media likes to say, the Assad government. Recent poles say that if there was an election in Syria tomorrow, Assad would get close to ninety percent and the fact on the ground is that if he goes, the terrorists will win. A fact that is perfectly understood in Washington, London, Paris, Tel Aviv as it is in Damascus, Moscow, Tehran and Beijing. If that happens, next step, Iran!

If the west goes for an all out regime change attack in Syria and should Russia decide that its long term interests are best served by retreating, then this could be more destabilizing for Russia’s internal unity than any thing the west has thrown at her so far. The west’s use of so called “liberals” and “Clinton, Soros worshiping and funded dissidents” to effect regime change in Russia has spectacularly failed. However, if there is any undercurrent of doubt in the leadership of Vladimir Putin in the country it is among those who feel frustrated by his “Zen” way of dealing with the west and who would like to see a much more full on, robust countering of western aggression around her borders and protection of Russia’s interests worldwide.

These people would find it impossible to stomach a Russian defeat, retreat from Syria and internal tensions would certainly rise more than they have done to date. I would certainly not envy President Putin, his ministers and advisers given such a choice. True! A firm, decisive rebuttal of western aggression might cause the west to back down as it is in much more disarray than Russia or Syria itself for that matter. On the other hand it might not and then what?

Let us pray that such a decision will not have to be taken. That the few remaining non neo-con people in the Pentagon and the US administration manage to thwart this ridiculous false flag creation or: that as Alexander Mercouris noted, that it looks like a heavy handed attempt to distract public attention from Seymour Hersh’s devastating article exposing the last “chemical attack false fag as a total lie!

The next few hours and days will be crucial! Someone recently wrote and I’m paraphrasing as I can’t find the original.

“The neo-con desire for world domination has zombified them to such an extent that they cannot stop on this path. Until someone shoots them in the head, they will continue moving forward”!

Marcus Godwyn is a British musician and amateur essayist.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why the West Will Not and Cannot Let Syria Live in Peace

Israel, a rogue state if ever there was one, pursues its “security” as a Jewish Zionist entity on all of Mandate Palestine through demonizing Palestinian Arabs, whom it has long subjected to a racist campaign that defines their resistance, both violent and non-violent, as anti-Semitism on the one hand and as terrorism on the other.

Thankfully, Israel’s cover for its exploitation of anti-Semitism to serve unconscionable Zionist ends has finally been blown (See Former Mossad agent describes planting claims that critics of Israel are “antisemitic”). However, the connections between pro-Israel organizations and Islamophobia (Palestinian Arabs happen to be mostly Muslim), as well as Israel’s PR campaign to paint Palestinian resistance as terror, are still not widely discussed. Complicating the Palestinian situation is the fact that Israel’s dirty tactics are wedded to legitimate global concerns about terrorism.

Inadvertently playing along with Israel’s designs, Jewish Voice for Peace, for example, is initiating a new campaign called “Deadly Exchange” to challenge “the deadly falsehood that violence against some communities will create security for others.” Its laudable goal in this campaign is to end the US-Israel police partnership, but the underlying premise is that Israel’s “security” claim is as legitimate as the security claim of any other nation, and it is only its method of combating it that is at fault.

Image result for Jewish Voice for Peace

Source: The American Spectator

Israel paints an ugly picture of Palestinian Arabs, while simultaneously legitimizing vigilante terror by Jews in the West Bank. “The Jews are our misfortune” was the Nazi pronouncement emanating from virulent anti-Semitism that led to disastrous consequences, but the phrase is literally and objectively true in Palestine, where the Zionist Jewish entity is ensconced, actively practicing a brutal settler-colonial regime. Palestinian resistance against Israel is neither driven by anti-Semitism nor by “Islamic” terror.

The image of the Palestinian Muslim Arab as an anti-Semitic terrorist has been assiduously cultivated by Israel. This image is given credence by the extremist actions Israel itself has provoked Hamas into committing in the past. Since Israel’s assassination of Hamas’s legendary leader Mahmoud Abu-Alhunoud on Nov. 23, 2001 and Hamas’s retaliatory suicide bombings in Haifa and Jerusalem, Israel has conducted (along with Washington and the complicit US media) an all-out assault on Hamas as a militant national movement.

Discrediting the legitimacy of Hamas was all part of Ariel Sharon’s strategy, not only to demolish Hamas, but also to isolate Arafat. So, for example, the Israeli terror attack on a Gaza neighborhood on July 23, 2002 killed seventeen non-combatants (including nine children and Hamas’s leader Salah Shehadeh) and injured 170. That provoked a retaliatory attack by Hamas on the Hebrew University cafeteria on July 31, killing seven and injuring a dozen people.

In this December 14, 2014, file photo, masked Palestinian gunmen of the Hamas militant grouphold weapons during a rally to commemorate the 27th anniversary of the group in Gaza City. Amnesty International on Wednesday, May 27, 2015, accused the militant group of abducting, torturing and killing Palestinians during the war in the Gaza Strip summer 2014, saying some of the actions amount to war crimes.

In this December 14, 2014, file photo, masked Palestinian gunmen of the Hamas militant group hold weapons during a rally to commemorate the 27th anniversary of the group in Gaza City. (Source: The Economic Times)

Israel’s repeated and ongoing provocative acts, especially in judaizing Jerusalem, in propaganda by various far-right groups attempting to violate the status quo at the holy sites, in extrajudicial assassinations of Hamas’s leaders, have all driven Hamas to extremes (in the form of a rash of suicide bombings directed at Israeli civilians) that Hamas is now trying to moderate, targeting instead Israeli police and soldiers rather than innocent civilians.

Not so Israel, which continues to regard even a stone-wielding child or a Palestinian youth with a keyboard and access to the internet as threats to its “security”, a security shamelessly supported by the Palestinian Authority itself – also in the name of “peace” and “law and order”.  The very existence of Palestinians is a “demographic threat” to Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

The mainstream media hardly ever question the presumption that violence by Palestinians against Israel is anything but a criminal act. Take for example the violent incident that occurred in Jerusalem earlier this year. A Palestinian driving a vehicle in illegally annexed and occupied East Jerusalem plows into and kills several Israeli soldiers and causes collateral injury to others. In reporting on the story, The Guardian includes the following information for the reader with no comment:

“The UN security council joined other world leaders in condemning the attack. ‘The members of the security council condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist attack in Jerusalem.'”

As far as the UN security council is concerned, there are no distinctions to make between such an attack on Israeli police in Jerusalem and a similar attack on police in any other city in the world, never mind the 1978 United Nations General Assembly Resolution reaffirming “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle.”

Since before the “war on terrorism” in the West even began, the very concept of terrorism has been reduced by Israeli propagandists into an arena whereby Palestinian armed resistance by individuals or Hamas or any other militant Palestinian group is automatically regarded as terror.  In a catch-22, non-violent Palestinian resistance, on the other hand, is dubbed as “incitement to terror”.

The depiction of Palestinian armed resistance as terror prevails despite the fact that there is considerable disagreement on the meaning of “terrorism.” As Tomis Kapitan writes in The Terror of Terrorism,

Any intelligent discussion of terrorism must have some way of identifying the phenomenon under scrutiny. Only then is it possible to devise criteria for describing a given action, agent, or organization as ‘terrorist’, to investigate the causes and objectives of terrorism, and to set parameters for a legitimate response to what some regard as a fundamental challenge to world peace.

In 2011 Waleed al-Meadana, a Palestinian refugee from Jaffa forced to live in Gaza, wrote a piece that was published in Mondoweiss titled, “Thanks, my enemy. I love Palestine.” At the time, he was a 21-year-old Palestinian lecturer at the University College of Applied Sciences (UCAS Gaza) – I hope he is well and alive today.

In that piece, he expresses the sentiment that Israel’s brutality only makes him love Palestine more. He wrote,

You call me names? You call me ‘terrorist’?!! You step on me; you fuck me; you steal my land; you abduct my child; you rape my wife; you lock up my brother; you kill my father, and you call me a ‘terrorist’?? Is it because every time you strip me naked I scream?? Is it because every time you smash my bones I cry?? Is it because I shed tears for my younger brothers every time they hear your bombs?? Am I a ‘terrorist’??

It is my pleasure then, call me a ‘terrorist’!

Framing Palestinian resistance as terrorism or any other kind of criminal activity makes it easier for Israeli snipers in Palestinian neighborhoods and generally in the West Bank to shoot to kill or maim, as in this instance,

There have been many recent cases of stone-throwing at policemen, who for some reason often come to Isawiyah [a Palestinian neighborhood of Jerusalem] at the end of the school day. In the past few months, some eight local children and teens have been hit in the eye with rubber-coated bullets, arousing suspicions in the village that this is the work of snipers aiming at the eyes… On December 18, a week after his release, Ahmed’s father filed a complaint with the [Israeli] Justice Ministry’s unit for the investigation of police officers. He was informed that they didn’t have an available investigator and that they would call him (which they have yet to do).

Such framing of Palestinian resistance as terror (now aided by new Israeli legislation) also makes it easier for Israeli armed forces to kill Palestinians without fear of prosecution.

“’The new law sends a clear message to our soldiers: When you protect us, we protect you,’ the Deputy Defence Minister said.”

In 2016 alone, more than 1,000 unarmed Palestinians engaged in protests or demonstrations were shot by Israeli forces in the occupied Palestinian territory.

But what we must all keep in mind, especially on this centennial anniversary of the Balfour declaration, is the following ugly truth about the Zionist Jewish entity in Palestine – that Zionism is all about Jewish supremacy:

By the time the Balfour Declaration was finalized, thirty-plus years of Zionist settlement had made clear that the Zionists intended to ethnically cleanse the land for a settler state based on racial superiority; and it was the behind-the-scenes demands of the principal Zionist leaders, notably Chaim Weizmann and Baron Rothschild. (Thomas Suárez, author of State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel)

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.

