Global Research

The Donald Trump seen on television is different from the one in real life, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the G20 summit, adding that after his meeting with the US leader in Hamburg, he felt like relations between the two countries could at least partially be restored.

First, we have the manner in which the Americans have been preparing the G20 summit. As we all know, in diplomacy actions count as much, or even more, than words.

Here are just a few of the actions recently taken by the Americans in preparation for the G20 summit and Trump’s first meeting with Putin (in no particular order):

• The US rejected the joint Russian-Chinese plan to defuse the crisis over the Korean Peninsula even though that plan was simple, straightforward common sense and, frankly, the only game in town to avoid war.
• The US accused the Syrian government of preparing a chemical attack and warned of a “heavy price to pay”.
• The US sent its bomber of overfly the Chinese islands in the South China Sea.
• The US accused Russia of destabilizing Eastern Europe.
• The US threatened “severe consequences” against North Korea.
• The US declared that it would deploy Patriot missiles in Poland to protect the Poles from the Russian Iskander missiles (LOL!  Good luck with that, my Polish friends)
• The US also promised the Poles US LNG to “secure Poland’s energy independence from Russia” (and good luck with that too, my Polish friends)
• The US sent a Polish F-16 to intercept Russian Defense Minister’s civilian (and long announced) aircraft in international airspace over the Baltic Sea.
• The US sent a guided-missile destroyer near Triton Island in the South China Sea
• The US withdrew from the Paris climate agreement.
• The US criticized German trade practices.
• The US criticized China for its trade with the DPRK.
• The US accused China of “trade rape”.

Going down this list, you got to admire the American sense of timing and diplomacy…

But, seriously now,

It does not really matter of these actions are just the result from imperial hubris and delusion, a complete lack of diplomatic education, the consequences of simple and straightforward human stupidity or all part of some diabolical plan to set the US on a collision course with the entire planet. What matters is the mind-blowing arrogance of it all, as if the USA was a white knight in shining armor worthy only of praise and adulation and as if the rest of the planet was composed or rowdy schoolchildren who needed to heed the words of their principal and better start behaving or else get a good spanking from Uncle Sam.

If that is how Trump hopes to make “America Great Again” he might want to consider other options as that kind of attitude makes “America” (he means the USA, of course) look not “great” but arrogant, out of touch and supremely irritating. Let’s talk on the world, everybody at the same time seems to be the grand plan of this administration.

The result of all these “diplomatic” efforts were predicable: nothing.

Well, almost nothing. Here is what “nothing” looks in diplomatic language:

According to Foreign Minister Lavrov Presidents Trump and Putin,

were “motivated by their national interests” (who would have thought?!) and they agree on a number of concrete measures:

1. an acceleration of the procedure to appoint new ambassadors – RU-US and US-RU
2. they discussed the Russian diplomatic facilities seized by Obama
3. they create a work group to discuss a number of issues including terrorism, organized crime, hacking and cybersecurity.
4. they discussed Syria and the Ukraine and talked for 2 hours and 15 minutes.

According to RT, Russia and the US agreed on a ceasefire in the Daraa, Quneitra and As-Suwayda provinces of Syria.  That is very good, of course, but this is in the one corner of Syria (southwest) were very little action is taking place (right now all the important stuff is taking place between Raqqa and Deir-Az-Sor).  Oh, and there are de-escalation zones already in place in the southwest:

So unless Trump and Putin are keeping something really important secret, it seems that this summit has yielded exactly what I feared it would: nothing, or something very very close to nothing. If we find out later that in spite of everything, the two sides did discuss something of importance and agreed on something important, I will post and update here. And, believe me, nobody will be happier than me if that happens.

But, alas, it appears that many months of a sustained Neocon campaign to make darn sure that Russia and the US could never seriously collaborate have been very successful.

So where does this all leave us, the million of people who had at least *some* hopes about Trump being an outsider who could try to make some real changes happen and maybe liberate the United States from the Neocon regime in power here since at least Bill Clinton (if not earlier)?

On February 14th of this year, following the anti-Flynn coup and Trump’s betrayal of his friend, I wrote that “it’s over folks” and “Trump betrayed us all”. I took a lot of flak for writing this, especially since I had come strongly on Trump’s side against Hillary during the campaign. Sadly, I believe that my conclusions in February are now proven correct.

I understand while some will want to present this meeting as, if not a success, then at least “good start” or a “semi-success”. For one thing, being the bearer of bad news never made anybody popular. Second, those who support Trump or Putin (or both) will want to show that the leader they support achieved something. Finally, if both sides report that the meeting has been a success, who are we to say otherwise?

I don’t know about anybody else, but I always have and always will call it as I see it. And what I see is simply nothing or something very close to nothing. Sorry folks, I wish I could say something else.

As for apportioning blame for this non-event, I place 100% of the guilt on the US side which did everything wrong with an almost manic determination and which will now find itself in the rather unenviable position of fighting pretty much the entire planet all on its own. Oh, sorry, I forgot. Poland unconditionally supports the USA and Trump!

Well, good for them. They richly deserve each other.

Featured image from AP

A six-day long national policy conference was held from June 30-July 5 by the ruling African National Congress (ANC) in the Republic of South Africa designed to answer questions and plan the future of the continent’s most industrialized state. This conference was attended by 3,500 delegates from all provinces and regions of the country.

South African and ANC President Jacob Zuma in his opening address remarked on the nature of the conference saying there may never be another gathering of this length. The amount of time designated for the event is related to the internal and external challenges being faced by the ruling party which has maintained control of the national government since the end of apartheid-colonialism in May 1994.

At present the economy of the country has fallen into recession with rising unemployment and a declining currency exchange-rate. South Africa is by no means the only African and Southern Hemispheric nation facing these difficulties.

With the decline in commodity prices for raw materials and energy resources produced in emerging states, governments across Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America are in crisis. The so-called Great Recession of 2007-2010, which began on Wall Street in the United States and spread internationally created structural problems for the sustainability of genuine growth and development along with worsening poverty among the working class and poor globally.

South Africa gained its national independence through a combination of mass, armed and labor struggles which spanned decades. Between 1976, when the national student uprising erupted and 1994, the year of Freedom, thousands of people lost their lives, tens of thousands were imprisoned and millions more were displaced throughout the region of the sub-continent.

Zuma severely criticized the role of the corporate media in regard to fostering a sense of uneasiness and uncertainty about the future of the ruling party, the state and South African society as a whole by focusing on the economic crises amid allegations of factionalism and corruption at the highest levels of government. The president jokingly told the delegates that the press often claims to know more about the internal workings of the party than the membership itself.

Placing the emphasis for party renewal on the branches of the organization at the grassroots level, Zuma stressed:

“The delegates here come from the branches of the ANC. You know best the conditions in which the people live. You know better than anyone else if the most pressing need is for a clinic or a school. That is why branches determine the policy of the ANC. Amandla asemasebeni. What we are here for is ultimately to find a common understanding on how best to address those needs in the shortest and most satisfactory manner.”

The president, who is in his final term as the head of the ANC and government, drew upon the legacy of the former leader Oliver R. Tambo. This year represents the centenary of Tambo’s birth and Zuma quoted him in relationship to the task at hand for the ruling party as the custodians of the state.

Tambo, according to Zuma, made prophetic statements when he implored to the national liberation movement during the guerrilla and mass struggle phase, saying:

“Comrades, you might think it is very difficult to wage a liberation struggle. Wait until you are in power. I might be dead by then. At that stage you will realize that it is actually more difficult to keep the power than to wage a liberation war. People will be expecting a lot of services from you. You will have to satisfy the various demands of the masses of our people’’.

Challenges in the Alliance, the Status of Women and the National Democratic Revolution Assessed

In recent months differences over how to proceed within the context of policy and governance have become pronounced in open polemics by elements within the ANC, the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). The leadership of the SACP along with some officers in COSATU has called upon Zuma to resign his position as president.

However, several attempts by opposition parties within the South African Parliament to seek a vote of no-confidence against Zuma have all failed. The rationale behind such efforts led by the right-wing Democratic Alliance (DA) and the putative ultra-left wing Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) range from possible violations of the constitution by Zuma, allegations of corruption by leading party and governmental officials and most-recently the notion of “state capture.” The “state capture” lexicon centers on the supposed influence of the Gupta family’s business interests in determining official appointments and overall economic policy.

ANC Policy Conference (June-July 2017) (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Zuma and other leaders denied the charges of corruption and called for a commission of inquiry into the matters. The president reiterated the primacy of the National Democratic Revolution (NDR) as the guiding objective of the ANC in the present period.

The president said during his opening address, that:

“The ANC is guided by the objectives of the National Democratic Revolution. As outlined in our Strategy and Tactics document, the main content of the NDR remains the liberation of Africans in particular and Blacks in general from political and socio-economic bondage. It means uplifting the quality of life of all South Africans, especially the poor, the majority of whom are African and female.”

He continued by noting:

“The NDR seeks to resolve the main and interrelated contradictions of national oppression based on race, class especially the exploitation of black workers, and the triple oppression of women. The ANC also remains committed to the objective of the NDR of uniting South Africans in building a united, non-racial, non-sexist, democratic and prosperous South Africa.”

Zuma remarks on the status of women drew applause in light of the worsening phenomenon of gender-based violence inside the country. Although the National Policy Conference is not designed to elect the future leaders of the party, it appears that Zuma is siding with the ANC Women’s League (ANCWL) which is saying that it is time to elect a woman as the leader of the party and government. Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, the former wife of the president, has expressed her desire to led the party and stand as its candidate for president in 2019 when Jacob Zuma is scheduled to leave office.

The other major candidate for leadership is Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, the former Secretary General of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), a major affiliate of COSATU, who was a chief negotiator in the transition from apartheid to current political dispensation. Ramaphosa seems to be the favorite candidate of COSATU and the SACP as well. The deputy president was a featured speaker at the SACP Gala Dinner held on the eve of the National Policy Conference. The elections for the new leadership of the party will be made later i December of this year at the ANC National Conference.

Dlamini-Zuma, the former African Union Commission Chairperson and South African cabinet member, has called for the expropriation of white-controlled farm land without compensation supporting those within the ANC demanding a radical economic transformation of the state. The character of the enemy was debated over whether to utilize the term “white monopoly capital” as opposed to “monopoly capital.”

It appears as if the concept of “monopoly capital” won out during the conference. Either formulation is bound to send shockwaves through the largely European-owned mining, manufacturing and agricultural interests which are firmly encapsulated within the overall system of international finance capital based in the U.S. and Western Europe. The South African capitalist class has systematically disinvested from the country since the early days of ANC rule in the 1990s.

In a proposal to counteract the burgeoning factionalism in the ANC, Zuma has called for the encompassing of contestants within the leadership structures. Having deputy presidents and other joint leadership bodies could broaden the scope of administration and decision making.

“Let us not get rid of one who did not win, let us need the one who became number two or who did not win to be a deputy of the one who won,” Zuma said. “Comrades have proposed that we find a matured and sound way of politically managing possible contestation of leadership.”

2019 Elections Will Be Crucial in Determining the Future of South Africa

Speakers from various structures of the ANC noted the loss of electoral support in the 2016 local governmental elections. Although the ruling party won a 54 percent majority of the votes cast, this represented a more than ten percent decline as compared to the national elections held in 2009 and 2014.

Several of the largest municipalities in South Africa such as Johannesburg, Tshwane (Pretoria) and Nelson Mandela Bay (Port Elizabeth) have fallen to DA leadership as a by-product of its alliance with the EFF on a local level. The ANC party leadership recognizes that people in South Africa want jobs, land, housing, education and quality service delivery above all else.

In an article published by ANC Today entitled “Radical Social Transformation to End Poverty”, a staff reporter wrote:

“If we are to realize a more egalitarian society as envisioned in the Constitution- society has to be radically transformed. This is particularly with regards to advancing social cohesion and building a common national identity for our people. The Social Transformation commission, chaired by Comrade Lindiwe Sisulu- has been sitting at the organization’s National Policy Conference (NPC) in Nasrec, Soweto.”

Continuing this line of thinking the report continued saying:

“A bed rock of so-called first generation rights, social transformation is key to the ANC’s electoral mandate and to realizing a Better Life for All. Delegates discussed a wide range of proposed interventions to advance social transformation amidst a climate where there has been a resurgence of social ills such as racism and patriarchy. In a society fractured along race and class lines: the ANC as the leader of society must be at the forefront of pushing for societal transformation.” (July 4)

The existing alternatives to the ANC in parliament have no real vision for the country. Both the DA and EFF utilize disruptive tactics absent of a coherent social theory related to the realities of South Africa within the context of the continent and the international situation.

On numerous occasions the DA has been exposed for its racism and pro-imperialist stances involving events such as the interference in African affairs by the International Criminal Court (ICC), the ANC posture towards the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and independence, and the role of the state in economic transformation. The EFF, despite its militant rhetoric, has objectively aligned itself with the conservatives whose de facto leader Helen Zille’s public nostalgic praise for the days of colonialism in Africa forced the existing DA officials to rebuke her comments.

Some branches of the SACP have called upon the national leadership to run candidates on its own and not within the framework of the ANC. Nonetheless, the time to have tested such an initiative would have been during the 2016 local elections. The atmosphere in 2019 could be quite toxic politically if the economy continues to stagnate or decline.

The general policy thrust of the imperialist states with the U.S. in the lead aims at the reversal of all progressive and revolutionary advances in the former colonial territories since the post-World War II period. Consequently, the necessity of a broad based united front of anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, pro-liberation and socialist-oriented political forces is imperative for South Africa, Africa as a whole and indeed the international community in general going into the concluding years of the decade.