Featured image from St. Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel’s Illegitimate Tactics Against Palestinian Armed Resistance vs. Legitimate Global Security Concerns

The Status of the Global Oligarchy

June 29th, 2017 by Francesca de Bardin

The term oligarchy is derived from the Greek words meaning “rule or command by a few.” The term is generally used in the derogatory sense to describe a tyrannical system that practices oppression to ensure obedience. While oligarchies are generally associated with antiquity and as being localized, many of today’s larger democracies can justifiably be called oligarchies. The following is a brief discourse on how modern oligarchs manage control over societies, using power exercised through economic and political means. Today the global oligarchy is controlled by a few hundred families.

Many modern democracies are systems where the actual differences between political rivals are very small, and in these systems the oligarchic elite impose strict limits on what constitutes an acceptable and respectable political position. As for the “politicians”, their careers depend heavily on unelected economic, political, and media elites. Therefore, we have the popular saying, “There is only one political party.” An oligarchy, as we know, is a governing structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control, and so on. In these governing structures control is maintained by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next. But, inherited power is not the only means of transference.

While oligarchies are often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are reared and mentored to become inheritors of power, this power is not always exercised openly, and most oligarchs prefer to remain “the power behind the throne,” so to speak. Perhaps the best example of such a family, the Rothschild’s continue the long tradition of innovation based on a steady accrual, over more than two centuries, of expertise, experience, and immeasurable wealth. Their businesses continue to be at the forefront of global financial and commercial activities.

There are other “oligarchs” also in control however, but in addition to the “old money” influences, the oligarchs have now created a “new money” cabal of influencerswho play an ever-increasing role economically, politically, and at the structural level as well. “Unlimited” money, whether it is old or new, exerts a massive force. As an example of how money plays a role in the American system, a radio interview on the Thom Hartmann Program in July 2015 featured former president Jimmy Carter saying that the United States is now an oligarchy in which “unlimited political bribery” has created “a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors.” According to the former president, both Democrats and Republicans, Carter said, “look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves.”

President Carter is not alone in his assertions. Other contemporary authors have also characterized current conditions in the United States and Western Europe as being oligarchic in nature. One, Jeffrey A. Winters, PhD Yale, 1991, professor of political science at Northwestern University and author of Oligarchy, argues that

“oligarchy and democracy operate within a single system, and American politics is a daily display of their interplay.”

Of course, there are many others among today’s great thinkers who profess oligarchs essentially rule us. Through the watchful eyes of independent media and academics willing to voice their dissent, the reality of the global oligarchy comes into view. While most people have always understood that the rich rule, most shy away from believing in a truly Orwellian control conspiracy. The fact is, oligarchies exist in small towns, large cities, and in countries today, and we really do have an alliance of oligarchic dynasties that is global.

Not only do these modern oligarchs exert control over the governmental tiers, they also influence the philosophy and ideas nurtured in academia, through social institutions, and especially the policy institutions of the world. One example was recently outlined by Author Steven MacMillan, who’s editor of the Analyst Report, who went so far as to suggest that institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations, are in fact “part of a shadowy network of private organizations that stretches across the globe to influence policy of most nation states.”

While the mainstream insists anti-oligarch voices are merely conspiracy theorists, hundreds of experts are now revealing the truth of this “1984” system bent on complete takeover. In a Guardian piece from 2015, author Seumas Milne framed the argument that:

“Escalating inequality is the work of a global elite that will resist every challenge to its vested interests.” 

He goes on to briefly outline the dysfunctional systems these oligarchs have set in place for decades now, but what’s significant about his report is the ever increasing greed of these elites. As world systems, markets, and resources contract and become depleted, the oligarchs feel the pressure to extract still more from us. The simple way of putting this is to frame them as “addicts of growth”, or insatiable tyrants when all is said and done. When solutions for rising inequality are suggested, those in power balk at every turn these days. Austerity, increased tax burdens on the middle and lower classes, still more borrowing at the national and corporate level, even war with Russia over resources seem to be on the table to prop up this oligarchy. Many experts contend that it was this global elite’s unrealistic response to the changing global landscape that caused most of today’s geo-political crises.

There is some good news however. Although the global oligarchy aims to have total control of the world, it has not yet reached that goal. This oligarchy is not monolithic, there is competition among them and turf warfare. This can be seen in the competition for resources and wealth worldwide, and especially in the new anti-Russia propaganda. The oligarchs are infighting in many cases, the Ukraine situation represents a good case study for this. So, this infighting, along with individual opposition via economic and political factions, tends to block the global oligarchy from cementing full control. Furthermore, grassroots citizen movements are attempting to oppose these modern aristocrats as well, and together the movements have the ability awaken the greater citizenry and challenge the oligarchy.

Featured image from Joe Schueller / CC BY 2.0

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Status of the Global Oligarchy

Featured image: American Journalist Robert Parry (Source: Consortiumnews)

There are too many awards for journalism. Too many simply celebrate the status quo. The idea that journalists ought to challenge the status quo — what Orwell called Newspeak and Robert Parry calls ‘groupthink’ — is becoming increasingly rare.

More than a generation ago, a space opened up for a journalism that dissented from the groupthink and flourished briefly and often tenuously in the press and broadcasting. Today, that space has almost closed in the so-called mainstream media. The best journalists have become – often against their will — dissidents. 

The Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism recognises these honourable exceptions. It is very different from other prizes. Let me quote in full why we give this award:

‘The Gellhorn Prize is in honour of one of the 20th century’s greatest reporters. It is awarded to a journalist whose work has penetrated the established version of events and told an unpalatable truth – a truth validated by powerful facts that expose what Martha Gellhorn called “official drivel”. She meant establishment propaganda.’

Image result

Journalist Martha Gellhorn (Source: Bio.com)

Martha was renowned as a war reporter. Her dispatches from Spain in the 1930s and D-Day in 1944 are classics. But she was more than that. As both a reporter and a committed humanitarian, she was a pioneer: one of the first in Vietnam to report what she called ‘a new kind of war against civilians’: a precursor to the wars of today.

She was the reason I was sent to Vietnam as a reporter. My editor had spread across his desk her articles that had run in the Guardian and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. A headline read, ‘Targeting the people.’ For that series, she was placed on a black-list by the US military and never allowed to return to South Vietnam.

She and I became good friends. Indeed, all my fellow judges of the Martha Gellhorn Prize – Sandy and Shirlee Matthews, James Fox, Jeremy Harding — have that in common. We keep her memory.

She was indefatigable. She would call very early in the morning and open up the conversation with one of her favourite expressions – ‘I smell a rat’.

When, in 1990, President George Bush Senior invaded Panama on the pretext of nabbing his old CIA buddy General Noriega, the embedded media made almost no mention of civilian suffering.

My phone rang. ‘I smell a rat’, said a familiar voice.

Within 24 hours Martha was on a plane to Panama. She was then in her 80s. She went straight to the barrios of Panama City, and walked from door to door, interviewing ordinary people. That was the way she worked – in apartheid South Africa, in the favelas of Brazil, in the villages of Vietnam.

She estimated that the American bombing and invasion of Panama had killed at least 6,000 people.

She flew to Washington and stood up at a press conference at the Pentagon and asked a general:

‘Why did you kill so many people then lie about it?’

Imagine that question being asked today. And that is what we are honouring this evening. Truth-telling, and the courage to find out, to ask the forbidden question.

Robert Parry is a very distinguished honourable exception.

I first heard of Bob Parry in the 1980s when he broke the Iran-Contra scandal as an Associated Press reporter. This was a story as important as Watergate. Some would say it was more important.

The administration of Ronald Reagan had secretly and illegally sold weapons to Iran in order to secretly and illegally bankroll a bloodthirsty group known as the Contras, which was then trying to crush Nicaragua’s Sandinista government — on behalf of the CIA. You could barely make it up.   

Bob Parry’s career has been devoted to finding out, lifting rocks – and supporting others who do the same.

In the 1990s, he supported Gary Webb, who revealed that the Reagan administration had allowed the Contras to traffic cocaine in the US. For this, Webb was crucified by the so-called mainstream media, and took his own life.

Lifting the big rocks can be as dangerous as a warzone.

In 1995, Parry founded his own news service, the Consortium for Independent Journalism. But, really, there was just him. Today, his website consortiumnews.com reflects the authority and dissidence that marks Parry’s career.

What he does is make sense of the news – why Saudi Arabia should be held accountable; why the invasion of Libya was a folly and a crime; why the New York Times is an apologist for great power; why Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have much in common; why Russia is not our enemy; why history is critical to understanding.

For his journalism, Robert Parry is the winner of the 2017 Martha Gellhorn Prize. He joins the likes of Robert Fisk, Iona Craig, Patrick Cockburn, Mohammed Omer, Dahr Jamail, Marie Colvin, Julian Assange, Gareth Porter and other honourable exceptions.  

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Robert Parry Wins 2017 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism

Unlike Oliver Stone, who knew how to interview Vladimir Putin, Megyn Kelly did not. Thus, she made a fool of herself, which is par for her course.

Now the entire Western media has joined Megyn in foolishness, or so it appears from a RT report. James O’Keefe has senior CNN producer John Bonifield on video telling O’Keefe that CNN’s anti-Russia reporting is purely for ratings:

“It’s mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don’t have any big giant proof.”

CNN’s Bonifield is reported to go on to say that

“our CIA is doing shit all the time, we’re out there trying to manipulate governments.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/394233-russia-cnn-ratings-veritas/

And, of course, the American people, the European peoples, and the US and European governments are being conditioned by the “Russia did it” storyline to distrust Russia and to accept whatever dangerous and irresponsible policy toward Russia that Washington comes up with next.