Zuma in his opening address to the conference re-emphasized that:

“Our revolution is an integral part of the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movement for a new world order. Africa is part of us as we are part of Africa first and foremost. Our struggle is inextricably linked with the struggle against neo-colonialism and imperialism on our continent. Our pan-African and internationalist position informs our support for the struggles of the people of Western Sahara and Palestine for self-determination. It informs our solidarity with the people of Cuba and against the economic embargo on this revolutionary nation by the U.S., and our demands for institutional reform of the United Nations. We remain steadfast in our demand for the representation of Africa among the permanent members of the UN Security Council.”

Featured image from SABC

In order to understand the hype surrounding the phenomena of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, we need to understand the prevailing global economic order and its prognosis. What the pragmatic economists have forecasted about free market capitalism has turned out to be true; whether we like it or not. A kind of global economic entropy has set into motion: money is flowing from the area of high monetary density to the area of low monetary density.

The rise of BRICS countries in the 21^st century is the proof of this tendency. BRICS are growing economically because the labor in developing economies is cheap; labor laws and rights are virtually nonexistent; expenses on creating a safe and healthy work environment are minimal; regulatory framework is lax; expenses on environmental protection are negligible; taxes are low; and in the nutshell, windfalls for multinational corporations are huge.

Thus, BRICS are threatening the global economic monopoly of the Western capitalist bloc: that is, North America and Western Europe. Here, we need to understand the difference between manufacturing sector and services sector. Manufacturing sector is the backbone of economy; one cannot create a manufacturing base overnight.

It is based on hard assets: we need raw materials; production equipment; transport and power infrastructure; and last but not the least, a technically-educated labor force. It takes decades to build and sustain a manufacturing base. But the services sector, like the Western financial institutions, can be built and dismantled in a relatively short period of time.

If we take a cursory look at the economy of the Western capitalist bloc, it has still retained some of its high-tech manufacturing base, but it is losing fast to the cheaper and equally robust manufacturing base of the developing BRICS nations. Everything is made in China these days, except for high-tech microprocessors, softwares, a few internet giants, some pharmaceutical products, the Big Oil and the all-important, military hardware and defense production industry.

Apart from that, the entire economy of the Western capitalist bloc is based on financial institutions: the behemoth investment banks that dominate and control the global economy, like JP Morgan chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs in the US; BNP Paribas and Axa Group in France; Deutsche Bank and Allianz Group in Germany; and Barclays and HSBC in the UK.

After establishing the fact that the Western economy is mostly based on its financial services sector, we need to understand its implications. Like I have contended earlier, that it takes time to build a manufacturing base, but it is relatively easy to build and dismantle an economy based on financial services.

What if Tamim bin Hammad Al Thani (the ruler of Qatar) decides tomorrow to withdraw his shares from Barclays and put them in an Organization of Islamic Conference-sponsored bank in accordance with Sharia? What if all the sheikhs of the Gulf States withdraw their petro-dollars from the Western financial institutions; can the fragile financial services-based Western economies sustain such a loss of investments?

In April last year, the Saudi foreign minister threatened [1] that the Saudi kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets if Congress passed a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible for any role in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Bear in mind, moreover, that $750 billion is only the Saudi investment in the US, if we add its investment in the Western Europe, and the investments of UAE, Kuwait and Qatar in the Western economies, the sum total would amount to trillions of dollars of Gulf’s investment in North America and Western Europe.

Similarly, according to a July 2014 New York Post report [2], the Chinese entrepreneurs had deposited $1.4 trillion in the Western banks between 2002 to 2014, and the Russian oligarchs were the runner-ups with $800 billion of deposits.

Moreover, in order to bring home the significance of the Persian Gulf’s oil in the energy-starved industrialized world, here are a few rough stats from the OPEC data: Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves of 265 billion barrels and its daily oil production exceeds 10 million barrels; Iran and Iraq, each, has 150 billion barrels reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million barrels per day, each; while UAE and Kuwait, each, has 100 billion barrels reserves and produces 3 million barrels per day, each; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, together, hold more than half of world’s 1500 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves.

Additionally, regarding the Western defense production industry’s sales of arms to the Gulf Arab States, a report [3] authored by William Hartung of the US-based Center for International Policy found that the Obama Administration had offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training during its eight years tenure.

Similarly, during its first international visit after the inauguration to Saudi Arabia in May, the Trump Administration signed arms deals worth $110 billion, and over 10 years, total sales would reach $350 billion.

Notwithstanding, we need to look for comparative advantages and disadvantages here. If the vulnerable economy is their biggest weakness, what are the biggest strengths of the Western powers? The biggest strength of the Western capitalist bloc is its military might.

We must give credit to the Western hawks that they have done what nobody else in the world has the courage to do: that is, they have privatized their defense production industry. And as we know, that privately-owned enterprises are more innovative, efficient and in this particular case, lethal. But having power is one thing and using that power to achieve certain desirable goals is another.

The Western liberal democracies are not autocracies; they are answerable to their electorates for their deeds and misdeeds. And much to the dismay of pragmatic, Machiavellian rulers, ordinary citizens just can’t get over their antediluvian moral prejudices.

In order to overcome this ethical dilemma, the Western political establishments wanted a moral pretext to do what they wanted to do on pragmatic, economic grounds. That’s when 9/11 took place: a blessing in disguise for the Western political establishments, because the pretext of the “war on terror” gave them a free pass to invade and occupy any oil-rich country in the Middle East and North Africa region.

No wonder then, 36,000 United States troops have currently been deployed in their numerous military bases and aircraft carriers in the oil-rich Middle East in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of 1980, which states:

“Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

During the last 16 years of the so-called “war on terror,” the Western powers have toppled only a single Islamist regime of the Taliban in Afghanistan and three “unfriendly” Arab nationalist regimes: Saddam’s Baathist regime in Iraq, Qaddafi’s Afro-Arab nationalist regime in Libya and for the last seven years, they have desperately been trying to overthrow another anti-Zionist Baathist regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

More to the point, it is only a “coincidence” that Iraq holds 150 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million barrels of oil per day, while Libya has 45 billion barrels reserves and it used to produce 1.6 million barrels per day before the civil war.

Regarding the Pax Americana which is the reality of the contemporary global political and economic order, according to a recent infographic [4] by the New York Times, 210,000 US military personnel are currently stationed all over the world; including 79,000 in Europe, 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East (of which, 28,000 have been deployed in the Persian Gulf alone, including 11,000 in the sprawling Al-Udeid airbase in Qatar).

By comparison, the number of US troops in Afghanistan is only 8,500 which is regarded as an occupied country. Thus, the Gulf Arab principalities are not sovereign states, as such, but the virtual protectorates of the corporate America.

In this reciprocal relationship, the US provides security to the ruling families of the Gulf Arab states by providing weapons and troops; and in return, the Gulf’s petro-sheikhs contribute substantial investments to the tune of trillions of dollars in the Western economies.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.

Notes

[1] Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html?_r=0

[2] Why $10 billion of China’s money is laundered every month:

http://nypost.com/2014/07/26/why-10b-of-chinas-money-is-laundered-every-month/

[3] The Obama administration’s arms sales offers to Saudi top $115 billion:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-security-idUSKCN11D2JQ

[4] What the U.S. Gets for Defending Its Allies and Interests Abroad?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/16/world/trump-military-role-treaties-allies-nato-asia-persian-gulf.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Featured image: A B-1B Lancer drops back after air refueling training Sept. 30. (Source: United States Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Bennie J. Davis III / Wikimedia Commons)

In a further calculated provocation on the eve of talks between US President Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, two US B1-B strategic bombers flew over the South China Sea on Thursday. Trump and Xi are due to meet today on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Germany, where the US is expected to demand tough sanctions to compel North Korea to abandon its nuclear and missile programs.

Japanese fighters joined the American bombers for a night exercise over the East China Sea, where Japan is engaged in an intensifying dispute with China over rocky outcrops known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. The US aircraft then flew south over the South China Sea to conduct a “freedom of navigation” operation to challenge Chinese territorial claims.

The bomber flight came less than a week after a US guided-missile destroyer deliberately intruded within the 12-nautical-mile territorial limit claimed by China around Triton Island in the Paracel Islands. Beijing reacted by condemning that incursion as “a serious political and military provocation.”

Asked about yesterday’s flight by US bombers, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said there was no problem with freedom of navigation or overflight for the East and South China Seas. However, he added:

“China resolutely opposes individual countries using the banner of freedom of navigation and overflight to flaunt military force and harm China’s sovereignty and security.”

Two US officials told Reuters yesterday the US planned a test of its Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system in the coming days. China and Russia have both opposed the installation of a THAAD battery in South Korea, pointing out that its powerful X-band radar can spy on military installations deep within their territory. While the THAAD test will take place in Alaska, it can add to the tensions with Beijing and Moscow.

Xi will meet Trump after the US seized on a North Korean test on Tuesday of a purported intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). The US called a UN Security Council emergency session on Wednesday where US ambassador Nikki Haley demanded that all countries, particularly China, impose crippling sanctions on Pyongyang. She warned that the US was prepared to use its “considerable military forces” against North Korea if that failed.

Yesterday, the US handed China a draft of the resolution it intends to place before the UN Security Council, a resolution likely to include punitive sanctions on finance and the sale of oil to Pyongyang. China and Russia have both opposed sanctions that will strangle the North Korean economy and any US attempt at regime-change or military action against North Korea.

In a bitter attack in the UN Security Council on Russia and China, Haley declared:

“To sit there and oppose sanctions or to sit there and go in defiance of a new resolution, means you’re holding the hands of [North Korean leader] Kim Jong-un.”

She warned that the US was prepared to impose secondary sanctions on countries that failed to implement US demands. Last week the US Treasury placed bans on two Chinese companies for doing business with North Korea.

In a bid to completely cut off North Korea from the global financial system, US prosecutors have obtained warrants to seize funds that involve eight of the world’s largest banks. According to legal filings unsealed this week, five major US banks, including Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup, along with three European banks are accused of processing more than $700 million of “prohibited” transactions linked to North Korean entities banned under US sanctions. The legal moves are clearly a broader warning aimed at choking off Pyongyang’s access to international finance.

The Trump administration is not only exploiting this week’s missile launch by North Korea to put pressure on China and Russia. Amid growing schisms with Europe, the White House is trying to haul European allies back into line. The tensions over North Korea are a sharp manifestation at the G20 summit of the deepening crisis of global capitalism that is fueling geo-political tensions, threats of trade war and the growing danger of military conflict.

In the immediate lead-up to the Xi-Trump meeting today, the Trump administration backed away from statements that its efforts to enlist China’s help on North Korea had failed. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson declared yesterday that the US had “not given up hope” in persuading Beijing to do more in what he called the “peaceful pressure campaign” against North Korea.

Tillerson said China had taken “significant action” but had paused and failed to go further. He referred to the US imposition of secondary sanctions on Chinese firms, implying it was prepared to inflict more. In another barely veiled threat of military action, he added:

“This is a campaign to lead us to peaceful resolution because if this fails we don’t have very many good options left.”

Tillerson echoed Trump’s remarks yesterday that he would “never give up” when asked whether he no longer had faith in President Xi. The comment was clearly at odds with previous remarks by Trump that Chinese efforts to force North Korea to bow to US demands had “not worked out.” In fact, just before leaving Washington for the G20 summit, Trump accused China of boosting trade with North Korea by 40 percent.

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

This tweet suggests that Trump’s meeting with Xi is a last-ditch effort to force China to impose crushing penalties on North Korea to compel it to give up its nuclear arsenal. The flight by B1-B bombers along with last Sunday’s naval intrusion into Chinese-claimed waters, a major arms sale to Taiwan and sanctions on Chinese companies are clear warnings of what China will face if it defies US demands.

The US threats against China demonstrate that the alleged threat posed by small, impoverished North Korea is simply a convenient pretext for a confrontation with Beijing, which Washington regards as the chief obstacle to ensuring its dominance in Asia.

Featured image: Syria, after six years of U.S.-manufactured war. (Source: Venezuela Photo: PRENSA LATINA | [email protected] / SANA)

As the danger of a major conflagration in Syria continues to grow, the silence of the corporate media and political establishment is ominous.

The U.S. has dropped tens of thousands of bombs on Syria and sent thousands of U.S. troops to the region. Major world powers are already involved.

The Donald Trump administration threatened a dangerous escalation on June 26 when Press Secretary Sean Spicer claimed Syrian government forces were potentially planning to stage a chemical attack and Washington would make Syria pay a heavy price.

The announcement was made without a shred of evidence. Instead, there were vague claims that U.S. intelligence had “identified potential preparations” for a chemical attack. These were all too familiar, after the phony pretext for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The White House statement was immediately followed by a Twitter statement from U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley:

“Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia and Iran.”

She was expressing Washington’s frustration that despite its bombing sorties and despite pulling 10 other countries into the war, Washington’s plan for regime change has failed.

Acting on cue five days after the White House statement, a counterrevolutionary group, Failaq al-Rahman, accused the Syrian army of using chlorine gas against its fighters in battles east of Damascus. The Syrian military immediately denied these charges, calling them a fabrication.

The group making this charge is a past recipient of U.S. military aid and equipment and is affiliated with Washington’s client group, the Free Syrian Army. It claimed that more than 30 people suffered gas suffocation as a result of an attack in Ain Tarma, a suburb of Damascus, the capital.

The group, allied with al-Qaida forces, has been fighting both the Syrian government and rival opposition forces in a chaotic internecine conflict in an insurgent enclave in East Ghouta. Thousands of mortar shells and rockets have been fired from this enclave into nearby Damascus over the past few years.

Not only are counterrevolutionary factions in Syria fighting each other, but U.S. government departments are at odds. According to Fox News on June 27,

“Several State Department officials typically involved in coordinating such announcements told the Associated Press they were caught completely off guard by the warning, which didn’t appear to be discussed in advance with other national security agencies.”

British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said the U.S. had not shared any evidence of a specific threat of a chemical weapons attack.

Media self-censorship escalates

The major corporate media gave headline coverage to the unsubstantiated charges against Syria. But questions and controversy were buried deep within the articles.