Is the anti-Russian propaganda driven by ratings as Bonifield is reported to claim, or are ratings the neoconservatives and military/security complex’s cover for media disinformation that increases tensions between the superpowers and prepares the ground for nuclear war?

RT acknowledges that the entire story could be just another piece of false news, which is all that the Western media is known for.

Nevertheless, what we do know is that the fake news reporting pertains to Russia’s alleged interference in the US presidential election. Allegedly, Trump was elected by Putin’s interference in the election. This claim is absurd, but if you are Megyn Kelly you lack the IQ to see that. Instead, presstitutes turn a nonsense story into a real story despite the absence of any evidence.

Who actually interfered in the US presidential election, Putin or the presstitutes themselves? The answer is clear and obvious. It was the presstitutes, who were out to get Trump from day one of the presidential campaign. It is CIA director John Brennan, who did everything in his power to brand Trump some sort of Russian agent. It is FBI director Comey who did likewise by continuing to “investigate” what he knew was a non-event. We now have a former FBI director playing the role of special prosecutor investigating Trump for “obstruction of justice” when there is no evidence of a crime to be obstructed! What we are witnessing is the ongoing interference in the presidential election, an interference that not only makes a mockery of democracy but also of the rule of law.

The presstitutes not only interfered in the presidential election; they are now interfering with democracy itself. They are seeking to overturn the people’s choice by discrediting the President of the United States and those who elected him. The Democratic Party is a part of this attack on American democracy. It is the DNC that insists that a Putin/Trump conspiracy stole the presidency from Hillary. The Democrats’ position is that it is too risky to permit the American people—the “deplorables”— to vote. The Democratic Party’s line is that if you let Americans vote, they will elect a Putin stooge and America will be ruled by Russia.

Many wonder why Trump doesn’t use the power of the office of the presidency to indict the hit squad that is out to get him. There is no doubt that a jury of deplorables would indict Brennan, Comey, Megyn Kelly and the rest. On the other hand, perhaps Trump’s view is that the Republican Party cannot afford to go down with him, and, therefore, as he is politically protected by the Republican majority, the best strategy is to let the Democrats and the presstitutes destroy themselves in the eyes of flyover America.

What our survival as Americans depends on is the Russians’ view of this conflict between a US President who intended to reduce the tensions between the nuclear powers and those determined to increase the tensions. The Russian high command has already announced its conclusion that Washington is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. It is not possible to imagine a more dangerous conclusion. So far, no one in Washington or any Western government has made an effort to reassure Russia that no such attack is being prepared. Instead, the calls are for more punishment of Russia and more tension.

This most extraordinary of failures demonstrates the complete separation of the West from reality.

It is difficult to imagine a more extreme danger than for the insouciant West to convince Russia that the West is incapable of rational behavior. But that is precisely what the West is doing.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on It Is the Western Media, Not Russia, Who Interfered in the US Presidential Election

Featured image: UAE crown prince Mohammed bin Zayed (Source: Wikipedia)

Abu Dhabi’s crown prince asked the US to bomb Al Jazeera as America was planning its invasion of Iraq, according to a diplomatic cable detailing his conversation with a top US state department mandarin.

According to the cable, Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ) “laughingly recalled” to Richard Hass a conversation between his father, Sheikh Zayed, and the emir of Qatar, Hamad Al-Thani, in which Hamad had complained MBZ had asked for the US “to bomb Al Jazeera”.

“According to MBZ, Zayed [his father] derisively responded: ‘Do you blame him?'”

In his comments, made in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, MBZ warned that public opinion in the Arab world over the invasion – which he described as “containable” if the war was short and efficient – could be heavily inflamed by the Qatar TV network’s coverage and advised that its influence be reined in.

MBZ said

“it was a mystery to him why the Qataris continued to inflame public opinion” through Al Jazeera… “and suggested that the US use its weight to pressure Doha”.

The cable added that MBZ had “emphasised the need for US engagement with the Qataris to rein in Al Jazeera”.

In April 2003, the Al-Jazeera office in Baghdad was struck by a US missile killing one staff member and wounding another, though a US Central Command spokesman told BBC News the station “was not and never had been a target.” In 2001 the station’s Kabul office was hit by two bombs in another US attack, although there were no casualties.

The statement appears to show decades-long enmity between Qatar and the UAE over Al Jazeera, which has boiled to the surface once again with a Saudi, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt-led blockade of Qatar and demands to close the network down.

Last week Riyadh laid down a list of 13 demands for Qatar, which also included ending Doha’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood, a downgrade of diplomatic ties with Iran and the shutting of a Turkish military base outside Doha.

According to the cable, however, MBZ downplayed tensions between the Saudis and Qataris, noting the two populations “share Wahhabi roots”.

More concerning, he said, were UAE-Saudi relations, which MBZ reportedly described as “far more complex”.

He drew his attention to Abu Dhabi’s “nagging bilateral border dispute with Riyadh (the al-Shayba oil field)”.

“Nevertheless, the ever pragmatic Emiratis recognised the need to deal with the Saudis and have thus maintained good relations with Riyadh.”

However, the cable noted that MBZ took a “dim view” – in one case literally – of some senior members of the Saudi government – “sardonically noting that interior minister Nayef’s bumbling manner suggested that ‘Darwin was right’,” and went on to say that King Fahd was not “in complete control of his faculties”.

Nayef bin Abdulaziz al-Saud is the father of Mohammed bin Nayef – who was last week stripped of his position of crown prince by the king, Salman, who instated his son Mohammed bin Salman as heir.

Bin Nayef is thought to have held personal antipathy to MBZ.

Recently leaked emails sent from the Emirati ambassador to the US indicated that the UAE was involved in trying to move bin Salman into a position of power in Saudi Arabia.

“I think we should all agree these changes in Saudi are much needed,” said Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE’s ambassador to the US.

“Our job now is to do everything possible to ensure MBS succeeds.”

The 2003 cable also highlights MBZ’s then apparent tacit support for the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, whose removal from power the Gulf nations are now officially committed to.

MBZ “encouraged continued USG (US government) engagement with Bashar, noting that otherwise, ‘the wrong guys’ will fill the vacuum.”

“In MBZ’s estimation, Bashar is active and ‘wants to do good,’ although his relative youth and inexperience are real drawbacks.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UAE Crown Prince Asked US to Bomb Al Jazeera, Says 2003 Cable

Featured image: The slogan on a wall in Paris, means – “F**k, we’re in reverse.” (Source: Socialist Project)

“Putain, nous sommes en marche arrière” — Slogan on a wall in the 20th district of Paris.

“I really hope Macron can reform France, which is not doing well, you know.” These were the words of a young and stylish corporate lawyer, who started chatting with me during lunch in the cafeteria of the French national library. Emmanuel Macron‘s La République En Marche had just won the Parliamentary elections. The lawyer tried to convince me of the benefits of liberalism but also expressed anxiety about whether Macron would manage to do what previous Presidents have not: overcome all the various social and institutional obstacles in the way of a full-fledged neoliberalism.

His ambivalence captured the tone of those capitalists and financial journalists who voice cautious optimism about Macron’s capacity to restore the confidence of global investors and the European Troika in France. But, in their tunnel vision of an impossible liberal utopia, these commentators typically gloss over the thorny problem of political rule. Macron is both a symptom and cause of the current political crisis in France: a decomposition of the party system alternating between the right and the (nominally) left, reinforced by systemic uncertainty about the future of the European Union and Euro-American imperialism. This crisis is expressed most clearly by the angst-driven willingness of most French politicians to normalize rules of exception in order to bypass parliament and perpetuate the state of emergency in place since 2015.

The 2017 Legislative Elections

In the second round of the French legislative election, newly-elected President Macron’s ad hoc political formation En Marche managed to win 308 seats in the French National Assembly. While less than the predictions made after the first round, this is an absolute majority of the 577 seats in the Assembly. Given the comparatively low percentage of the vote En Marche managed to gather in the first round of the legislative elections (32.2%), this result was made possible by France’s two-stage majoritarian electoral system. Macron’s majority increases further (to 350) if one counts the 42 seats won by Francois Bayrou‘s centrist MoDem (Mouvement Démocratique), with whom Macron struck an electoral agreement.

Compared to Macron’s and Bayrou’s success, France’s other political formations suffered major setbacks. While the bourgeois right – Les Républicains (LR) and Union des Démocrates et Indépendents (UDI) – was not decimated, its combined seat total shrank to 136, compared to 196 in 2012 when they lost their parliamentary majority to Parti Socialiste (PS). This defeat has already prompted a formal split. 38 centre-right politicians from the LR and the UDI have formed a separate, ‘Macron-compatible’ parliamentary group willing to work with the new majority.

File:Meeting 1er mai 2012 Front National, Paris (40).jpg

On May 1st, 2012, as every year, the Front National activists marched in Paris and met before the Opéra Garnier for a meeting. Jean-Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen each delivered a speech in the middle of the campaign between the two presidential towers. (Source: Blandine Le Cain / Wikimedia Commons)

The Front National failed, once again, to translate promising results in the Presidential election into real parliamentary weight. While they increased their presence in the Assembly to 8 seats, this is still not enough to form a parliamentary group. As a result, internal struggles over the direction of the party, which resurfaced after Marine Le Pen‘s defeat by Macron in the Presidential election, are sure to intensify in the near future. Will Le Pen and chief strategist Florian Philippot‘s already weakened line (a critique of the EU, the old fascist slogan ‘neither left nor right’) hold against those who want to re-situate the FN more decisively on the extreme right, with even fewer ideological concessions to economic sovereignty and social questions, and forge a strategy to begin collaborating formally with the populist wing of the LR?

The left, meanwhile, was reduced to a strikingly low overall proportion of the Assembly – 12.6% of all seats. Since 1981, when the PS and the PCF won the elections, the left dipped this low only once, in 1993 (16.1%). Otherwise, the total proportion of the left fluctuated between 30.9% and 67.8% in that time period. So what explains their recent performance? Simply speaking, the Socialist Party (PS) and the Greens (Europe Ecologie/Les Verts) received the bill for the disastrous François Hollande years. The PS lost 250 of its 295 seats in the pre-election Assembly. The Greens, which won 18 seats and formed a parliamentary group for the first time in 2012, were shut out entirely.

The two left formations that did not participate in the Hollande government – the Parti Communiste Français (PCF) and Jean-Luc Mélenchon‘s France Insoumise (FI) – fared better, with 10 and 17 seats respectively. The PCF and the FI (which ran under the common banner of the Front de Gauche in 2012) failed to reach an electoral agreement prior to the first round, after which many of their candidates were eliminated and thus could not capitalize on Mélenchon’s promising result. Despite this failure, which many grassroots organizers deplored bitterly, the PCF and the FI managed to increase their total number of seats from 15 to 27, the total of the Front de Gauche in 2012. The weight within the (now much diminished) parliamentary left has shifted to the left of the Socialists in ways unseen since the 1970s. This puts the Mélenchon’s FI in an enviable position when it comes to discussions about a potential recomposition of the parliamentary left in France.

A New Ruling Bloc?

Bruno Amable and Stefano Palmobarini have pointed to a persistent feature of French politics since the late 1970s – the difficulty of forging a neoliberal social bloc with relatively predictable electoral capacities. They argue that the social components of a potential ‘bourgeois bloc’ (factions of the bourgeoisie and its upper-middle class allies) have been torn between the major forces of left and right, the Socialist Party, and its right-wing equivalent (which changed its name a few times, from the RPR to the UMP and now the LR). In this context, Macron’s En Marche, built as it was upon the marginalization of the PS left under the Hollande-Valls-Macron leadership and the subsequent implosion of the PS as a whole, promises to liberate neoliberals in various camps from what remains of the already greatly weakened left-right social and ideological cleavage. These shackles have stood in the way of a French version of British Blairism or a German-style Grand Coalition.

Amable and Palombarini’s neopluralist (and neo-institutionalist) analysis is too mechanical (treating alliances as static aggregates of pre-existing social interests) and too idealist (abstracting from the contradictions and struggles which, in a capitalist context, corrode ruling blocs). It is also one-sided in neglecting other political forces central to French politics. For example, they ignore what Sadri Khiari has called the colonial counter-revolution: France’s response to decolonization, Third World aspirations, and migrant mobilizations since the late postwar period. Still, Amable and Palombarini provide a welcome, longer-term context for all those who have written about the crisis of rule in the current conjuncture. They show that hegemonic instability in France (as posited by Stathis Kouvélakis), which has indeed intensified under Sarkozy and Hollande, builds upon deeper cracks in the foundation of bourgeois rule in France.

Amable and Palombarini also provide proper context to what Gramsci would call Macron’s ‘transformism’ – his capacity to absorb or neutralize elements of existing parties (Socialists, centrists and liberals) while also recruiting people without strong ties to these political formations. Some of this capacity results from painstaking labour (undertaken by many, including Macron’s wife Brigitte Macron) building social ties between their own provincial worlds and Parisian bourgeois circles. Thus embedded, Macron’s government and the newly elected parliamentary group En Marche could become a key component of a new ruling bloc, one that links a new cross-partisan mix of politicians and operators to new political recruits. It would be a bloc, therefore, that is younger, more entrepreneurial, a bit more female, and less beholden to the interpersonal feuds and sectarian allegiances that have immobilized existing political apparatuses.

A Thin Majority

Macron’s rapid rise from the senior state bureaucracy to President (via banking and the Hollande government) may turn out to be too good to be true. Three days after the Parliamentary election, Macron already had to regroup his government. Four ministers and state secretaries, including MoDemchief Bayrou, had resigned from cabinet. They had run afoul, individually or through their party MoDem, of a top Macronite electoral promise: to bring moral integrity to public office, a promise which Bayrou himself was charged with implementing. Like the Front NationalMoDem is being investigated for using the labour of EU Parliamentary assistants paid by Brussels to support their national party apparatus instead of the work of their European deputies. Clearly, Macron’s image of political renewal is already tarnished by ‘old’ practices. Given that links between business and government are particularly systemic in Macron’s regime, these resignations are unlikely to remain the only ones in his term.

Macron himself is split between two contradictory orientations. While declaring the renewal and broadening of the French ruling class, he enthusiastically supports the deeply undemocratic features of the Fifth Republic – the heavy bias toward the office of the President, which lends itself to personalized rule and curtails Parliament in several acute ways. Macron has admitted to his (quasi-)royalist, or, perhaps more accurately put, Bonapartist leanings. These leanings are now infused with the business-oriented managerial practices that permeate Macron’s government and the enthusiasm by which Macron extends France’s imperial foreign policy, pushing for a proper EU security and military apparatus while sustaining France’s military missions in Africa.

Authoritarianism is indeed second nature to Macron. After prolonging the state of emergency for a sixth term, he has already embarked on a project to enshrine in regular legislation key provisions of the state of emergency law, including pre-emptive house arrest, house searches, the closure of places of worship (i.e. mosques) and a newly added provision to define zones where police have special powers to search people and property. He thus proposes to make permanent the very rules of exception that undermine basic principles of the separation of powers and habeas corpus. These have been used during the Hollande years not primarily to pursue perpetrators of terrorist attacks but more frequently to criminalize Muslims, residents of segregated neighbourhoods, and protestors of police violence, climate change and labour laws.

Les Macronistes

Macron’s strategy to radicalize Hollande’s record (which he himself carried to a significant extent) has a second, closely related plank: his promise to accelerate the deconstruction of France’s social security system, shrink the public sector, and deepen labour law reforms to further buttress the power of employers in various ways. One such way is to decentralize collective bargaining to the enterprise level, thereby undercutting the capacity of French labour unions to compensate for very low unionization rates with sector-wide strategies or national political action. As Amable and Palmobarini have pointed out, there is no social majority for such reforms in France. The modernizing, so-called social-liberal wing of the Socialist Party, and the neoliberal currents in the French centre and right (both of which Macron draws upon), have faced this resistance repeatedly since the 1980s. Under Hollande, this lack of solid social and parliamentary support for economic liberalism explained the recourse to constitutional mechanisms to bypass Parliament and new levels of repression to curtail and divide mass protests.

The project of building a more integrated socio-political bloc to sustain Macron’s liberal political synthesis is thus fraught with deep obstacles. Everyday entrepreneurialism has made headway among the French population, including in segregated neighbourhoods with non-white majority populations. Yet this daily entrepreneurialism, which is sometimes a matter of survival and an obvious feature of social media dynamics and mass-produced pop culture, does not in itself indicate a widely shared, deeply held and unequivocal commitment to neoliberalism. Many indications, including surveys and exit polls, suggest that Macron’s Presidential and Parliamentary majorities do not reflect a profound appeal of his ideas or programme.

Macron won the elections to a large extent because French voters rejected his opponents (the PS, the right, and the Front National) and withdrew from elections on a mass basis. In the second round, 57.4% of registered voters refused to cast a ballot, a rate that exceeds the record set in 2012 by a whopping 13.7%. 440 of 577 deputies were elected by fewer than 25% of registered voters. If one takes into account rates of non-registration, Macron’s support drops even further. In the first round, when people could choose from the full range of parties, less than 11% of eligible voters cast a ballot for En MarcheThe party of abstention, not Macron, was the winner of the 2017 vote. In contrast to the UK, where Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign was carried by a remarkable surge in participation by young people, the electoral behaviour of French citizens, particularly the young and members of the working class, is more volatile than ever.

Macron 2017 = Le Pen 2022?

Macron and Le Pen

As Emmanuel Macron faced Marine Le Pen in the second round of the Presidential election, a slogan started appearing on the walls of central Paris: Macron 2017 = Le Pen 2022. This equation underestimated the dangers of the Front National. Yet it still has the great propagandistic merit of establishing a relationship between neo-fascism or authoritarian populism and less openly nationalist and socially conservative forms of neoliberalism. This relationship has been endemic to Euro-American politics since the 1980s. The ongoing instability of political rule, widespread social precarity, and an embrace of imperial war and anti-Muslim racism by liberals, centrists and Socialists suggest Macronism will indeed further fertilize the ground for the Front National and its potential future allies on the populist Sarkozyist or Catholic right.

It is important not to forget another key fact from the 2017 French elections: the Front National established itself for the first time as a party that could win the Presidential election. Within a week of the run-off vote, Marine Le Pen polled within 18% of Macron. At the end, she garnered 34%, not 41% of the vote. Still, a record 10.6 million French voters cast their ballots for Marine Le Pen, almost twice as many as the 5.5 million (17.8%) who voted for her father in 2002. Marine Le Pen’s result builds upon the FN’s record-breaking results in the European and municipal elections of 2014 and 2015. The FN’s relatively weak performance in the two rounds of the Legislative election (13.2% and 8.8% respectively) thus does not mean that the FN is on its way out. In fact, the election has shown that it is more difficult now than at any other time since the FN emerged on the electoral scene in the early 1980s to contain the spread of the party.

In the end, left and popular-democratic forces are the only ones with the potential to break the link between Macron and Le Pen. Crucial questions impose themselves in this context.