Overtly suppressed by all major corporate media in the U.S. and Britain was an exposé released June 25, the day before the White House statement, by award-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

Hersh challenged the U.S. claim that the Syrian government had launched a sarin gas attack in April. According to Hersh, only the German publication, die WELT, was willing to publish the fact that Trump had ignored intelligence reports from U.S. agencies when he ordered a “Tomahawk” missile attack on the Syrian air base on April 6.

Hersh is neither a revolutionary nor a left-wing journalist. He never attacks U.S. imperialism in general. But his carefully calibrated exposés, usually carried in major U.S. and British publications, have criticized egregious acts in U.S. wars, such as the mass murder of villagers in My Lai, Vietnam, in 1969.

Major U.S. and British media carried his exposés on Korean Air Flight 007 in 1986, an exposé of Israel’s nuclear arsenal in 1991, and President Bill Clinton’s bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. In 2004, he reported on U.S. systematic torture of hundreds of detainees at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq.

Hersh’s exposés and analyses have won the Pulitzer Prize, Polk Award and National Book Award. Yet he had to go to Germany to get his latest exposé published.

That none of the major U.S. or British publications would touch it shows broad ruling-class support at the highest levels for a continued and expanded U.S. war against Syria. This was also shown by the general applause from Republican and Democratic politicians as well as the corporate media when Trump launched the April 6 attack. They described him as “presidential” for that.

It was the first praise since the election coming from Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Frustration with Syria’s success

The new charge of a “potential” gas attack comes amid growing U.S. frustration after years of covert efforts to overthrow the sovereign government of Syria have failed.

Aid funneled through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to tens of thousands of mercenary and reactionary forces have also failed to bring down the Damascus government.

The war has displaced almost a third of the Syrian population and created millions of refugees. But the Syrian government’s success shows it benefits from the deep determination of millions of Syrians to maintain Syria as a secular and sovereign state.

In September 2014 the Obama administration began direct bombing of Syria, claiming to be targeting the so-called Islamic State group (IS). The Syrian government has consistently opposed this direct military intervention and past covert intervention.

The Pentagon then pulled Britain, France, Turkey, Australia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan and Morocco into its air campaign. After a year of the bombings, the Syrian government appealed to Russia for air support.

Israel has also used every opportunity to bomb Syrian government forces, the latest being on July 1.

Further provocations as millions oppose wider war

In May the U.S. military attacked Syrian ground forces near the Al Tanf Crossing on the Iraq-Syria border. The Syrians were engaged in a campaign to open the major highway to Damascus and clear the surrounding region of military saboteurs.

U.S. and British Special Forces were in the area advising and providing advanced offensive weapons to a Syrian mercenary group called the Revolutionary Commando Army. To protect these covert forces, the U.S. bombed Syrian troops using the preposterous claim of self-defense. U.S. and British Special Forces are in another country attacking soldiers of that country who had not attacked or killed any of them. How could that be self-defense?

A U.S. jet shot down a Syrian fighter jet west of Raqqa on June 18. General Joseph Dunford, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, resorted to using a 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force as legal justification. The AUMF was worded to target governments and individuals who supported the Sept. 11, 2001, World Trade Center bombing.

The Syrian government has never attacked the U.S. It is fighting against al-Qaida and IS. Meanwhile U.S. allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have aided al-Qaida and IS in Syria.

Despite wholesale media censorship and complete support from the political establishment for continuing the war on Syria — both Republicans and Democrats, from Trump to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders — polls show millions are opposed to this war.

The movement against U.S. wars must be more confident and outspoken in mobilizing opposition.

The growing danger of a wider war forces this onto our agenda.

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

Earlier US agreed on ceasefires were observed only by Syria, its allied ground forces and Russia.

Washington and its terrorist foot soldiers flagrantly breached them. Will this time be different? Will America turn a new leaf from warrior nation to peace champion?

Straightaway in office, Trump showed he’s a warrior president like his predecessors. He infested his administration with extremist neocons, delegating warmaking authority to hawkish generals.

He inherited Obama’s war on Syria and escalated it. US terror-bombing massacres civilians daily. US special forces on the ground aid ISIS and other terrorists combat government and allied troops.

His administration has been undermining peace talks in Astana and Geneva. Months of on and off negotiations achieved no breakthroughs. None are in prospect.

Washington continues maintaining the myth of “moderate rebels.” None exist.

Another dubious US/Russia ceasefire was agreed on in southwest Syria, effective July 9 at midnight local time.

In Hamburg, Germany at the G20 summit, Sergey Lavrov announced it following the meeting between Putin and Trump, saying

“(t)he United States has made a commitment that all the groups present (in southern Syria – Daraa, Quneitra and Sweida) will observe the ceasefire.”

The deal is separate from the Russian-drafted agreement on de-escalation zones, details being finalized before being signed by Moscow, Iran and Turkey, Washington not part of the deal, at least not so far.

Separately, Lavrov said called Putin/Trump talks “long and substantive,” adding

“both presidents are driven above all by the national interests of their countries and understand these interests in seeking mutually beneficial agreements, rather than trying to play confrontational scenarios…”

They agreed to establish a communication channel on Ukraine to work for conflict resolution according to Minsk terms Washington and Kiev putschists it installed sabotaged straightaway.

They discussed cybersecurity, combatting terrorism (Washington supports) and other issues. Agreeing to work together cooperatively is belied by implacable US hostility toward Russia.

Nothing in prospect suggests meaningful and durable improved relations. Reportedly Trump pressed Putin on (nonexistent) Russian US election hacking.

Lavrov addressed the issue, stressing during months of accusations, “not a single fact has been presented.”

“And President Trump said that he heard President Putin state clearly that it is not true, that the Russian government did not meddle” in America’s election.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov numerous times called the spurious accusation “absolutely groundless.”

The Big Lie without a leg to stand on persists. Putin’s meeting was scheduled to last from 30 minutes to an hour. It went on for over two hours, both leaders with much to discuss – maybe prelude for more talks ahead.

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.

The existence of nuclear weapons is an ugly symbol of the violent consciousness that plagues humanity. Despite tremendous technological advancements, developments in health care and wonders of creative expression, little of note has changed in humanity’s collective consciousness: Tribalism, idealism and selfish desire persist, negative tendencies that under the pervasive socio-economic systems are exacerbated and encouraged. People and nations are set in competition with one another, separation and mistrust is fed, leading to disharmony, fear and conflict.

Such engineered insecurity is used as justification for nations to maintain a military force, and in the case of the world’s nuclear powers, arm themselves with weapons that, if used, would destroy all life, human and sub-human alike. Despite this, unlike biological and chemical weapons, landmines and cluster munitions, possession of nuclear weapons is not prohibited under international law, although launching them would, according to CND, breach a plethora of conventions and declarations.

Sustainable security is not created through threats and the cultivation of fear, but by building relationships, cooperating and establishing trust. As long as nuclear weapons exist there is a risk of them being used, of an accident – and there have been many close shaves since 1948 – and subsequent annihilation. As the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICANW) rightly states,

“Prohibiting and completely eliminating nuclear weapons is the only guarantee against their use.”

The rational thing to do is to move towards a nuclear free world and with some urgency; this necessarily entails the nuclear powers disarming, either unilaterally or bilaterally. Someone has to begin the process; by taking the moral initiative others will be under pressure to follow, whereas, as former US Secretary of State George Shultz put it, “proliferation begets proliferation.”

Clearing the world of these monstrous machines would not only be a major step in safeguarding humanity and the planet, it would represent a triumph of humane principles of goodness — cooperation, trust, unity — over hate, suspicion and discord.

There can be little doubt that the vast majority of people and nations in the world would like nuclear weapons to be decommissioned.  It is the Governments of some of the most powerful countries that stand as obstacles to common-sense and progress: Corporate-State governments motivated not by a burning desire to help create a peaceful world at ease with itself, but driven by self-interest, pressure from financial investors and the demands of the arms-industry.

Towards the end of 2016, the United Nations general assembly adopted a landmark resolution to begin to “negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.” Talks began in February this year, when the first leg of a two stage conference was held in New York; 123 nations voted to outlaw them, while the nine nuclear powers (USA, China, France, Britain, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea), rather predictably stood in opposition to a ban and voted against the proposal, as did nuclear host and alliance countries such as Belgium, Italy, Croatia and Norway, among others: Shame on them all. These obstructive governments do not represent the wishes of their populations, their motives are corrupt, their actions irresponsible.

It’s interesting to note that the countries that possess nuclear weapons seem to believe it’s fine for them to have these tools of destruction, but not for other nations, particularly those that have a different world view. Between them, these nine nations boast around 15,000 nuclear weapons; America and Russia own 93% of the total of which some 1,800 are reportedly kept on ‘high-alert status’, meaning they can be launched within minutes. Just one of these warheads, if detonated on a large city, could kill millions of people, with the effects persisting for decades.

Modern nuclear weapons are a great deal smaller and many times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, which, far from ending the war, was completely unnecessary, and caused death and destruction on a scale hitherto unseen. As Admiral William D. Leahy, the highest-ranking member of the U.S. military at the time, wrote in his memoirs, the atomic bomb “was of no material assistance” against Japan, because “the Japanese were already defeated.” General Dwight D. Eisenhower echoed this view, saying,

“Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of ‘face’. It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” In dropping the bombs, Leahy said, the U.S. “had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

False, Expensive Logic

The perverse attitude surrounding the possession of nuclear weapons was evident during the UK election campaign when Jeremy Corbyn – a lifelong peace activist and co-founder of the Stop the War Campaign – was repeatedly criticized by the right-wing media (including the BBC), Conservative politicians and manipulated members of the public, for refusing to say whether he would, or would not, launch a nuclear attack. He met such irrational hypotheticals with composure and suppressed irritation, saying that he would do all he could to avert conflict in the first place and that every effort should be made to rid the world of these ultimate weapons of mass destruction.

He is right and should be applauded for taking such a sane, common-sense approach, but the collective imagination has been poisoned to such a degree that advocating peace, and engaging in dialogue with one’s enemies is regarded as a sign of weakness, whereas sabre rattling and intransigence are hailed as displays of strength.

In addition to the rick of human and planetary death, the financial costs of producing, maintaining and developing these instruments of terror is staggering and diverts resources from areas of real need – health care, education, dealing with the environmental catastrophe, and eradicating hunger. Globally, ICAN reports that the “annual expenditure on nuclear weapons is estimated at USD 105 Billion – or $12 million an hour”. Unsurprisingly America spends the largest amount by far; equivalent, in fact, to the other eight nuclear-armed nations combined. Between 2010 and 2018 the US will spend at least $179 billion and probably more, while 50 million of its citizens live in grinding poverty.

In 2002 the World Bank forecast that “an annual investment of just US$40–60 billion, or roughly half the amount currently spent on nuclear weapons, would be enough to meet the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals on poverty alleviation by the target date of 2015.” But the powerful and tooled up prefer to invest in an arsenal of total destruction. It makes no sense; it is another example of the insanity that surrounds us.

The irrational political choice of maintaining a nuclear arsenal is justified by duplicitous politicians as a means of establishing of peace; it is they claim, a necessary deterrent against aggression. This is not only dishonest, it is totally false logic: far from making the world a safer place, the very possession of nuclear weapons by any one country allows for and encourages their proliferation, thereby increasing the risk of them being used, or accidentally detonated.

If retaining nuclear weapons is not to deter would be invaders what is the reason for the massive financial investment and the dangers that are inherent in patrolling the Earth with these weapons of total destruction?

National image and bravado, the men with the biggest sticks ruling the roost, sitting around the UN Security Council (a remnant of the past that should be scrapped altogether) is, no doubt, one factor, but the primary reason why the nuclear powers consistently block moves to rid the world of these killing machines lies in the world of business. The companies and financial investors involved in developing, manufacturing and maintaining the weapons as well as trading in related technology, parts or services do not want to see an end to the cash cow of nuclear indulgence.

In its detailed report Don’t Bank on the Bomb ICAN relates that in America, Britain, India and France private companies are given contracts worth billions of USD to develop “new, more useable, and more destabilizing nuclear weapons.” In Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea this work is done by government agencies, where no doubt corruption is rife. Financial institutions, including high-street banks and insurance companies, are investing in companies involved in manufacturing and maintaining nuclear weapons; such organizations should reveal their investments and be boycotted by the public. I would go further and say that investment in firms connected with making these abominations should be illegal.

If peace is the collective objective, nuclear weapons must be regarded as a major obstacle and those connected in their construction, including investors, seen as collaborators in the creation of an atmosphere of mistrust and conflict, facilitators of fear and insecurity. The contemporary threats to national security come not from potential armed invasion, but from terrorism, cyber-security issues, poverty and the environmental catastrophe – which, unless drastic steps are taken, will result in an unprecedented worldwide refugee crisis. In the light of such threats, nuclear weapons as a so-called deterrent are irrelevant.

Peace will not be established by ever-larger arsenals of nuclear weapons held by more and more nations. It will be built on a firm foundation of trust, and as Pope Francis has said “on the protection of creation, and the participation of all in public life,” as well as “access to education and health, on dialogue and solidarity.” It is by negating the causes of conflict that peace will be allowed to flourish. Such causes are rooted in social injustice, community divisions, prejudice and discrimination, competition and inequality, and must be countered by demonstrations of tolerance, the cultivation of cooperation and expression of compassion.

Graham Peebles is a freelance writer. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Read other articles by Graham, or visit Graham’s website.

Featured image from Nuclear Weapons Free

The London Bridge terror attack saw a repeat of a now familiar narrative in which every suspect involved had been long-known to both British security and intelligence agencies.

The London Telegraph in an article titled, “Khuram Butt, Rachid Redouane and Youssef Zaghba named: Everything we know about the London Bridge terrorists,” would reveal:

The ringleader of the London Bridge massacre never bothered to hide his violent, extremist views. Khuram Butt was so brazen that he openly posed with the black flag of the so-called Islamic State in Regent’s Park in the centre of London for a Channel 4 documentary, entitled The Jihadis Next Door.