  • Will the organized, parliamentary or non-parliamentary left undergo a process of recomposition to avoid further marginalization and fragmentation?
  • Will the forces who have confronted Hollande and Macron’s labour law reforms in the street (for example the union activists and autonomists in the newly formed Front Social) muster the energy to defeat Macron on this point and the broader austerity agenda, the divisions in the labour movement notwithstanding?
  • Will the coalition that managed to pull off an impressive mass march against racism and police violence on March 19 build on its efforts?
  • Will it be feasible to mount a significant resistance against the normalization of the state of emergency proposed by Macron, a normalization that is keeping far-right demands to permanently and pre-emptively intern the ‘radicalized’ alive?
  • Finally, will it be possible, in this broader context, to focus anti-fascist energies (yes, on the FN and the galaxy of fascist groups surrounding it, but also), as Saïd Bouamama has urged repeatedly, against the acts of everyday violence (against burkini-wearing Muslim women, Roma campers, or refugees) which have helped implement, as it were, racist and Islamophobic policies while legitimizing the FN?

Stefan Kipfer is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, Toronto. He is currently on sabbatical leave in France.

Sources

Bruno Amable and Stefano Palombarini. L’illusion du bloc bourgeois. Alliances sociales et avenir du modèle Français. Paris: Raison d’Agir, 2017.

Bruno Amable, “Le candidat d’En Marche champion d’un bloc bourgeois,” Libération, 25 April 2017.

Hacène Belmessous, “En banlieue, autoentrepreneur faute de mieux,” Le Monde Diplomatique, March 2017.

Saïd Bouamama, “Leçons et conséquences d’un été révélateur. La construction progressive des conditions d’un pogrome,” 31 August 2016, at Le blog de Saïd Bouamama.

Saïd Bouamama, La Manipulation de l’identité nationale, Editions du Cygne, 2011.

André Chenin, “L’électeur se rebiffe,” Le Monde, 1 April 2017.

Jean-Michel Dumay, “CFDT, un syndicalisme pour l’ère Macron,” Le Monde Diplomatique, June 2017.

Pierre Duquesne and Lionel Venturini, “L’électorat gagne par l’extinction de voix,” l’Humanité, 20 June, 2017.

Louise Fessard, “Une atteinte à la séparation des pouvoirs inimaginable (Interview with Serge Slama),” Mediapart, 8 June.

Philipp Hildebrand, “C’est le moment idéal pour réformer la France,” Le Monde, 11-12 July 2017.

Jerome Hourdeaux, “Contre le terrorisme, l’état d’urgence s’incruste,” Mediapart, 23 June, 2017.

Kareen Janselme, “La bombe à retardement contre le modèle social est enclenchée,” L’Humanité, 7 June 2017.

Sadri Khiari, La contre-révolution coloniale en France. Paris: La Fabrique, 2008.

Stefan Kipfer, “‘Things are serious’: A very brief update on the French Presidential election campaign,” The Bullet, No. 1406, 2 May 2017.

Stefan Kipfer, “Projecting Shadows: France before the 2017 elections,” The Bullet No. 1378, 5 March 2017.

Stathis Kouvélakis, “What’s next for Nuit Debout?” Interview, Jacobin, 16 May 2016.

Roger Martelli, “PCF et France insoumise: données complémentaires,” regards.fr, 15 June 2017.

Le Monde, Résultats législatives 2017, 13 June 2017.

Le Monde, Résultats législatives 2017, 20 June 2017.

Ugo Palheta, “Vers l’autoritarisme? Crise de la démocratie libérale et politique d’émancipation,” Contretemps 31, 2017.

Pierre Rosanvallon, “Lignes brisées,” Le Monde, 17 June, 2017.

Lola Ruscio, “Les classes supérieures confisquent la représentation nationale,” L’Humanité, 20 June 2017.

Jacques Toubon, “Loi antiterroriste: ‘une pillule empoisonée’,” Le Monde, 24 June 2017.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Macronism: Neoliberal Triumph or Next Stage in France’s Political Crisis?

Gas Wars?

June 29th, 2017 by Marwan Salamah

It is expected that demand for gas will rise, especially in the longer term. It is cleaner, more efficient and cheaper than oil. (The cost of heating an average American house is three times more expensive using oil rather than gas).

Europe has become addicted to gas consuming 447 Billion cubic meters in 2016 (a 6% annual increase), and Russia, is the biggest supplier delivering, via established pipelines, one third of European demand. It now plans to build a new pipeline (Nord Stream 2) from Russia to Germany to supplement the existing network and ensure uninterrupted supply as future demand grows.

But Europe is unhappy with this plan (especially Eastern Europe). Obliged to strictly observe and follow US anti-Russian policies which aim to weaken Russia economically and militarily and dislodge it from its high geopolitical perch. Accordingly, The EU countries have not only blindly applied US sanctions on Russia, to the detriment of their economies, but also, have exposed their citizens to the danger of total annihilation and destruction, by hosting US nuclear missiles and armies directed at Russia. As such, the EU has obediently toted the line and for has years thrown multiple wrenches in the pipeline project cogs. Existing EU laws were negatively misinterpreted, or new unfavorable laws and regulations were promulgated.

World Gas Production
World Country Total Date
Rank (1000 CBM)
1 USA 766,200,000 2015 est.
2 Russia 603,900,000 2014 est.
3 Iran 174,500,000 2014 est.
4 Qatar 160,000,000 2014 est.
5 Canada 151,500,000 2014 est.
6 China 123,500,000 2014 est.
7 Norway 108,800,000 2014 est.
8 Saudi Arabia 102,400,000 2014 est.
9 Algeria 83,290,000 2014 est.
10 Turkmenistan 76,000,000 2014 est.
11 Indonesia 73,450,000 2014 est.
12 Netherlands 70,280,000 2014 est.
13 Malaysia 65,420,000 2014 est.
14 Australia 62,640,000 2014 est.
15 Uzbekistan 61,740,000 2014 est.
16 UAE 54,240,000 2014 est.
17 Egypt 48,800,000 2014 est.
18 Mexico 44,370,000 2014 est.
19 Nigeria 43,840,000 2014 est.
20 Thailand 42,150,000 2014 est.
25 Oman 30,900,000 2014 est.
34 Bahrain 16,900,000 2014 est.
36 Kuwait 15,030,000 2014 est.

Source: http://world.bymap.org/NaturalGasProduction.html

But now, the latest straw seems to have broken the camel’s back. Trump’s election as president has brought in someone whose demands on the EU are not just excessive, but also are presented in a roughshod manner. And, to top it all, the US has suddenly changed from a generous leader who always picks up the tab, to a penny-pinching scrooge demanding the economically sick EU pay to billions more for NATO’s and their own defense expenses. He also managed to hit the sorest possible spot, by criticizing Germany for its excessive exports to the US with minimal balancing imports, blaming it for exacerbating the US balance of trade deficit and its crimson balance of payments.

The final straw was last week, when the US senate passed with an overwhelming majority (98 to 2) a new set of Russian sanctions that penalize any company that participates in the construction of the new Russian pipeline or provides any financing services to it. This law is primarily directed at German and European companies, and although it has temporarily stumbled due to procedural errors in Congress, it is likely to be represented and passed.

The estimated costs of the Nord Stream 2 project are 8 – 9 Billion Dollars, and that is mouthwatering even for rich countries. Germany and Austria immediately reacted violently, and for the first time in seventy years (since the end of the WW 2) retorted by threatening to counter such sanctions, insinuating that they would reciprocate with sanctions against the US!! They also, accused the US of using politics to further their economic interests and forcing the EU to buy more expensive US LNG gas. The moral here seems to be: “Do what you wish, but stay clear of my pocket”.

As for Russia, it continues to progress the project and is not worried about the construction part as it has ample specialized contracting companies ready to break ground on short notice. It has also restructured the project financing to a part self-finance and part financing from Chinese banks with whom it is presently in communication with.

Russia did not stop there, but went further and negotiated late last year with the Turkish government to build the “Turkish Stream Pipeline” to transport gas from Russia to Turkey. After satiating Turkish demand, the excess gas will be piped to Southern Europe, with lucrative transit fees to Turkey. Work on this project recently broke ground, a mere seven months after signing the accords!

But hark, where are all the other gas producers? Where are the US ambitions to shrink Russian gas sales and substitute Arab, American and even Iranian gas sales? Where are the gas pipeline projects via Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the Mediterranean and hence Europe? Are any of these still likely or even valid? Will these be reasons and justification for the continuation of the current conflicts, or create new ones? Or will the US issue new sanctions on whoever consumes Russian gas anywhere in the world?

Marwan Salamah, is a Kuwaiti economic consultant and publishes articles on his blog: marsalpost.com 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Gas Wars?

Saudi Arabia Is Weakening US Influence in the Middle East

June 29th, 2017 by Federico Pieraccini

In a series of almost unprecedented events among Washington’s regional allies, the crisis between Saudi Arabia and Qatar seems to worsen by the day. The long-awaited list of demands presented to Doha by Riyadh seem to be intentionally impractical, as if to oblige Qatar to plead guilty to the crimes alleged by the Saudi kingdom or face the consequences, still unknown.

The surreal requests start with demands to close the international television network Al Jazeera, as well as halt the financing of the Muslim Brotherhood. At the heart of the issue remains the question of political and diplomatic relations with Iran, the bane of the Saudi royal family’s existence. The House of Thani that controls Qatar has until July 3 to accept all the demands presented. At the moment, Doha seems to be sending mixed messages, announcing that it wants to evaluate the Saudis’ proposals, but also letting it be known that most of the demands are “not reasonable“.

Prince Mohammad bin Salman and former crown prince Muhammed bin Nayef (Photo from PressTV)

Another interesting tidbit concerns the removal of Muhammed bin Nayef by the Saudi king as his successor to the throne. Prince Mohammad bin Salman, the young 31-year-old nephew, replaces Muhammed bin Nayef, the former Crown Prince and major ally of the CIA and European and American governments. Mohammad bin Salman is currently the most controversial figure in the Middle East. Responsible for the devastating war in Yemen and the desperate financial state of Riyadh’s finances, he oscillates between his Vision 2030 and an anti-Iranian preoccupation that is likely to bring his kingdom to bankruptcy. In Yemen, he waged a military campaign costing in the tens of billions of dollars, only to lose against the poorest Arab country in the world. His irrational anti-Iranian stance has even led him to risk a conflict within the GCC (thanks to the precious lobbying role of the UAE ambassador to the US, Yousef al-Otaiba) over the excessive freedom of Doha’s foreign policy.

Initially, this disaster appeared to be limited only to the two Gulf nations, with Trump’s Twitter account signalling Washington’s immediate backing of Mohammad bin Salman’s crusade against Iran and Qatar. The severity of the situation was immediately perceived by Turkey. Ankara and Doha have always played a leading role in the Muslim Brotherhood, a religious group that Riyadh considers to be terrorist organization and a threat to their Salafi realm.

Turkey reiterated its support for the House of Al Thani by deploying about 3,000 military personal to Doha in the country’s new military base, at the same time dismissing as “useless and unresponsive” the Saudis’ requests to abandon the base and withdraw their troops. In a series of unprecedented moves, bin Salman mooted the possibility of supporting Kurdish troops in Iraq and Syria if Ankara should continue to support Doha. What once seemed to be an indissoluble union between Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia today presents far more than fracture and tension, all to the benefit of the likes of Iran and Russia fighting terrorism in Syria alongside the legitimate government in Damascus. It is a nightmare for those like the United States who hoped to continue to impose their will on the Middle East through the blind obedience of certain vassals like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. With each one battling the other, the US’s role becomes much more complicated to influence events.

Al Udeid Air Base.jpg

An aerial overhead view of”Ops Town”at at Al Udeid Air Base (AB), Al Rayyan Province, Qatar (QAT), taken from a US Air Force (USAF) KC-135 Stratotanker during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. (Source: US Gov / Wikimedia Commons)

Tensions between Washington’s allies are creating a situation of all against all, indeed a sense and feeling that is all too commonly reflected in Washington these days. After days of silence, the State Department and the Pentagon expressed their support for Qatar, contradicting the President’s indications that Qatar was a terrorist-financing state. Confusion and contradictions in the United States are increasingly having a destabilizing effect, showing a country without a strategic direction. The State Department has strongly criticized Saudi Arabia for its attitude towards Qatar over the last two weeks. This is by no means surprising, as the US Department of State is still infiltrated by former Obama administration loyalists, who themselves are heavily tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, as was the former nominee Hillary Clinton together with her trusted assistant Huma Abedin. The Pentagon, in this deep-state civil war, considers Qatar primarily from a tactical perspective: 90% of US aircraft directed against Syria take off from the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The sale of $12 billion worth of jets to Qatar is evidence that Qatar is one of the military-industrial complex’s best customers. The contradictory messages emanating from this US administration, unable to speak with one voice, continues to destabilize America’s closest allies in the region.

Another move that has certainly not gone unnoticed concerns the deployment of several Israeli tactical and operational aircraft in Saudi Arabia. The process of rapprochement between these two nations continues unabated, creating even more distrust in the region.

What now seems irreversible is the attitude of Doha’s authorities, who seem to have decided to use this opportunity to chart their own course independently of Riyadh. The Qatar Airways CEO, when interviewed by Al Jazeera, reiterated that, thanks to Iran, there is a chance for the operator to circumvent the skies illegally closed to it by the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The CEO, when questioned on how he would proceed given the expected huge losses, stated that the company intends to broaden its horizons towards new routes so far unexplored.

Saudi tactics are likely to create difficulties and problems for Qatar, even with support from Iran and other regional countries. For the moment, Doha’s ships carrying liquefied natural gas (LNG) continue to operate freely. In a country that receives almost 90% of its revenue from the sale of LNG, blocking its ships would mean pushing Qatar into a corner, a state of affairs that would closer resemble conventional warfare. Bin Salman’s inexperience and bungling will end up creating problems with Egypt, which currently allows transit of Qatar’s LNG through the Suez Canal to reach the Mediterranean and deliver gas to European customers. A request from Riyadh to Cairo to block Qatari ships would hardly be accepted, creating further fractures and tensions among those participating in the blockade of Qatar.

Perhaps Trump has only now realized how unhelpful these rifts are to his Arab NATO plan. If Turkey and Israel are on opposite sides, and Qatar and Saudi Arabia are on the verge of a war, it is unlikely that Washington could continue to try impose its strategic vision in all the Middle East in the intention of safeguarding its interests.

In this chaotic mess for the US and its allies, as always, the axis of the Shiite resistance benefits the most, especially in Syria with the advancement of Assad’s troops in the province of Deir ez-Zor, after almost five years of its absence there. Where Turkey, Iran and Russia have achieved ceasefire agreements, signed in Astana, the majority of remaining problems lie with the terrorist groups supported by Qatar and Turkey or Saudi Arabia. In addition to a series of skirmishes a few days ago, mistrust and the swapping of sides seem to be on the agenda, with Syria decreasingly under the control of terrorists and the prospect of the entire country being liberated coming into vision.

Washington is once again getting itself into an almost unprecedented situation. Whether or not Trump has given his blessing to Saudi Arabia’s actions against Qatar, what matters are the consequences for the region. Iran seems to play more and more the role of a moderate force ready to engage in dialogue with all parties. The Saudi attitude is likely to disaffect two strategic partners, Turkey and Egypt, with the latter ready to abandon the Saudis if pushed too far. Turkey, after intense Russian diplomatic efforts, seems to be on the verge of abandoning its support for anti-Assad forces, but prudence dictates that it tarries awhile before proceeding with these changes. Erdogan has often played a double or triple game.

Bin Salman’s strategy began with the Yemen war, continued with hostility against Qatar, and is now culminating with his appointment as Crown Prince. Trump seems to have climbed onto the chariot of losers, and now it is harder than ever to support a loose cannon like bin Salman who seems to show little hesitation in destroying his kingdom as well as undoing fundamental relations among Washington’s allies.

It is a struggle against time for the American deep state in fight against itself and spinning around in conflict. The risks of Bin Salman’s disruptive actions and Trump’s incompetence could have unimaginable consequences, as the possible collapse of the whole Anglo-American Middle East architecture constructed over a hundred years of wars and abuses.

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

Featured image from Strategic Culture Foundation

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Saudi Arabia Is Weakening US Influence in the Middle East

Featured image: The Leppings Lane end inside Hillsborough Stadium during the disaster (Source: Wikipedia)

“It is also a story of deceit and lies, of institutional defensiveness defeating truth and justice. It is evidence of a culture of denial within South Yorkshire Police.” – Anne Burkett, BBC, Apr 27, 2016

It took 28 years for the tables to turn on the South Yorkshire police regarding the Hillsborough disaster that took the lives of 96 fans. The 1989 FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest saw a sporting catastrophe that was portrayed as less a matter of institutional accountability as the consequence of loutish, irresponsible fans.

The finger pointing began instantly, with the police arguing that the bad behaviour of the fans, fuelled by alcohol consumption, was the primary cause. (This, notwithstanding the fact that some of the injured and dead were children.)

There were, in fact, no limits as to what the fans had done wrong. They supposedly arrived too late; they obstructed the police in accomplishing their tasks; they forced open a gate; many were supposedly ticketless. What mattered in the police narrative and technique was not safety but control.[1]

The ground was laid after the finding by inquest jurors in April 2016 that the fans in question had been unlawfully killed. It had been the longest jury case in British legal history, involving the families and supporters of the Hillsborough Family Support Group (HFSG) and Hillsborough Justice Campaign.

Interest naturally turned towards police conduct not merely on the day itself, but subsequently. The latter point was of particular interest to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which was charged with the task of investigating allegations of a cover-up.

On Wednesday, six people, including two former senior police officers, were charged for criminal offences linked to the disaster. Significant here was the alleged cover-up that ensued. Sue Hemming of the Crown Prosecution Service’s head of special crime and counter-terrorism, after reviewing the material, “decided that there is sufficient evidence to charge six individuals with criminal offences.”

Prominently featured is David Duckenfield, the South Yorkshire officer who oversaw policing at the semi-final, charged for the manslaughter of 95 people. (The 96th, Tony Bland, would only die four years after the incident, making a charge of manslaughter inapplicable.) He had eluded the clutches of a private prosecution in 1999 with a stay by the senior judicial officer. For a prosecution to take place, that stay will have to be lifted by application from the prosecutors.

Duckenfield, the grim star of a very grim show, received specific mention from Hemming. During proceedings, the CPS intends to show that Duckenfield’s conduct that day was “extraordinarily bad and contributed substantially to the deaths of each of those 96 people who so tragically and unnecessarily lost their lives.”[2]

The focus on Sir Norman Bettison, former chief constable of Merseyside and West Yorkshire police, an inspector in the South Yorkshire force during the disaster, was one of misconduct. He faces four counts of the offence in public office.

“Given his role as a senior police officer,” stated Hemming, “we will ask the jury to find that this was misconduct of such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.”

Donald Denton and Alan Foster, both former police chiefs, were charged with perverting the course of justice in allegedly fiddling witness statements used during the original investigation and inquest into the deaths. Dozens of such statements were allegedly doctored to suggest a picture of police control rather than lethal chaos. The police lawyer, Peter Metcalf, was charged for allegedly assisting the enterprise.

Completing the institutional circle is Graham Mackrell, Sheffield Wednesday Football Club’s company secretary and safety officer that day. His charges are less grave, but no less significant: the alleged contravention of safety rules and failing to take appropriate reasonable care for the health and safety of those on the grounds.

This is the season for a reckoning. The charred ruins of Grenfell Tower have drawn necessary accusations about public safety across London. The cult of the cheap and expedient is being challenged; the wisdom of authorities questioned.