Butt and other extremists linked to the banned terror group al-Muhajiroun were even detained by police for an hour over the stunt in 2015 but were released without being arrested.

The al-Muhajiroun terror group is headed by British-based extremist, Anjem Choudary, who for years helped fill the ranks of militant groups fighting governments the US and UK sought to overthrow in Libya, Syria and beyond. Choudary inexplicably escaped the consequences of his open advocacy and material support for known terrorist organizations for years, with the London Guardian in an article titled, “Anjem Choudary: a hate preacher who spread terror in UK and Europe,” going as far as speculating he did so because he was actually an informant or operative working for the British government.

The article would also admit that Butt was under investigation by British intelligence up to the day of the attack:

MI5 and counter-terrorism officers began an investigation into Butt, which remained ongoing even as the 27-year-old launched his terror attack on London Bridge. Butt, who was wearing an Arsenal shirt and a fake bomb strapped to his chest, was shot dead by police on Saturday night.

A second suspect, Rachid Redouane, was repeatedly brought to the attention of police who ignored warnings he was an extremist and a member of the so-called “Islamic State.”

The Telegraph reports that a third suspect, Youssef Zaghba, was also known to police:

He was reportedly arrested at Bologna airport in March 2016 trying to get to Syria and was also understood to be on an Italian anti-terror watch list.

The fact that these three suspects evaded capture and were able to carry out their attack despite being known and even monitored actively by British security and intelligence agencies lends even further credibility to the notion that they and others like them work for the British government, not against it.

Unable to Reach Syria, West’s Dogs of War Bite Local Population 

Networks like al-Muhajiroun and the extremists they cultivate help fill the ranks of “moderate rebel” groups the US, UK, other European nations including France, as well as regional allies like Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar are arming, funding and providing direct military support for in Libya, Syria, Yemen and beyond.

This fact goes far in explaining why extremists are allowed – for years – to openly advocate violence and recruit members into what is essentially a terrorist organization operating under the nose of British security and intelligence agencies – if not with their collective and eager complicity.

While these terrorists are labeled “moderate rebels” when fighting abroad, they are only labeled as such by the Western media out of necessity in an attempt to differentiate them from the extremists that are in fact fighting the West’s proxy war for it in places like Syria.

Suspects like Youssef Zaghba even attempted to travel to Syria to fight among the ranks of Western-backed militant groups – and failing to do so – participated in armed violence in the UK instead. Had he traveled onward to Syria, it would have been innocent Syrians instead of innocent British civilians terrorized, attacked, maimed and killed.

A Strategy of Terror and Tension

And despite the reality of the US and UK along with other European and Persian Gulf allies openly fueling terrorism at home and abroad, in the wake of tragic events like in London, Manchester, Paris, or Brussels, the very government organizations clearly responsible for presiding over these terrorists and their networks, sometimes for months and even years before an attack, are granted even more power to address a problem of their own intentional creation.

These organizations are able to do so in plain sight of the public specifically because of another conflict they openly orchestrate, pitting the general public against one another along lines of “anti-Islamic” fervor versus social justice advocates.

What both sides of this manufactured and intentionally perpetuated divide fail to realize is that Muslims are dying by the tens of thousands in places like Syria actively fighting against extremism springing not from Islam or the Qu’ran, but from the Pentagon, Westminster, Paris, Brussels, Riyadh, Ankara and Doha. It is not a clash of civilizations, but a manufactured conflict designed to perpetually fill the ranks of mercenaries abroad while exploiting their violence at home to procure more power and wealth through fear, anger and hysteria.

With wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and beyond adding up to trillions for defense contractors and including weapon systems designed to fight them, with the F-35 joint strike fighter alone topping one trillion US dollars and as the West continues to openly act with impunity when and where it pleases despite violating the very international law it claims it is upholding globally, it is clear that, for now, this strategy is working.

If and when the general public understands the truth of why their lives are put in danger and their nation’s resources are being squandered abroad instead of at home for building their own futures, this strategy will be less successful. Until then, it appears that simplistic propaganda still works in convincing the public that governments like in London are simply incapable of arresting terrorists who appear regularly on TV, in the media and who openly operate in public with apparent and otherwise inexplicable impunity.

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

Featured image from New Eastern Outlook

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

Nations providing universal coverage offer one of three forms for their people: 

1. government provided single-payer; 

2. two-tier providing basic care, along with secondary coverage offering more services based on the ability to pay; and

3. mandate insurance from an employer or individually purchased, supplementing national coverage.

Countries offering universal coverage by date established and type system are the following: 

Norway, 1912, single payer 

New Zealand, 1938, two tier 

Japan, 1938, single payer 

Germany, 1941, insurance mandate 

Belgium,1945, insurance mandate 

Britain, 1948, single payer 

Kuwait, 1950, single payer 

Sweden, 1955, single payer 

Bahrain, 1957, single payer 

Brunei,1958, single payer 

Cuba, 1959, single payer (constitutionally mandated) 

Canada, 1966, single payer 

The Netherlands, 1966, two-tier 

Austria, 1967, insurance mandate 

United Arab Emirates, 1971, single payer 

Finland, 1972, single payer 

Slovenia, 1972, single payer 

Denmark, 1973, two-tier 

Luxembourg, 1973, insurance mandate 

France, 1974, two-tier 

Australia, 1975, two tier 

Ireland, 1977, two-tier

Italy, 1978, single payer 

Portugal, 1979, single payer 

Cyprus, 1980, single payer 

Greece, 1983, insurance mandate 

Spain, 1986, single payer

South Korea, 1988, insurance mandate 

Iceland, 1990, single payer 

Hong Kong, 1993, two-tier 

Taiwan, single payer

Nicaragua, single payer

Singapore, 1993, two-tier 

Switzerland, 1994, insurance mandate 

Israel, 1995, two-tier 

Venezuela, 1999, single payer (constitutionally mandated) 

Other Latin American countries with some form of government provided healthcare include Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, and Peru. 

Other countries with some type of universal coverage include Belarus, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Georgia, Ghana, Hungary, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Latvia, single payer in Libya under Gaddafi, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Macau, Malaysia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Seychelles, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uruguay. 

The world’s richest country, America, lacks universal healthcare, millions of its citizens without coverage, most others way underinsured. 

Under Trumpcare if enacted in either House or Senate form, conditions for most Americans will go from bad to worse. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), an explosion of “junk insurance” will occur in states opting out of Obamacare protections – leaving millions with worthless coverage in cases of serious illnesses, diseases or injuries, especially when involving surgery and/or expensive drugs. 

Low premium junk insurance will cover only certain health problems, supplemental plans needed for other expenses, while fixed-dollar indemnity plans will provide a designated amount per day toward medical expenses, not nearly enough when high-cost. 

The CBO considers individuals with this type coverage uninsured “because they do not have financial protection from major medical risks.” 

Minimal coverage plans in America have been around a long time. They work OK for healthy people, not sick ones, especially with expensive illnesses. 

The cost of medical care in America is double the annual per capita amount in other developed countries, why it’s the leading cause of personal bankruptcies. 

If healthy individuals buy cheap junk insurance, others with health issues needing comprehensive coverage will end up paying much more than now – because insurers know people buying more expensive plans believe they’ll need them. 

Washington state insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler calls this arrangement “the worst scenario.”  

Premiums will rise for fuller-coverage plans. Insurers will exit markets because “the only people you’re insuring are the” ones needing it to pay high medical expenses. 

“Giving people more choices always looks popular,” he explained. Below the surface, standards are lacking, so “you wind up (with) a race to the bottom.” 

Sick individuals end up needing high-cost plans they can’t afford. Healthy ones either buy junk insurance without catastrophic coverage or none at all. 

The solution not taken is obvious – government-provided universal coverage, everyone in, no one left out, the world’s richest nation failing to uphold a fundamental human right. 

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 PYMNTS.com

The man who designed the NSA’s electronic intelligence gathering system (Bill Binney) sent us an affidavit which he signed on the Fourth of July explaining that the NSA is still spying on normal, every day Americans … and not focused on stopping terror attacks (I’ve added links to provide some background):

The attacks on September 11, 2001 completely changed how the NSA conducted surveillance …. the individual liberties preserved in the U.S. Constitution were no longer a consideration. In October 2001, the NSA began to implement a group of intelligence activities now known as the “President’s Surveillance Program.”

The President’s Surveillance Program involved the collection of the full content of domestic e-mail traffic without any of the privacy protections built into [the program that Binney had designed]. This was done under the authorization of Executive Order 12333. This meant that the nation’s e-mail could be read by NSA staff members without the approval of any court or judge.

***

The NSA is still collecting the full content of U.S. domestic e-mail, without a warrant. We know this because of the highly-detailed information contained in the documents leaked by former NSA-contractor, Edward Snowden. I have personally reviewed many of these documents.

I can authenticate these documents because they relate to programs that I created and supervised during my years at the NSA.

[U.S. government officials] have also admitted the authenticity of these documents.

***

The documents provided by Mr. Snowden are the type of data that experts in the intelligence community would typically and reasonably rely upon to form an opinion as to the conduct of the intelligence community.

[The Snowden documents prove that the NSA is still spying on most Americans.]

When Mr. Snowden said that he could read the e-mail of a federal judge if he had that judge’s e­mail address, he was not exaggerating.

***

The NSA is creating a program that shows the real-time location of all cell phones, tablets and computers in the world, at any time. To have a state-actor engaging in this sort of behavior, without any court supervision, is troubling.

***

In their public statements, [government officials] claim that collection of information is limited, and is being done pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”). FBI Director James Comey recently described Section 702 of FISA as the “crown jewel” of the intelligence community.

Defendants, however, are not being candid with the Court. Collection is actually being done pursuant to Executive Order 12333(2)(3)(c), which — to my knowledge — has never been subject to judicial review. This order allows the intelligence community to collect “incidentally obtained information that may indicate involvement in activities that may violate  federal, state, local or foreign laws.” Any lawyer can appreciate the scope of this broad language.   [Background.]

***

According to media reports, President Obama’s former National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, requested e­mail and phone records on President Trump and various members of his political campaign during and after the 2016 election.

According to these reports, the National Security Council (“NSC”) has computer logs showing when Rice requested and viewed such records. The requests were made from July 2016 through January 2017, and included President Trump and various members of his campaign staff According to an internal NSC report, the accessed information contained “valuable political information on the Trump transition.” Rice’s requests into Trump-related conversations increased following the presidential election last November. None of the requests were reviewed by any independent court.

***

We also know that certain NSA staffers have used their access to e-mail and phone calls to conduct surveillance on current and former significant others. The NSA has referred to this sort of action as “LOVEINT,” a phrase taken from other internal-NSA terms of art, such as “SIGINT” for signals intelligence.

***

Bulk collection makes it impossible for the NSA to actually do its job.

For example, consider the Pinwale program, discussed above, in which the NSA searches the collected data based on certain pre-defined keywords, known as the “dictionary.” The results from the dictionary search are known as the “daily pull.”

Eighty percent of the NSA’s resources go towards review of the daily pull. The problem is that the daily pull is enormous. It is simply not possible for one analyst to review all questionable communications made by millions of people generating e-mail, text messages, web search queries, and visits to websites. Every person making a joke about a gun, bomb or a terrorist incident theoretically gets reviewed by a live person. This is not possible. When I was at the NSA, each analyst was theoretically required to review 40,000 to 50,000 questionable records each day. The analyst gets overwhelmed, and the actual known targets — from the metadata analysis — get ignored.

This is clear from some of the internal NSA memos released by Edward Snowden and published by the Intercept. In these memos, NSA analysts say:

“NSA is gathering too much data. . . . It’s making it impossible to focus.”

“Analysis Paralysis.”

“Data Is Not Intelligence.”
“Overcome by Overload.”

Bulk collection is making it difficult for the NSA to find the real threats. [Indeed.]  The net effect from the current approach is that people die first. The NSA has missed repeated terrorist incidents over the last few years, despite its mass monitoring efforts. The NSA cannot identify future terrorism because 99.9999% of what it collects and analyzes is foreseeably irrelevant. This is swamping the intelligence community, while creating the moral hazards and risks to the republic ….

After a terrorist incident occurs, only then do analysts and law enforcement go into their vast data, and focus on the perpetrators of the crime. This is exactly the reverse of what they should be doing. If the NSA wants to predict intentions and capabilities prior to the crime, then it must focus on known subversive relationships, giving decision-makers time to react and influence events.

There is a second reason why data mining bulk collected data is a waste of time and resources: the professional terrorists know that we are looking at their e-mail and telephonic communications. As a result, they use code words that are not in the dictionary, and will not come up in the daily pull.

***

Thus, collecting mass amounts of data and searching it to find the proverbial needle in a haystack doesn’t work. It is fishing in the empty ocean, where the fish are scientifically and foreseeably not present.

Binney explains what we should do instead:

The truth is that there has always been a safe, alternate path to take. That’s a focused, professional, disciplined selection of data off the fiber lines.

***

I serve as a consultant to many foreign governments on the issues described in this affidavit. As such, I have testified before the German Parliament, the British House of Lords, and the EU Libe Committee on Civil Liberties on these issues. I also consult regularly with members of the European Union on intelligence issues.

***

it is my understanding that the European Union intends to adopt legislation requiring its intelligence community to get out of the business of bulk collection, and implement smart selection.

***

Smart selection is not enough. Governments, courts and the public need to have an absolute means of verifying what intelligence agencies are doing. This should be done within government by having a cleared technical team responsible to the whole of government and the courts with the authority and clearances to go into any intelligence agency and look directly into databases and tools in use. This would insure that government as a whole could get to the bottom line truth of what the intelligence agencies were really doing

I would also suggest that agencies be required to implement software that audits their analytic processes to insure compliance with law and to automatically detect and report any violations to the courts and others.