Related image

Source: Spiked

The Hillsborough families proved relentless in seeking accountability for the losses of 1989, showing that doing things by the book in calmly directed rage transformed the alleged responsibility of the victims to accountability of the authorities. It is with some historical irony, given the state of Brexit, that these efforts would been further hampered but for the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights via the Human Rights Act 1998.

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

Notes

[1] http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-hillsborough-96-and-the-struggle-for-truth-and-justice/

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/28/hillsborough-six-people-including-two-senior-police-officers-charged

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The 1989 FA Cup Hillsborough Stadium Disaster: Holding the Police to Account

What Will U.S. Ambitions in Syria Lead to?

June 29th, 2017 by Anna Jaunger

According to Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky, journalists at The National Interest, conducting ambitious policy, aimed at overthrowing the Syrian government headed by Syrian President Bashar Assad, and confronting Iran is an extremely dangerous step of the U.S.

In their article Miller and Sokolsky reported that such kind of policy would lead to a chaos, in the conditions of which there won’t be any organized force, capable of countering terrorism in the Middle East. The overthrow of the Syrian government will entail an endless power struggle between radical Sunni jihadists and Shia militant groups.

In its turn, this will inevitably lead to the further spread of the terrorist threat, as well as the flow of refugees to Europe and the United States. Such a scenario may be traced in Libya.

After the violent and humiliating overthrow of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the country is still unable to get over the deepest crisis. Nowadays, Libya is ruled by the numerous criminal groups. They support al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists, who consider Libya as a province of their self-declared caliphate. Besides, because of the current situation in the country, more and more refugees, among whom there is a great number of terrorists, are fleeing to Europe across the Mediterranean Sea.

In addition, Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky stressed that Washington’s desire to weaken Iran and counter its attempts to control the border between Iraq and Syria will also not promote victory over terrorists.

It should be mentioned that such predictions don’t seem so unlikely. In an interview with Neuen Osnabrücker Zeitung, Director of Europol Rob Wainwright said that today the level of terrorist threat is extremely high. According to Wainwright, only last year in Europe, 718 people were involved in relation to radical groups. Europol chief also warned of threat of new terror attacks.

Obviously, now there is only one way to stop the increasing threat: Washington needs to abandon the idea of overthrowing the legitimate government of Syria, and begin coordinating its actions with those, who really fight terrorism. This is the only way to prevent the devastating consequences that threaten the security of the whole world.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Will U.S. Ambitions in Syria Lead to?

Featured image: Additional units of US marines assisting the fight in Raqqa (Source: South Front)

The US is actively preparing public opinion for a direct military aggression against Syria. The White House claimed on Monday that it has a “potential” evidence that the Bashar Assad government was preparing for another chemical weapons attack that “would likely result if the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children.” Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that if “Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price.” US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley further accused Russia and Iran for any future “chemical attacks” that may take place in Syria. However, no evidence was provided.

UK Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said on Tuesday that the US had not shared any specific evidence with the British Government, but the UK is ready to support any US military actions against Syria.

Earlier this month, Army Col. Ryan Dillon, spokesman for the US-led coalition, admitted that the US and its allies had lost a race for the Syrian-Iraqi border to government forces and that the Pentagon has no problems with the anti-ISIS operation of the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance in the area. But, it looks that somebody in the White House has a problem with this.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Army and its allies have further advanced against ISIS terrorists in the countryside of Palmyra and along the border with Iraq. An intense fighting took place near the Arak field while another group of government fighters continued pushing towards the T2 pumping station.

Tensions increased between Turkey-led forces and Kurdish militias that compose a core of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Turkish artillery units have shelled Tell Rifat, Sheikh Issa, Harbul, Maranaz, Minaq and Ayn Daqnah in northern Aleppo.

Earlier this month, reports appeared that the Turkish military deployed a large number of military equipment, including T-155 Firtina howitzers and ACV-15 armoured vehicles, to the area of the militant-held town of Azaz. According to multiple pro-Kurdish media outlets, Turkey and pro-Turkish militant groups were preparing for a large advance against Kurdish militias in the area of Afrin. However, no large attack has taken place so far.

The SDF media wing has not reacted to the recent shelling but some unofficial Kurdish sources indicated that the SDF is not going to halt the Raqqah advance even if Ankara launches the expected operation in the Afrin area. If this is true, this will open a window of opportunities for the Erdogan government that has a long-standing aim of retaking Tell Rifat from Kurdish units.

In the city of Raqqah, the SDF continued clashing with ISIS terrorists encircled in the urban area. However, the ISIS resistance did not allow the US-backed force to make gains. The US-led coalition increased airstrikes on ISIS targets in the provinces of Raqqah and Deir Ezzor.

The Monday airstrikes on Mayadeen hit the ISIS prison and killed at least 42 prisoners and only 15 the terrorist group’s members according to the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a hardcore anti-Assad media outlet. In turn, the US-led coalition described the target as ISIS “command and control” facilities.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: US Launches Hideous Propaganda Campaign to Justify Military Action Against Syria

Two Black Men Films: Fences and Moonlight

June 29th, 2017 by Barbara Nimri Aziz

Featured image: Theatrical trailer of Fences starring Denzel Washington (Source: Movie Insider)

Both of these award-winning new releases are exclusively acted by Black Americans and could be seen as slices of African American life. Each focuses on the life of a man, the life of an individual that’s offered to us with such a high level of acting that the black in the story disappears. 

I have long respected the talent of actor Denzel Washington despite his appearance in so many films with violent themes, and even though he usually plays noble men. The first time I saw him was in Mira Nair’s 1991 film Mississippi Masala in the role of Demetrius Williams.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102456/plotsummary

Image result

There and his many superb performances thereafter is why I decided to view Fences http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/peter-travers-fences-movie-review-w455997. I wanted to hear his consummate voice again. Washington’s familiar timbre is barely recognizable in Fences. But I was not disappointed.

As strong as Viola Davis is as his co-star, Washington is outstanding, arguably because he’s able to totally disembody himself and build the complex character of Troy Maxson, the central figure in Fences. That performance stands out for me because I forgot that his skin color and that of the other characters is black. Not only this; I forgot that Troy Maxson is the actor Denzel Washington. In Fences, Troy completely overtakes Washington; moreover, we recognize him as a type of man who to one degree or another we feel we know personally. Troy is a person I know.

If you’re familiar with the narrative of Fences, you’ll understand what I mean. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/feb/09/fences-review-denzel-washington-viola-davis. What many reviews overlook is the complexity of the character Maxson, a hard working man, but a man bent, wasted, and embittered. Troy Maxson is a man with unrealized expectations as a baseball player, a father unable to inspire his sons, a brother carrying a shame he cannot hide; he’s a father who does not enjoy the pride he desperately needs. Thanks to Washington’s artistry, we may walk away from the film reflecting on some failure in ourselves or someone close to us, how we manifest our letdown, and perhaps like Troy, inflict hardships on those dear to us. I hadn’t seen this human experience played so powerfully on screen in many years.

Related image

Few actors can transcend either their race or their celebrity with a performance like Washington gives us in Fences. Which takes me to Moonlight, another outstanding recent film with a full cast of African Americans and centered on a Black American family. Mahershala Ali, best known for his fine performance as the self-serving lobbyist in the televised series House of Cards, was awarded an Oscar for his supporting role in Moonlight.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-oscars-mahershala-ali-janelle-monae-moonlight-hidden-figures-20170219-htmlstory.html.

But the real talent there is exhibited by the three actors who play the boy, the teen, and the adult ‘Chiron’ whose painful growth we follow into adulthood. Moonlight is also a story about manhood, about feelings unrealized (labeled by others as a “gay coming of age film”). Beautifully constructed and with restrained, spare dialogue, most of the film seems to be a story about one corner of Black American life. But with the final scene when Chiron, powerfully played by Trevante Rhodes, now transformed into a man, confronts his first love, a childhood friend, it rises to another level. It is a love story, pure and subtle. No race, no class; just two men quietly finding each other.

ALSO: listen every Monday morning at 7:45 am for my weekly commentary on WBAI Radio, New York  City.

Both movie posters above are from Wikipedia.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Two Black Men Films: Fences and Moonlight

Featured image: Improvised explosive device camouflaged as a toy (Source: Inside Syria Media Center)

It’s not a secret for anyone, how much hardship, how much grief and suffering people endure as they confront many various explosive devices, booby-traps and other deadly bombs especially on the territory of settlements. Aleppo, the largest city of Syria, was literally loaded and the fields strewn with all kinds of explosives and mines left by terrorists. Syrian sappers recently shared the first results of their activities on mine clearance in the territory of Aleppo and also their impressions and experience from the missions in a discussion moderated by Inside Syria Media Center’ military correspondents.

Outwardly, an explosive device with photovoltaic cells doesn’t seem like a mine, which could trigger by remote control or from a spring.

Syrian Arab Army’s sappers pay special attention to large settlements, where the vital infrastructure of the country is being restored. First and foremost, the specialists demine roads leading to hospitals, water supply and electricity, transport, communications, information facilities and other social infrastructure.

The Syrian sappers have already cleared hundreds of the settlements mined. One of the last is the settlement of Tiyarah which is to the east of Aleppo. It had been under the control of ISIS for several years. Sappers have already cleared also the Ancient City of Aleppo and the town’s landmark, the Citadel.

Locals highly respect sappers, because only after a full verification of cleaning all the buildings from all the explosive devices people will be able to return their homes. Often they try to give the last thing they have in mind, give their eyeteeth to the sappers to express gratitude for their work. Often people even organize crowdfunding with the only aim to purchase some kind of equipment for sappers. However, a special heavy protective suit (and a helmet with a visor and a stylus similar to a spear) that can safeguard from flying glass, debris and splinters when a small landmine or grenade is blown up, well you shouldn’t imagine this equipment come cheap.