Indeed, Binney has patiently explained for many years that we know how to help prevent terrorism … and corruption is what’s preventing us from doing it.

Binney thinks we should get serious about motivating the intelligence agencies to do their job.

“I think it’s very clear that we could not reach consensus, but the differences were not papered over, they were clearly stated.” – Angela Merkel, BBC News, Jul 8, 2017

Such gatherings and summits are not always smooth, but on a planet bearing witness to a Trump presidency, there was always going to be a chance for more excitement at the G20 meet at Hamburg. Storm clouds have been brewing over economics, trade, and security, and these threatened to open with a deluge of resentment and threat. As proceedings continued, a general sense did eek through discussions: the G20 would have been far more appropriately termed the G19+1.

Opening shots suggesting this discord came from Jean-Claude Juncker, who described the EU as being in “elevated battle mood” at the US slide towards protectionism, notably on promises to protect the steel industry.

“I won’t want to tell you in detail what we’re doing. But what I would like to tell you is that within a few days – we won’t need two months for that – we could react with countermeasures.”[1]

Germany’s Angela Merkel has also expressed concern on several fronts. Prior to the summit, she insisted that US departure from the Paris climate accord made Germany, and the EU “more determined than ever to lead it to success.” By virtue of circumstance, she has become the anti-Trump alternative, drawing enthusiastic moths to her veteran flame.

In a classic abdication of analytical responsibility, media outlets have become “handshake” watchers, pioneering a new field of irrelevance in what not to say. How would the handshake between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump pan out? Would Merkel actually receive one? Would Trump return for a vigorous “rematch” with Macron?[2]

A survey from Vox was a gaze-and-a-half. Emmanuel Macron of France and Justin Trudeau of Canada gave “adoring” treatment to the German Chancellor. Putin “mansplained” himself, causing Merkel’s eyes to “roll”.[3]

All eyes were on Trump-Putin, though there wasn’t much to go on, at least on the surface of the anticipated encounter. Trump gave journalists the usual serving:

“We look forward to a lot of very positive things happening for Russia, for the United States and for everyone concerned.”

He then claimed it was, “an honour to be with you.”

Putin reciprocated:

“I’m delighted to be able to meet you personally Mr President. And I hope as you have said, our meeting will yield concrete results.”

Such results were two-fold: a concession to Russia having not been involved in hacking the presidential elections last year; and a ceasefire deal affecting southwestern Syria.

The leaders have been engaged in a shadow play, with Trump’s admiration for Putin tempered by the necessities of imperial disapproval from establishment hacks. On Thursday, the US president insisted that Russia was a destabilising force and testing the resolve of the Western powers.

Russia was to “crease its destabilising activities in Ukraine and elsewhere, and its support for hostile regimes including Syria and Iran”. Sounding like a heavily scripted necessity, Trump suggested Russia “join the community of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and in the defence of civilisation itself”.

When things did get down to the matter of business, an often sterile affair notable for what it omits, the G20 Leaders’ Declaration, optimistically claiming to shape “an interconnected world” suggested much in the way of disconnection. Old canards, albeit shaken ones, persist.

“Expanding on the results of previous presidencies, in particular the 2016 G20 Summit in Hangzhou, we decide today to take concrete actions to advance the three aims of building resilience, improving sustainability and assuming responsibility.”[4]

There were the usual nostrums: globalisation had to be shared in its benefits, though this has slowed; markets had to be kept open (a poke at protectionism), though there was recognition “that the benefits of international trade and investment have not been shared widely enough.”

But just to emphasise how things have nudged, of only a little, away from the obsession with open markets, the communiqué did note that states had a right to protect their own markets. How that objective fits within the religion of free trade is more than problematic.

The same went for the acknowledgment of the sovereign right of states on the issue of controlling refugee and migrant flows, a situation that simply perpetrates an ongoing parochial order based on “national interests and national security”. Responsibility seemed less relevant.

The global financial system had to be rendered resilient through reform; greater financial transparency and international tax cooperation had to be fostered (the shadow of the Panama papers looms).

Then came the issue of climate change. Yes, the members remained “collectively committed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions” through a range of technologies using clean, efficient energy. But the elephant in the room did get described: “We take note of the decision of the United States of America to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.” The reaction, one couched in a diplomatic slap, was that the “Paris Agreement is irreversible.”

On the ground, protesters were keeping the authorities busy. The agendas there were standard ones, but have been given a certain punchiness since 2016. Figuring prominently in the gallery of detested subjects: Trump, Putin, wealth inequalities and climate change. Such points were expressed through looting, setting fire to vehicles, and violent encounters with the police.

In sum, another summit with little resolution, another indicator of a fractured international community, with more, rather than less discordance, to come. Trump was pleased enough:

“Law enforcement & military did a spectacular job in Hamburg. Everybody felt totally safe despite the anarchists.”

How flattering for the otherwise toothless anarchists.

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

Notes

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/07/eu-battle-mood-us-protectionist-steel

[2] http://globalnews.ca/news/3584470/g20-summit-key-moments/

[3] https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/7/15937780/merkel-putin-trump-trudeau-g20-russia-germany-macron-europe-eye-roll

[4] https://www.g20.org/gipfeldokumente/G20-leaders-declaration.pdf

Featured image from CTV News

After the Intercontinental Ballistic Missle (ICBM) test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the US has called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). This matter has the Americans on edge as a serious new threshold of technology has been reached. Previously, US intelligence agencies claimed that the DPRK would not be capable of testing an ICBM until at least the year 2020. This latest test completely destroys this claim. The US is worried because their intelligence was dead wrong.

Pyongyang said its Hwasong-14 ICBM flew some 933 kilometres in 39 minutes reaching an altitude of 2,802 kilometres, according to the country’s state television.

We’re now faced with a situation where the DPRK is not only capable of developing nuclear warheads but is now capable of delivering them across continents. This means that the mainland US can now be struck with some of the most powerful weapons available on Earth. Previously the US could take solace in the fact that the technology was low enough that no major threat to the US mainland existed. But now, they’re forced to deal with the possibility of large US casualties if they do invade the DPRK.

The red line has been crossed. For the US the point of no return has been reached, it’s too late. The strategy of strategic patience has failed to stop the DPRK from obtaining a significant nuclear capability. Any military actions by the US now will have dire consequences. Invasion of the DPRK is now no longer a real option to take. The US may bluster all they wish about a military action, but it’s simply not feasible anymore. The day the US was attempting to avoid is here now. All the sanctions and threats were intended to stop this day from coming. All of those efforts were a failure.

It has been proven that sanctions do not work. Every effort to punish the DPRK for building the means to defend themselves has failed. Blocking trade, hindering the development of necessary goods for the people of the DPRK has been all for nothing. The suffering the people of the DPRK had to go through by the hands of the US, has proven completely fruitless.

Both Russia and China confirmed their commitment to a denuclearized DPRK. The stance may seem a betrayal of the DPRK’s right to self-defense. But we must keep in mind that both countries have signed on to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). As members of the treaty, they’re not allowed to encourage others to develop nuclear weapon technology. It is almost certain that both Russi and China would prefer it if the DPRK did not have weapons, but that THAAD also is removed. The less destructive power there is on the peninsula the less of a chance there is a totally destructive scenario.

The goal of the treaty is to halt the development of nuclear weapons, with the hopes of abolishing them worldwide. No one actually expects the world to be de-nuclearized under such an international treaty. The world remains piled to the brim with such weapons. Anyone who refuses to develop, or disposes of their weapons is essentially laying themselves vulnerable to such an attack.

Many find the treaty to be wholly self-serving. Those who already have nuclear weapons are allowed to keep them with the promise of not developing anymore. Those who don’t have them are prohibited from developing them. This is tantamount to banning guns from everyone who doesn’t have one. It abolishes the nuclear deterrent from anyone who doesn’t already have it. This leaves many states who are under threat from US imperialism in an extremely vulnerable position. We can see why the DPRK has labelled their nuclear program as “non-negotiable.”

In truth, the NPT is a tool used by the United States to maintain as much global hegemony as possible. This prevents smaller states from developing a capability as to deter US imperialism from assaulting their country. The US would rather have these countries with their hands tied, unable to resist.

DPRK has no moral obligation to the NPT. Their signing on to the agreement was coerced by US imperialism. The DPRK had debilitating sanctions placed upon them for refusing to sign the agreement. This is signing an agreement under duress. The DPRK was threatened with starvation and suffering if they didn’t agree to it. Food aid, medicine, medical technology, and necessary trade were blocked in order to twist the DPRK’s arm into compliance.

The US speaks of a peaceful world free from nuclear weapons and a peaceful relationship with the DPRK. Yet they forced them to sign an agreement they didn’t want to sign. Based on this fact, the DPRK has no obligation to follow that agreement.

The DPRK has every right to build an effective deterrent to US invasion. The US has spent decades maintaining a hostile stance towards them threatening the most inhumane of actions. The DPRK has ever right to defend themselves from US imperialism.

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

Anti-capitalist and anti-globalist protesters, by the thousands, have greeted world leaders and their entourage in Hamburg, Germany, for the G20 summit. About 15,000 demonstrated on Thursday, July 6, 2017, and the riot police cracked down on them with water cannons set on armored vehicles. The local police expect a massive assault in the coming two days, when as many as 100,000 protesters, including anarchists from France, Italy, Scandinavia, Spain, and Switzerland, will join the German black-block. Even though some of the protesters were comically made up and shuffled like zombies, being a brain dead puppet is a characteristic widely shared by the elite of fake leaders.

Entertainment is what they mostly do, while sinister forces plot, barely hidden, to wage war and spread misery for the common man. The zombified world public opinion watches dazed, confused and hypnotized by the merry-go-round of one crisis, real or manufactured, after another. The rule of thumb is now preferably several crises at once. Thus the brainwashing mission is accomplished, as most people lack the time or ability to focus on any specifics. It is about inducing fear, anxiety, paranoia, and hatred in a permanent kaleidoscope to create despair and a collective psychosis. When the global elite create chaos to manipulate people into submission, they should expect a backlash from the streets.

Shake down in British Petroleum’s magical kingdoms

If one manages to analyze logically the parameters of the science to generate chaos, one comes to understand that crises like the one between Saudi Arabia and Qatar do not happen in a vacuum. This one, if not quickly resolved, could deal a fatal blow to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), paradoxically an organization that President Trump’s visit was supposed to prop up and turn into a Middle Eastern NATO. Imagine this! Not only is the GCC moribund in the aftermath of the Saudi-Qatari rift, but it is dragging along even African countries. It could, by design or not, put a wedge between predominantly Sunni Muslim countries. Many countries, willingly or by some form of coercion, have joined the Saudi-led coalition by severing ties with Qatar: like Bahrain, Comoros, Egypt, the UAE, the Maldives, Mauritania, Libya (at least the so called House of Representatives in Tobruk), and Yemen (that is the government of President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, which is backed by the Saudis in Yemen’s bloody civil war). Others have more cautiously downgraded their relations with Doha, such as: Chad, Djibouti, Jordan and Niger. On the side of Qatar, Turkey has strongly stepped in, and Iran has provided food shipments to the Qatari suffering from the Saudi embargo.

The rift between Saudi Arabia and Qatar is due to many factors, including religious ideology, and a struggle for regional influence and share of the energy market. To reduce it to one cause would be a disingenuous simplification. The relationships in the Gulf have been problematic since Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991. This is when the smaller states realized that Saudi Arabia, despite its posturing, did not offer much protection against military aggression from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. This is when Doha let the United States military set up a base in Qatar, and in 26 years the US empire military footprint there has grown to more than 10,000 troops.

Once the US military has set up a base in a country, invited or not, they never leave. Germany, South Korea and Japan should know this. Therefore, in case of a real crackdown on Qatar by the US, the 10,000 invited guests could easily become an occupying force. The tensions between the Saudi kingdom and Qatar reached an apex during the Arab Spring when Doha briefly had the upper hand, with Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi, a candidate Qatar supported, was elected president. Saudi Arabia and the US were behind the military coup that put General Abd El-Fattah Saeed Hussein Khalil El-Sisi in power.

Unholy alliance to wreck and exploit

The destruction of Syria was at first a joint venture of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as well as the US and its European vassals, namely the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, with the blessings of Israel, in what I then called an “unholy alliance to wreck and exploit.” They tried to apply in Syria the same approach they had used in Libya to topple Qaddafi. This plan of fake revolutions by proxy jihadists, which was the genesis of ISIS or Daesh backfired horribly as the jihadist groups became their own masters with their own agenda. The main cause of the Syrian conflict was not to stop the pipeline project to Europe, through Turkey, that the Qatari had planned to build. That would have been the icing on the cake. Washington’s neocon agenda, with Tel Aviv’s approval and still very much in effect today, was regime change. The main goal was to topple Bashar al-Assad so as to weaken the influence of Iran and Russia, and by doing so, cut off Hezbollah. This is why the US and its European allies kept repeating the mantra, “Assad must go!”

Once Russia stepped in, and Turkey started to distance itself from Washington and the Saudis, the dynamics changed. Turkey and Iran have sided outright with Qatar in the crisis and condemned the embargo, but Russia has been more cautious. This could give Russia, as well as China and the European Union, more legitimacy in finding a diplomatic resolution to the simmering crisis. In fact, it would be judicious for a regional and international peace conference to take place involving all parties, big and small, including Hamas and Hezbollah. After all, the region is in shambles, and the problems that affect Syria also affect Iraq.

Qatar, despite its initial support for the al-Nusra front, appears to have wised up with regard to Syria. The unprovoked hostility of Saudi Arabia will only bring Doha closer, not only to Tehran and Ankara because of their support during the crisis, but also to Moscow, which will likely see its Middle East influence increase. Russia could help to resolve the crisis and prevent an outright war between the two blocks. France, Iran, Kuwait. Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, and the US have offered to serve as mediators. So far, instead of appeasing the tensions, the US has inflamed them with its schizophrenic discourse. During the Obama administration, there was a dichotomy between US foreign policy action and discourse. During the Trump administration, the sometimes laughable discord between the White House, State Department and Pentagon is truly alarming.

It is hard to see a coherent plan from the US, unless this is to continue to demolish the Middle East for the immediate benefit of the military-industrial complex, which has gained even more influence over US affairs during the Trump administration. I do not see any US foreign policy approach for the region unless, with an Orwellian twist, one pretends that chaos can be planned. Charles de Gaulle once said,

 “you may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination.”

He was too kind. There is clearly a Machiavellian element to this agenda, which falls under the neocons’ Project for a New American Century and follows the old divide-and-conquer imperialist adage.

It is rather obvious that Washington gave the green light to the palace coup of Crown Prince Mohammed bin-Salman, probably with Israel’s approval. The embargo and soft coup immediately followed Trump’s visit to Riyadh then Tel Aviv. One of bin-Salman’s nicknames is Mr. Everything, and since the coup he has controlled Saudi Arabia with absolute power, being the Minister of Defense, Minister of Interior, and head of the oil and gas state-controlled giant ARAMCO. Unfortunately for the region, the brash 31-year-old, who fancies himself to be a warrior-prince, could get used by the US and Israel to give them their regional Holy Grail, which is a war with Iran. If this is the plan, it must be prevented for the sake of the Arab world, peace within Islam, and relative stability worldwide. The US, which has largely, deliberately or not, instigated the crisis, cannot provide a diplomatic solution. Therefore Russia, China and the EU will have to step in and play a decisive role in diffusing the crisis.

US isolation on the horizon?

Newly elected French President, Emmanuel Macron, has been quite active on the international scene, and he appears to be more independent from Washington than his predecessor, Francois Hollande. With regard to the Middle East, Macron’s major shift was to drop the “Assad must go” stance and say that there is no viable alternative to Bashar al-Assad. It is refreshing to see European leaders not drinking as much of Washington’s Kool-Aid as before! There is also on the part of France and Germany an effort at detente with Russia. It is not a coincidence that Vladimir Putin was invited to Paris shortly after Macron’s election. Both Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron understand the erratic nature of the Trump administration. On the issue of Syria and the Gulf crisis, there seems to be a newfound convergence between Paris and Berlin. German foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel concurred with Macron on the Assad issue, and he recently shuttled between the Gulf states to offer some mediation in the Saudi-Qatari crisis.

Paradoxically, by trying to isolate Qatar, as was done with the economic sanctions against Russia over Ukraine, the US could wind up isolating itself if the EU grabs this opportunity to wise up, and side, at least on critical occasions, with Russia. Germany, Austria and France have already strongly said that they will not be bullied by Washington’s whims out of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project with Russia’s Gazprom. This is a concrete example of what Europeans can do to reclaim their sovereignty from the US, and this could include putting a European military force, outside of NATO, on the fast track.

US doctrine: shoot first talk later

The G20 summit meeting in Hamburg between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump might not offer much solution unless the Russian leader schedules side talks with critical people in the Trump administration. By contrast to Mr. Putin, who is in charge of his administration, Mr. Trump throws his weight around and acts like he is in charge, but real US policy decisions seem to come alternately from a weakened State Department and more powerful Pentagon that can define troop levels in Afghanistan and directly command, bypassing the executive branch, various military operations elsewhere, as in Yemen, Somalia and Syria. The State Department, Pentagon and White House, however, share a common passion for weapons sales. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently arranged the sale of $1.42 billion of weapons to Taiwan, which angered China, and despite the White House siding with Saudi Arabia, Secretary of Defense James “mad dog” Mattis sold $12 billion of weapons to Qatar.

Sometimes elected officials gain some gravitas from the office they hold. This has not been the case for President Donald Trump, whose histrionics have antagonized countless people domestically as well as foreign officials. The main problem for the international community is to figure out who is really in charge of the US government apparatus and then apply, within reason, the appropriate pressure. Recently Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov met with 94-year-old Henry Kissinger, who has advised Donald Trump officially at least once. Perhaps Lavrov got a glimpse into the enigma: who runs the US administration, if anyone, and what should be expected? In the Trump era it is “shoot first, talk later.” The international community must find the right people to talk to in order to avoid worst case scenarios.

The power of dissent

The massive protests scheduled to disrupt the gathering of the rarefied, and often incompetent elite of the 20 countries wrongly deciding our global fate might give the leaders of the G20 Hamburg summit a sense that dissent, and popular anger can be a lot more powerful than they are, and that sound leadership is supposed to serve the will of the people: the many, not the few. At the end of the game of life, the kings, the queens, the bishops and the pawns all end up equal in the same box.

Gilbert Mercier is the author of The Orwellian Empire.

All images in this article are from the author.

Updated below

A wide review of news sources finds an undeniable patter of international “Russian hacking” claims:

• Many, if not all such accusation, are based on say-so by some anonymous “official” or self-promoting “expert”.
• Many, if not all such accusation, are rebutted within a few days or weeks.
• News about any alleged “Russian hacking” is widely distributed and easy to find.
• News of the debunking of such claims is reported only sparsely (if at all) and more difficult to retrieve.

Examples:

Ukraine

• Russia hacked into Ukraine artillery units, report claims, CBCnews – Dec 22 2016
• Ukraine’s military denies Russian hack attack, AFP – Jan 6 2017

United States

• Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say, WaPo – Dec 31 2016
• Russian government hackers do not appear to have targeted Vermont utility, say people close to investigation, WaPo – Jan 2 2017

Germany

• Sicherheitskreise: Russland hackte geheime Bundestagsakten (Russia hacked secret parliament papers), FAZ – Dec 11 2016
• Quelle für Enthüllungen im Bundestag vermutet (Internal source suspected in parliament leaks), FAZ – Dec 17 2016

Germany

• Russian Hackers Are Targeting Germany Now, Too, Wired – Dec 10 2016
• German Intelligence Agencies Find No Evidence Of Russian Interference, Newsweek – Feb 7 2017

France

• Cyberattack on French presidential front-runner bears Russian ‘fingerprints,’ research group says, WaPo – Apr 25 2017
• France Says No Trace of Russian Hacking Macron, AP – Jun 1 2017

Qatar

• CNN Exclusive: US suspects Russian hackers planted fake news behind Qatar crisis, CNN – Jun 7, 2017
• Qatar says news agency hacking linked to states boycotting Doha, Reuters – Jun 20 2017

United Kingdom

• Cyber-attack on UK parliament: Russia is suspected culprit, Guardian – Jun 25 2017
• Private not state hackers likely to have targeted UK parliament: sources, Reuters – Jul 6 2017

The undeniable patter of “Russian hacking” is that any claim thereof is likely not true and will be debunked in due time.

These remarks on the “Russian hacking” allegation in relation to the U.S. election are therefore quite appropriate:

President Trump again cast a skeptical eye on intelligence community assessments that Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election, saying Thursday while on a visit to Poland that “nobody really knows for sure” what happened.
…
Trump also compared the intelligence about Russian interference with the faulty assessment that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2002, which provided President Bush with a justification to go to war.”Guess what, they were wrong, and that led to one big mess,” he said.

Update (July 7 3:00am Est):

To frame today’s Trump-Putin talks at the G20 meeting in Hamburg (and to prove the above, timely post correct?) U.S. media issued three new story today implicating “Russian hacking”. The stories are made up of rumors, fearmongering and of reports of banal phishing attempts on some administrative systems. While all three implicate Russia they naturally contain ZERO evidence to anything related to that country.

• Russia steps up spying efforts after election, CNN – Jul 6 2017
• Hackers Are Targeting Nuclear Facilities, Homeland Security Dept. and F.B.I. Say, NYT – Jul 6 2017
• Russians Are Said to Be Suspects in Nuclear Site Hackings, Bloomberg – Jul 6 2017

In the very likely case that the above described pattern of “Russian hacking” holds, all three stories will be debunked within the next few days or weeks.

On Friday the United Nations concluded the creation of the first multilateral nuclear disarmament treaty in over 20 years, and the first treaty ever to ban all nuclear weapons. While 122 nations voted yes, the Netherlands voted no, Singapore abstained, and numerous nations didn’t show up at all.

The Netherlands, I’m told by Alice Slater, was compelled by public pressure on its parliament to show up. I don’t know what Singapore’s problem is. But the world’s nine nuclear nations, various aspiring nuclear nations, and military allies of nuclear nations boycotted.

The only nuclear country that had voted yes to begin the process of treaty-drafting now completed was North Korea. That North Korea is open to a world without nuclear weapons should be fantastic news to numerous U.S. officials and media pundits apparently suffering traumatic fear of a North Korean attack — or it would be fantastic news if the United States were not the leading advocate for expanded development, proliferation, and threat of the use of nuclear weapons. The U.S. ambassador even staged a press conference to denounce this treaty when its drafting was initiated.

Our job now, as citizens of this hapless world, is to lobby every government — including the Netherlands’ — to join and ratify the treaty. While it falls short on nuclear energy, it is a model law on nuclear weapons that sane human beings have been waiting for since the 1940s. Check it out:

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

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

(c) Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly;

(d) Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

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

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

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

Not bad, huh?

Of course this treaty will have to be expanded to include all nations. And the world will have to develop a respect for international law. Some nations, including North Korea and Russia and China, may be quite reluctant to give up their nuclear weapons even if the United States does so, as long as the United States maintains such enormous dominance in terms of non-nuclear military capacities and its pattern of launching aggressive wars. That’s why this treaty has to be part of a broader agenda of demilitarization and war abolition.

But this treaty is a big step in the right direction. When 122 countries declare something illegal, it is illegal on earth. That means investments in it are illegal. Complicity with it is illegal. Defense of it is shameful. Academic collaboration with it is disreputable. In other words, we have launched into a period of stigmatizing as something less than acceptable the act of preparing to annihilate all life on earth. And as we do that for nuclear war, we can build the groundwork for doing the same for all war.

Featured image: US President Donald Trump meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin during the their bilateral meeting at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany July 7, 2017. (Source: Reuters/Carlos Barria)

From the start, the “positive chemistry” in the Mother of All Sit-Downs was a given. The format – with only the four principals, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and two translators – prevented any leaks. What was originally scheduled for 35 minutes went on for 2 hours and 16 minutes, and not even an impromptu appearance by First Lady Melania Trump – they were late for the Elbphilharmonie pomp and circumstance – managed to stop the flow.

They needed to deliver. They needed headlines. They got plenty. Including a possible first step at real cooperation; a ceasefire deal in southwestern Syria. Yet the real headline is that diplomacy beats demonization.

Still, from the toxic, overwhelmingly Russophobic Beltway point of view, that dystopia masquerading as a summit – the actual G-20 – was a mere backdrop; the only thing that mattered in this parallel G-2 was confirmation of an obsessive narrative; Russian interfered in the US elections.

Spin City gave us slightly conflicting views. Tillerson admitted “intractable” differences but stressed Trump was “rightly focused on how do we move forward”, while an uncharacteristically irritable Lavrov said Trump had accepted Putin’s denial, adding what is, in fact, the real clincher; Putin wants proof and evidence of Russian interference.

That won’t happen. The “Russian hacking” tsunami ebbs and flows, always following the same pattern; accusations by some proverbial “anonymous official” or “expert”, usually debunked. If the acronym jungle of US intel had concrete, definitive evidence, that would have been splashed on every single front page long ago.

The real test for a possible reset will be the US-Russia ceasefire in southwestern Syria. Tillerson and Lavrov had been discussing it for weeks now. And it’s a Russian idea.

Essentially, that would lead towards American/Jordanian peacekeeping forces near the Golan; Damascus allowing Iranian and Russian peacekeeping forces around the capital; Turkey ensconced between Jarablus and Al-Bab in the north with Russians around them; and the Americans in the northeast all the way to Raqqa alongside the Kurdish YPG.

In a nutshell; a regional balance of power which, assuming it holds, might slowly lead towards a final all-Syria settlement.

Jordan – and Israel – are not warring parties in Syria, and yet the deal directly concerns them. It’s not clear whether US forces will have to be back to Jordan. It’s not clear how the ceasefire will complement the Astana negotiation – the actual top frontline decider – involving Russia, Iran and Turkey. It’s not clear whether Daesh will be eradicated for good. It’s not clear whether the Pentagon will stop sporadically attacking the Syrian Arab Army (SAA).

The real big story

And then, there’s the big story of the G-20 in Hamburg, which actually started three days earlier in Moscow, in a full-fledged official summit between Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Xi repeatedly extolled the “strategic alliance”, or “the fast-growing, pragmatic cooperation”, or even the “special character” of China’s ties with Russia.

Putin once again pledged to support the New Silk Roads, or One Belt, One Road initiative (Obor), “by all means”, which includes its interpenetration with the Eurasia Economic Union (EEU).

The Russian Direct Investment Fund and the China Development Bank established a joint $10 billion investment fund.

Gazprom and China’s CNPC signed a key agreement for the starting date of gas deliveries via the Power of Siberia pipeline; December 20, 2019, according to Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller. And that will be followed by the construction of Power of Siberia-2.

They kept discussing a military cooperation roadmap.

And at a closed Kremlin meeting the night before their official summit, in which they clinched yet another proverbial raft of deals worth billions of dollars, Putin and Xi developed a common North Korea strategy; “dialogue and negotiation”, coupled with firm opposition to the THAAD missile system being installed in South Korea.

Xi, in an interview to TASS, had already expounded on US missile defense – an absolute top priority for the Kremlin – “disrupting the strategic balance in the region”.

This was Putin and Xi’s third meeting in 2017 alone. At the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Astana, Putin had already hinted that this one, in Moscow, would be “a major event in bilateral relations.”

The giveaway: that’s where they not only deepened their joint strategy for Eurasia integration but also coordinated their common approach to Trump at the G-20. This is what a strategic partnership is all about.