Syrian Army Special Forces backed by allied engineer units organized round-the-clock search and neutralization of mines, bombs, booby-traps and other improvised explosive devices at newly liberated areas. And judging by the nature of the mining, the terrorists’ miners are not amateurs. They have passed training in special military camps. While retreating, the terrorists turned a number of Aleppo’s neighborhoods into a minefield.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

On the left is a homemade mine in a bucket, which was placed under a staircase with bomb explosive power of which is about 15 kg of TNT. The explosive was placed so that it couldn’t be removed. It is a complex mining system, when the detonator is on a spring and it is impossible to get to it without moving the bucket. The spring is ready to detonate from any vibration.

The sappers have to blow up the land mine on the ground. First of all to carry out this mission it is necessary to set up a cordon and then evacuate civilians in a radius of up to 500 m from the place of the bomb area. Then they put the other  detonating charge of TNT on it and blast it.

For the past three month the Syrian experts have inspected more than 5,000 hectares in Aleppo, detecting and defusing up to 40,000 different explosives. Now the engineer units have to defuse thousands hectares of fields. Only after this work the local farmers will be able to continue cultivating land and harvesting crops.

Syrian sappers have gained self-confidence and a bit of an eye for finding various traps. They even visually can determine the places where booby-traps or other land mines were planted. For example, the burnt-out wreckage probably wouldn’t be mined. Explosives are placed under the things that could be useful in everyday life most often.

Mahmoud, a six-year-old Syrian boy found such a toy that was a booby-trap, actually, planted by the militants in Syria’s Aleppo in fact. Mahmud was born without arms, and recently lost both of his legs after touching the toy attracted his attention by foot.

Through hard experience, the older guys have already learned to move away from these terrible finds. Most of the boys and the girls in Aleppo know a lot of stories similar to the tragedy with Mahmoud.

“My younger brother and I came to our house to move things around and run into a land mine in the bathroom. There was another one in the kitchen and the wires leading to the third one,” says Ahmad, the young resident of Aleppo.

Syrian sappers discovered a lot of insidious traps of militants and saved thousands of lives in the latest three months. The experience of demining shows that the planting of the mines by ISIS and the Free Syrian Army was carried out with extreme violence that knows no boundaries. In addition, the sappers claim Western-made weapons were often used when mining the infrastructure. So, it is the very time for the West (who has fostered IS and FSA) to think about how to help the Syrian Arab Army to reduce the danger of landmines and other traps.

Follow the latest developments by reading Inside Syria Media Center.

Sophie Mangal is a special investigative correspondent and co-editor at Inside Syria Media Center.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on People in Aleppo Fight with Booby Traps and Deadly Bombs of Militants

Why Congress Won’t Agree to Stop Arming Terrorists

June 29th, 2017 by Washington's Blog

The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald ReaganLt. General William Odom said in 2008:

By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.

(audio here).

General Odom is absolutely right

And because the U.S. itself uses terrorism, it’s very hesitant to get others in trouble for using terrorism.

And that’s why Congress is refusing to pass a bill agreeing to stop funding terrorists. Specifically, Senator Rand Paul and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard introduced bills to whose simple name accurately describes what they want:  The “Stop Arming Terrorists Act”.

But neither bill looks like it has any chance of being passed right now:

  • The House bill has only 14 co-sponsors, and was given a mere 6% chance of passing by Skopos Labs
  • The Senate bill has NO co-sponsors, and was given a measly 3% chance of passing by

How pathetic is that?

Featured image from Counter Information

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Congress Won’t Agree to Stop Arming Terrorists

Supreme Court Weighs in on Trump’s Travel Ban

June 28th, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

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

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to review lower court injunctions against Trump’s travel ban in October.

US District and Appeals Courts blocked them temporarily. Countries affected include Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, banning travel to the US for 90 days, imposing a 120-day ban on refugees.

Iraq was removed from the initial order because of its involvement in the battle for Mosul, America’s phony war on ISIS, the scourge it supports.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, High Court justices partly lifted an injunction preventing Trump’s travel ban from taking effect.

The administration cannot enforce the ban against anyone with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in America, the Supreme Court opinion stated.

It can against all others in the targeted countries, Muslim majority ones, their people victimized by US imperialism, four of the six raped by US aggression, the other two threatened by Washington.

None of the six or their citizens pose any threat to US national security. In contrast, Trump’s ban targets people on the basis of their religious beliefs in nations ravaged by US aggression and/or opposed to its imperial agenda – no other legitimate reasons.

A justifiable travel ban would prohibit US government officials from traveling to these countries because of the enormous threat they pose – not the other way around as Trump’s travel ban ordered, partly supported by the nation’s highest court, complicit with administration “religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

Judge Roger Gregory (Source: richmond.com)

Its chief Judge Roger Gregory added:

“Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute.”

“It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation.”

Law Professor Emeritus Marjorie Cohn argued against Trump’s travel ban, saying:

It “violates the Establishment Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.”

“It also violates the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); both are treaties the United States has ratified, making them part of US law under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.”

“The EO violates the Immigration and Nationality Act as well.” High Court justices ignored all of the above, their ruling politically motivated, rule of law principles ignored.

The Supreme Court consolidated cases from the US Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal, Trump v. Hawaii and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project.

Justices will hear arguments for and against the travel ban when they reconvene in October. ACLU and National Immigration Law Center lawyers will contest the ban. Administration attorneys led by Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall will support it.

Trump said his revised ban will take effect in 72 hours following partial approval by the High Court.

Claiming it’s to protect national security is fabricated nonsense. It continues post-9/11 Islamophobic rage, used as a pretext to wage naked aggression against one Muslim-majority nation after another – raping and destroying them, the highest of high crimes.

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 Huffington Post

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Supreme Court Weighs in on Trump’s Travel Ban

Featured image: Hundreds of people from the eastern countryside of Damascus who fled military conscription and service have joined “Qalamoun Shield” forces so that they can have their legal status settled. (Source: SANA)

The Qalamoun Shield Forces (QSF) appeared as a noticeable auxiliary force of the Syrian military in the first half of 2016, with the goal of protecting the Al-Qalamoun areas from terrorist threats and securing the Syrian-Lebanese border.

The group includes approximately 2800 fighters, most of whom are volunteers from the eastern towns of Al-Qalamoun, along with a few hundred former fighters from the Free Syrian Army (FSA). A number of FSA fighters had joined the QSF after a reconciliation agreement with the Syrian government.

The QSF is linked to the Third Armored Division of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), and works with both the Syrian Republican Guard and Lebanese Hezbollah.

The QSF has several bases in Yabroud and Al-Nabak. It’s led by Lieutenant Firas Khaza’a, and mainly funded by the Syrian Ministry of Defense. The QSF is one the groups supported by the Russian military, which armed and trained all of its fighters in the early 2017.

The QSF controls a number of important border points in eastern Qalamoun, especially the area of Flitah, near the Lebanese area of Jurod Arsal, the stronghold of ISIS militants. It has managed along with the Syrian Republican Guard and Hezbollah to repel several attacks of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in the vicinity of Flitah.

The QSF has also foiled several infiltration attempts between Lebanon and Syria, as well as prevented several drug smuggling operations, which are often considered means of financing terrorist groups in the Lebanese area of Jurod Arsal.

In 2017, the QSF participated in its first battle outside eastern Al-Qalamoun area. In the middle of March 2017, QSF units deployed to the Hama front, where QSF participated in repelling the second joint attack of HTS, Jaish al-Izza and other militant groups on the strategic town of Qomhana in the northern Hama countryside.

The QSF continued its operations alongside the SAA’s Tiger Forces, the National Defense Forces and other pro-government groups and took part in restoring control and security of Khattab village on March 31, Mahardeh village on April 11, Souran on April 16, the towns of Taibat al-Imam and Halfaya on April 22 and 23. Then the QSF took part in capturing the Al-Zalaqiat village and hill. In case of continuation of clashes in northern Hama, the QSF will likely participate in future government attacks aimed at capturing Morek and Lataminah.

In May 2017, a part of QSF fighters were redeployed from northern Hama to the province of Homs in order to participate in a widely-expected government advane on the city of Deir Ezzor besieged by ISIS.

In early April 2017, a new pro-government group appeared in the Syrian-Lebanese border area, “The Homeland Shield Forces – Special Tasks”. The force consists of 400 fighters from 14 Lebanese villages from the Al-Beka’a area on the Syrian-Lebanese border. It is led by al-Haj Muhammad Jaafar and was founded with the direct support of the Russian military to secure the Al-Beka’a area.

The force may work in the future with the QSF in an expected operation to secure the Syrian side of Jurod Arsal in order to prevent any terrorists infiltrating the Syrian territory in case the Lebanese Army launches an operation against ISIS and HTS militants in the region.

The QSF is armed with medium weapons, such as vehicles armed with 23/14.5 guns; it is also armed with Konkurs ATGM. The forces also use heavy Syrian Bourkan(Volcano)-type rockets.

The QSF is a successful example of a rapid reaction force protecting the Syrian border and has proven that it can support the SAA in any area when necessary. The forces have carried out offensive and defensive missions in the northern Hama countryside very successfully. It could be expected that its financing and fighter numbers will be expanded if the joint Syrian, Iranian, Russian and Turkish efforts aimed at imposing ‘de-escalation zones’ will not been able to launch a successful peace process in Syria.

The further expansion of the QSF and other QSF-style groups, that would include former “moderate rebels”, will be clearly linked to a possibility of the Syrian government and its allies to implement their reconciliation agreements strategy in the countryside of Damascus and across Syria.

Voiceover by Oleg Maslov

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Qalamoun Shield Forces (QSF): Military Capabilities and Role in Syrian War