How to restart a reset

Considering the toxicity levels in the Beltway, Putin and Lavrov went to the G-20 harboring no expectations that a package deal could be achieved between Russia and the US.

They knew this would be a strictly political meeting – and not economic; an easing of sanctions was out of the cards.

They also knew there’s not much Trump could offer to the Russian economy. This exhaustive report sets the record straight.

Even under sanctions, Russia should expect a “handsome recovery”, with an expected growth of 3% to 4% in 2017. There has been an “extraordinary decrease in the share of oil & gas revenue in Russia’s GDP.” Russia has “the lowest level of imports (as a share of the GDP) of all major countries.” And the clincher; Russia “must focus on China, the East, and the rest of the world.”

That’s already happening. At the BRICS meeting on the sidelines of the G-20, they called for a more open global economy and for a “rules-based, transparent, non-discriminatory, open and inclusive multilateral trading system.”

Putin and Lavrov faced Trump and Tillerson knowing full well that political factions in the US won’t waiver in their mission to keep the tension with “peer competitors” Russia and China at a very dangerous level.

At the same time, they knew Trump and Tillerson really aim for a reset – incipient as it may be at the start.

Syria is an ultra-complex case where the sphere of influence is mostly Iranian but the hard, cold facts on the ground and in the skies are mostly Russian. With this ceasefire deal, it’s as if Putin and Lavrov are inviting a losing Washington to be part of a solution that satisfies – sort of – all parties, including Israel and Turkey.

Trump did not make any substantial concessions in Hamburg, at least according to what both Tillerson and Lavrov volunteered to disclose. The Beltway is barking that Trump gave Putin a win. As usual, they’re wrong; Putin and Trump stage-managed a win-win.

After a decade-long effort by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), and 72 years after their invention, today states at the United Nations formally adopted a treaty which categorically prohibits nuclear weapons.

Until now, nuclear weapons were the only weapons of mass destruction without a prohibition treaty, despite the widespread and catastrophic humanitarian consequences of their intentional or accidental detonation. Biological weapons were banned in 1972 and chemical weapons in 1992.

On adoption of the treaty, ICAN’s executive director, Beatrice Fihn, said:

“We hope that today marks the beginning of the end of the nuclear age. It is beyond question that nuclear weapons violate the laws of war and pose a clear danger to global security.

“No one believes that indiscriminately killing millions of civilians is acceptable – no matter the circumstance – yet that is what nuclear weapons are designed to do. Today the international community rejected nuclear weapons and made it clear they are unacceptable.

“It is time for leaders around the world to match their values and words with action by signing and ratifying this treaty as a first step towards eliminating nuclear weapons.”

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted Friday morning and will open for signature by states at the United Nations in New York on 20 September 2017. Civil society organizations and more than 140 states have participated in negotiations.

This treaty is a clear indication that the majority of the world no longer accepts nuclear weapons and does not consider them legitimate tools of war. The repeated objection and boycott of the negotiations by many nuclear-weapon states demonstrates that this treaty has the potential to significantly impact their behavior and stature.

As has been true with previous weapon prohibition treaties, changing international norms leads to concrete changes in policies and behaviors, even in states not party to the treaty.

“The strenuous and repeated objections of nuclear-armed states is an admission that this treaty will have a real and lasting impact,” Fihn said.

The treaty also creates obligations to support the victims of nuclear weapons use (known in Japanese as “hibakusha”) and testing and to remediate the environmental damage caused by nuclear weapons.

From the beginning, the effort to ban nuclear weapons has benefited from the broad support of international humanitarian, environmental, nonproliferation, and disarmament organizations in more than 100 states.

Significant political and grassroots organizing has taken place around the world, and many thousands have signed petitions, joined protests, contacted representatives, and pressured governments.

Featured image from ICAN

Widely reported as a US offer of cooperation on Syria given ahead of the Trump-Putin meeting, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson‘s recent comments on Syria are actually rather scandalous and self-righteous:  

In a statement, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. is open to establishing no-fly zones in Syria in coordination with Russia as well as jointly setting up a truce monitoring and humanitarian aid delivery mechanism.

Tillerson noted that the U.S. and Russia have a variety of unresolved differences but said Syria is an opportunity for the two countries to create stability in Syria.

He said that Russia, as an ally of Syrian President Bashar Assad and a participant in the conflict, “has a responsibility to ensure that the needs of the Syrian people are met and that no faction in Syria illegitimately re-takes or occupies areas liberated from ISIS’ or other terrorist groups’ control.” Tillerson added that Russia has “an obligation to prevent any further use of chemical weapons of any kind by the Assad regime.”

What Tillerson has said here is that Syria attempting to regain control of any parts of Syria which have been taken by US-Kurdish or US-rebel forces from ISIS would be considered “illegitimate” by the US, and that Russia must ensure it does not happen.

Bizarrely the US believes it and its proxies have more legitimacy to hold Syrian territory than does the internationally recognized Syrian government which sits in its UN chair in New York.

Given such rhetoric by the “moderate” Tillerson we wonder what the US offer of cooperation on “no-fly zones” means. Neither Russia nor Syria have been talking about any such zones except in the sense of offering them to the opposition if the latter signs under Astana process and breaks off from al-Qaeda (Tahrir al-Sham).

Probably what Tillerson means is that the US is ready to cooperate on establishing no-fly zones over Syria for Syrians and Russians.

Featured image from Russia Insider

Featured image: Protesters clash with riot police during the protests at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, July 7, 2017 (Source: Pawel Kopczynski / Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Earlier on Friday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in a briefing said the first meeting between Trump and Putin revealed that a clear and positive chemistry and connection existed between the two leaders.

The meet was initially scheduled for 30 minutes, but lasted for over two hours, during which the leaders addressed some of the most pressing issues in US-Russia relations including sanctions and cyber warfare along with the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine.

SYRIA, UKRAINE TENSIONS

Trump and Putin agreed on Friday to enforce a new ceasefire across southern Syria that will come into effect within two days at noon Damascus time on Sunday. And for the first time ever, Trump committed the United States to active involvement in implementing the Minsk Accord on Ukraine.

As for the crisis on Russia’s border, the US State Department announced that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson appointed former Permanent Representative to NATO Kurt Volker as special representative for Ukraine negotiations. Tillerson said he named Volker as a representative upon Putin’s request.

University of Illinois Professor of International Law Francis Boyle told Sputnik the initial meeting delivered key outcomes on Syria and Ukraine.

“I am encouraged. The meeting produced substantial progress on two of the most important and dangerous issues that had separated Russia and the United States during the Obama administration: Syria and Ukraine,” Boyle said.

Syria especially was developing into a serious potential flashpoint between the Russian and US armed forces but Trump and Putin in their meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hamburg had both recognized the danger, Boyle pointed out.

“This was an existentially dangerous situation because at any time Russian and American military forces could have struck each other with unpredictable and catastrophic consequences,” he said.

Trump’s decision to appoint veteran US diplomat and former Washington ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker as the new first US envoy to Ukraine to help implement the Minsk agreement was also a historic step forward, Boyle explained.

“For the first time ever, the United States government has bought into the Minsk accord, which is the only way forward on dealing with the situation in Ukraine,” Boyle said.

Volker served as US permanent representative to NATO for presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He refused to sign a 2016 open letter from scores of foreign policy experts associated with the Republican Party denouncing Trump during his successful election campaign.

“Of course the anti-Russian Factions here in the United States in the news media, the Deep State, punditry and academia will fight back ferociously,” Boyle warned.

However, Trump and Putin had succeeded in laying the potential foundation for an improved relationship between the superpowers that could end the poisonous legacy of the Obama years, Boyle suggested.

“Their G20 Meeting will hopefully commence a new and constructive relationship between the US and Russia instead of the anti-Russian warmongering by Obama, Clinton, Brzezinski,” he said.

Obama while president continued to use former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, known for his lifelong hostility to Russia, according to many reports.

Relations also deteriorated markedly when Hillary Clinton served as Obama’s first secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

BOOST TO US-RUSSIA RELATIONS

Historian and retired US Army Major Todd Pierce told Sputnik he welcomed the emerging reports of Trump’s talks with Putin, showing that the US president’s focus on improving ties with Moscow is paying dividends.

“If true, these headlines are very good news,” he said. “Of the many reasons to complain of about Trump, avoiding war with Russia should not be one of them.”

Pierce praised Trump for his repeated efforts to improve relations with Russia, often in the face of scurrilous and unproven personal allegations against him in the US media.

Trump had outraged warmongering elements in the United States, Pierce pointed out.

“Unfortunately, many of his American opponents oppose him because he has talked rationally of the need to maintain peace with Russia,” he said.

Pierce also acknowledged the value of the ceasefire agreement on Syria that Trump had reached with Putin.

The US leader had agreed “to work with Russia in reducing violence in hotspots, such as Syria,” he said.

However, such moves flew in the face of the long-running campaign by other groups in the United States to stir up hatred and suspicion against Russia in order to justify massively bloated arms expenditures and aggressive international policies, Pierce noted.

Trump’s attempt to reduce the danger of clashes over Syria, therefore, “goes against US militarist’s constant incitement of war with Russia that we’ve now seen for many years,” he remarked.

Featured image from REUTERS/ Steffen Kugler/Courtesy of Bundesregierung

We are “on the cusp of a truly historic moment,” said the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) on Thursday morning, “when the international community declares, unambiguously, for the first time, that nuclear weapons are not only immoral, but also illegal.”

The development—and hopeful adoption—of this treaty represents a breaking point with the status quo, with subservience to the powerful, with the patriarchal world order of massive nuclear violence. Whatever happens on Friday, this treaty has already impacted the nuclear establishment and, more broadly, international relations. Its adoption and implementation will bring even more positive change.

This treaty prohibits the policies and practices that sustain nuclear weapons, including those related to nuclear “deterrence”. Whatever is not explicitly prohibited in its provisions is implicitly prohibited through the spirit of this treaty. It outlaws all aspects of nuclear weapon activities, from development to use and everything in between. As ICAN, as well as many states on Wednesday said,

“The absence of explicit references to [certain activities] in no way implies that they are lawful. This ban is comprehensive.”

This is important in a world where governments that support the continued existence of nuclear weapons are actively investing in their modernisation and maintenance. Just this week, a review commissioned by the German parliament determined that “the country could legally finance the British or French nuclear weapons programs in exchange for their protection.” It is exactly this type of activity that the nuclear weapon ban treaty will help prevent. As the New York Times notes, this plan “would face steep public opposition and diplomatic hurdles.” After tomorrow, it will (if the ban is adopted) also be in contention with international law.

Thus the nuclear weapon ban treaty will help prevent future risks to humanity, as Vanessa Griffen of FemLINKpacific said to the conference. It will also “address the damage caused by past development of these weapons through nuclear testing,” she said, noting that the treaty contains “vital provisions for the people, land, and oceans that have borne the brunt of nuclear testing.” This treaty was borne out of the recognition that the humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons are catastrophic. This provided the motivation for governments around the world to finally break the taboo against pursing new international law on this issue without the support of the nine countries that possess nuclear weapons. It was a daring move, supported and inspired by the courage of civil society actors and parliamentarians that wanted to challenge the status quo and take real action to create a better future.

This treaty will affect even those states that did not participate in these negotiations. Nuclear-armed and nuclear-alliance states may not have been in the room, but they will now be challenged by the new reality this treaty is creating. Their legacy of radioactive violence will be confronted with a future of vibrant political, legal, economic, and social opposition. Senator Scott Ludlam from the Australian Green Party said he and other parliamentarians and civil society representatives from all of the nuclear-armed and nuclear-alliance states commit to “make our way home and campaign for our governments to recognise that this treaty is the best chance we have to build a truly secure world free of nuclear weapons. One by one,” he said, “we will bring them into the room.”

On Friday, as they decide whether to adopt this treaty, states have a choice to make. Are they for nuclear weapons or against them? Do they think it is legitimate for a handful of heavily militarised countries to be able to commit instant genocide? These questions have, over the years, been drained of their stark vibrancy, black and white muddled to grey. This was deliberate. Concepts like nuclear deterrence replaced the horrors of burning flesh, flattened buildings, and generations of cancers. The ban treaty brings everything back into focus. What kind of world do we want to live in? What kind of world do we want to actively build, against the interests of the structures of power that rely on violence, intimidation, fear, and hate to sustain themselves?

“Simply banning nuclear weapons is not simple at all,” said Senator Ludlam.

It has taken decades of activism, years of discussions and strategising, and months of complex negotiations. Now we are here, with a simple question on the table and majority of committed states standing around it. For or against?

Featured image from Preserve Articles

2017 is the make or break year for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Seven years in, the flaws of the ACA are clear – tens of millions are still without health insurance, premiums and out of pocket costs are rising and causing people to either avoid and delay care or go into debt, and the US continues to rank poorly in health outcomes. There is one way to fix the ACA, and I call it the Private Extraction.

What are we to do?

The Republicans are seeking a way to keep their promise to repeal and replace the ACA, but they are finding that this is not very easy to do. There are deep divides within the party over cuts to Medicaid and subsidies for premiums. And the changes they are currently proposing will leave tens of millions more people without insurance. This is highly unpopular with the public, and the Republicans are being hit with widespread opposition. President Trump is so discouraged that he’s calling for an all out repeal now with a replacement to be determined down the road. This would be political suicide if they can’t come up with a solution.

Despite the Democratic base’s overwhelming support for National Improved Medicare for All single payer health care, the Democrats are saying that we can’t do that yet because first they want to fix the ACA. We hear Democrats and their supporters in the media and non-profit world saying that we just need to “stabilize the market” and suggesting the addition of a public insurance, which they call a public option, or allowing people to buy into Medicare as a way to insure more people.

This was the same message that the Democrats gave in 2009 when their base wanted single payer to be included in the health reform debate. Democrats said that the people were asking for too much and told them to work for something more practical, a public option, instead. This effectively divided and weakened single payer supporters. The saddest part of that story is that the public option was never intended to be in the final legislation. The White House and Congressional leadership actively worked to keep it out of the final bill when the tide of support was moving lawmakers to include it.

So, here we are again. Even Senator Sanders, considered to be a champion of Medicare for All after campaigning on it heavily in the presidential primary, is saying that we have to fix the ACA first and then we can work for single payer. We know how that works out, but in case you are not familiar with the scenario: if and when the ACA is tweaked, we will then be told that we have to wait and see if that worked, and when it doesn’t, then another tweak will be proposed, and so on. Single payer’s day will never come until we organize and work specifically to make it a reality.

Let’s look at the Democrat’s proposals:

“Stabilizing the market” basically amounts to giving the private health insurance corporations more money through direct subsidies or tax credits so they will lower premiums and still make enough profits to satisfy their investors. The Center for American Progress, a Democratic Party think tank funded by the health insurance industry lobby group AHIP, offered a “bipartisan proposal” this week “that proposes repairing Obamacare’s exchanges through a mixture of new subsidies to help insurance companies cover their most expensive patients, and lower taxes to encourage insurers to set up shop in under-served markets.”

Jeff Stein goes on to describe CAP’s plan further:

“The second component is a $15 billion ‘reinsurance’ fund. It calls for giving states federal money to give insurers funding for their most expensive, high-cost enrollees — which Spiro says would in turn reduce premium payments for everyone else on the exchanges.”

Here is the translation: the plan would use public dollars to reimburse private insurers for actually having to pay for health care. If you step outside of the matrix for a moment, it becomes clear that is a ridiculous idea.

And while Democrats rail about the Republican’s efforts to repeal the taxes in the ACA, the Democrat’s proposal essentially does the same thing by funneling more public dollars into the pockets of the medical industrial complex and their Wall Street investors. Applying market language to health care, which is a public necessity, reveals that the Democrats view health care as a commodity and not a human right. It can’t be both.

A public option is the term applied to a public health insurance that people could choose to purchase instead of private health insurance. It is often described as a way to compete with private insurers because theoretically it would be able to offer lower premiums since it would not have a requirement for profit. The reality is that adding another insurance to our already complex and heavily bureaucratic system just adds more complexity and bureaucracy. And thinking that it could effectively compete with private insurance, which already has a large grip on the market, is naive.

To create a public option, either each state or the federal government would need to set up a new health insurance plan, recruit health professionals to participate in it, negotiate rates for healthcare services, and then market the plan to customers as a lower cost viable alternative and hope enough people sign on to make it work. This is a big lift. And in the past, private health insurers have been willing to temporarily drop premiums to stifle just this kind of competition.

What is most likely to happen is that the public insurance becomes a relief valve for the private insurers by attracting people who actually need health care. I call it the Profiteer’s Option. Private insurers are very talented at finding ways to encourage people to leave them when they become sick. One way they do this is by severely restricting their provider networks so that when a person becomes ill and finds out that the doctor or hospital they need is not in their network, they seek an alternative. Or they can do it in a more passive-aggressive way by offering lower quality service to people who start racking up high health bills.

A natural experiment in public-private competition is found in Medicare. There is a public Medicare, often referred to as traditional Medicare, and there are private Medicare plans, misnamed Medicare Advantage plans. People who enroll in Medicare Advantage plans are healthier overall than those in traditional Medicare. When a Medicare Advantage enrollee starts to need more care, they quickly find that the Advantage plan has less generous coverage or doesn’t include the health professional they need to use and they drop out. This leaves traditional Medicare to cover the sickest population.

A public option will, in the end, struggle to have enough healthy enrollees to cover the costs of covering people who need health care and it will end up either raising premiums, so it is no longer competitive with private plans, or dropping benefits. A Medicare buy-in would essentially be another form of public option that would attract people who have higher healthcare needs. With any form of public option, the overly-complex and expensive healthcare system in the United States remains essentially unchanged. It does nothing to address the fundamental flaws in our system.

The United States spends more than twice as much per person each year on health care as other industrialized nations, which are universal and have better health outcomes, because the US doesn’t have a healthcare system that was designed for health. The US has the highest administrative costs, a third of our healthcare dollar goes to administration, and the US pays the highest prices for healthcare services and pharmaceuticals because we don’t have an overall system that negotiates the prices. There is no rationale for the costs of care; it is based on what the market will bear.

[Dark blue is public spending and light blue is private spending. The red bar is the average.] Source: Health Over Profit

The United States is also unique because private health insurers are not designed to pay for healthcare; they are financial services designed to make a profit for their investors. They do this by charging the highest premiums they can, shifting as much of the cost of care onto the individual through co-pays and deductibles and restricting coverage. Let that sink in for a moment. Private health insurers are predators designed to suck money out of our healthcare system.

A fix for the Affordable Care Act

There is one way that we can fix the ACA, and I call it the Private Extraction. A private extraction means that we would remove the private health insurance industry from the system. No more tax credits for private plans. No more subsidies or re-insurance to private health insurers. No more government marketplaces and employees to sell their plans to the public. This would save hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars every year.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that more than $300 billion would be spent on federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance in 2016. That’s more than 300 billion of taxpayer dollars that are feeding the industry’s high CEO salaries and Wall Street investor’s bank accounts instead of paying for care. Since the ACA was passed in 2010, health insurance stock has performed two times better than all stocks. The New York Times reported this year that:

“The numbers are astonishing. The Standard & Poor’s stock index returned 135.6 percent in those seven years through Thursday, a performance that we may not see again in our lifetimes. But the managed care stocks, as a whole, have gained nearly 300 percent including dividends, according to calculations by Bespoke Investment Group. UnitedHealth, the biggest of the managed care companies, with a market capitalization that is now more than $160 billion, returned 480 percent, dividends included. An investment of $100 in the company’s stock when Obamacare was signed into law would be worth more than $580.50 today.”

If we want to fix the ACA, we can’t spend more federal dollars trying to out-compete an industry that is more than twice as strong as it was when the ACA was passed. We can’t give them more money and hope they’ll cover more care for people who are sick or create a public insurance to take people with healthcare needs off their hands. We need to perform a curative procedure: a private extraction.

Then, what could we do to make sure that every person living in the United States has their health needs covered? The answer is simple and it already has the support of the majority of the population. It is National Improved Medicare for All as embodied in HR 676: The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act. For those who are unfamiliar, I describe it in more depth here.

The sooner we do this, the sooner we will be on track to healing our ailing healthcare system. This must be our demand to all political parties. The winning solution is Medicare for All.

Featured image from Health Over Profit

Featured image: A US Air Force MQ-1B Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, carrying a Hellfire air-to-surface missile lands at a secret air base in the Persian Gulf region on January 7, 2016. (Photo: John Moore/Getty Images via Truthout)

The House Appropriations Committee unexpectedly passed an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations bill last week that would repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in 2001 after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. If this effort to revoke the AUMF proves successful, the repeal would effectively limit Donald Trump‘s ability to use military force against North Korea, Iran and elsewhere.

In the 2001 AUMF, Congress authorized the president to use military force against groups and countries that had supported the 9/11 attacks. Congress rejected the George W. Bush administration’s request for open-ended military authority “to deter and preempt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States.” ISIS (also known as Daesh) did not exist in 2001.

Although Congress limited the scope of the AUMF, it has nevertheless been used as a blank check for military force more than 37 times in 14 different countries, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Bush relied on the 2001 AUMF to invade Afghanistan and start the longest war in US history. Barack Obama used the AUMF to lead a NATO force into Libya and forcibly change its regime; ISIS then moved in to fill the vacuum. Obama also invoked the AUMF to carry out targeted killings with drones and manned bombers, killing myriad civilians. Trump relies on the AUMF for his drone strikes in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Afghanistan, which have killed thousands of civilians.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California) introduced the new amendment, tweeting,

“GOP & Dems agree: a floor debate & vote on endless war is long overdue.”

Lee was the only Congress member to vote against the AUMF in 2001. She said,

“I knew then it would provide a blank check to wage war anywhere, anytime, for any length by any president.”

Lee clarified that her amendment would repeal “the overly broad 2001 AUMF, after a period of eight months after the enactment of this act, giving the administration and Congress sufficient time to decide what measures should replace it.”

It remains to be seen whether Lee’s amendment will be defeated in the House of Representatives, as it is opposed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which said it “should have been ruled out of order” because the Appropriations Committee lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

The AUMF Should Be Repealed to Constrain Trump’s War-Making

Lee’s amendment raises the issue of how much war-making authority Congress should delegate to the president.

The 2001 AUMF should be repealed. But Congress should not give Trump a newer, more tailored, one. Trump cannot be trusted with war-making authority.

Tensions with North Korea continue to escalate. In response to Pyongyang’s ballistic missile test, the Trump administration participated with South Korea in a massive live-fire ballistic missile exercise as a warning to Kim Jong-un. Trump warned he is considering “some pretty severe things.”

Trump’s recent saber-rattling against North Korea led Laura Rosenberger, a former State Department official who worked on North Korea issues, to warn that Trump is “playing with fire here — nuclear fire.”

Trump has indicated his willingness to use nuclear weapons. As he said on MSNBC in 2016,

“Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?”

Secretary of Defense James Mattis cautioned against war with North Korea. In May, he stated on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that a conflict in North Korea “would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most people’s lifetimes.” It would be “tragic on an unbelievable scale,” he said at a Pentagon press conference.

Nikki Haley, US ambassador to the United Nations, warned the Security Council,

 “One of our capabilities lies with our considerable military forces. We will use them if we must, but we prefer not to have to go in that direction.” But, she said, North Korea is “quickly closing off the possibility of a diplomatic solution.”

The UN Charter requires the pursuit of peaceful alternatives to the use of military force. Christine Hong, associate professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, wrote in the Progressive,

“Unsurprisingly, few media outlets have reported on North Korea’s overtures to the United States, even as these, if pursued, might result in meaningful de-escalation on both sides. To be clear: peaceful alternatives are at hand. Far from being an intractable foe, North Korea has repeatedly asked the United States to sign a peace treaty that would bring the unresolved Korean War to a long-overdue end.”

But Trump, not known for his patience, is unlikely to pursue a diplomatic solution for long.

Moreover, his uses of military force thus far have been conducted unlawfully.

Trump’s Unlawful Military Attacks

Trump’s drone strikes cannot be justified by the 2001 AUMF or any other act of Congress. They thus violated the War Powers Resolution.

Passed in the wake of the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution requires the president to report to Congress within 60 days of initiating the use of military force. The Resolution allows the president to introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities in only three situations:

First, after Congress has declared war, which has not happened since World War II. Second, in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces,” which has not occurred. And third, when there is “specific statutory authorization,” such as an AUMF.

The UN Charter requires that countries settle their disputes peacefully. The Charter forbids a country from using military force against another country, except in self-defense or with the approval of the Security Council.

Trump launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Syria in retaliation for an unproven claim that the Syrian government was responsible for a deadly chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun.

“There’s no doubt that international law, the UN Charter, prohibits the use of military force for retaliation or for reprisal, punishment,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, professor of international law at the University of Notre Dame. “You can only use military force in self-defense, and he did not.”

Trump’s Tomahawk missiles in Syria did not comply with the UN Charter or the War Powers Resolution.

The Trump administration utilized a self-defense rationale for shooting down a Syrian fighter jet and two Iranian-made drones. But neither Syria nor Iran had attacked the United States. And the Security Council did not sanction the US strikes. Those shoot-downs also violated the UN Charter.

The Stakes of the Effort to Repeal the AUMF

Trump’s military interventions and the frightening prospect that he may attack North Korea raise the question of whether the 2001 AUMF should be repealed.

In 2015, Obama proposed repealing the 2001 AUMF and replacing it with a new one. Obama’s proposal contained no geographical limitation and would have allowed the use of military force against ISIS and “associated forces,” which is overly broad. And although it would have prohibited “enduring offensive operations,” it contained a loophole that would have permitted the limited use of ground troops by labeling operations “defensive.”

Obama essentially asked Congress to bless endless war against anyone he wanted, wherever he wanted. Congress declined Obama’s invitation.

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Congress should retain that authority as the framers intended, not hand it over to an unpredictable and volatile president. The fate of the world is at stake.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her books include The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse; Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law and Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. Visit her website: MarjorieCohn.com. Follow her on Twitter: @MarjorieCohn.

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

This article was originally published on August 9, 2011 (five months after the onslaught of the US-NATO led jihadist insurgency in Daraa, Southern Syria.

Published under the title A “Humanitarian War” on Syria? Military Escalation. Towards a Broader Middle East-Central Asian War? the article raised the role of the terrorist insurgency directed against Syria in relation to the broader issue of an extended Middle East War. “The Road to Tehran Goes Through Damascus”. 

War preparations to attack both Syria and Iran were in “an advanced state of readiness” several years prior to the onset of the war on Syria in mid-March 2011.

“The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003  categorizes Syria as a “rogue state”, as a country which supports terrorism. … A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (“regime change”) including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.” ( Michel Chossudovsky, August 2011)  

Part II of this article was published under the title The Pentagon’s “Salvador Option”: The Deployment of Death Squads in Iraq and Syria (August 16, 2011). The latter was published as a chapter in The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity, Global Research, Montreal 2015. 

Michel Chossudovsky, July 8, 2017

*       *       *

An extended Middle East Central Asian war has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board since the mid-1990s.

As part of this extended war scenario, the US-NATO alliance plans to wage a military campaign against Syria under a UN sponsored “humanitarian mandate”.

Click book cover to order directly from Global Research

Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. Destabilization of sovereign states through “regime change” is closely coordinated with military planning.

There is a military roadmap characterised by a sequence of US-NATO war theaters.

War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in “an advanced state of readiness” for several years. The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003  categorizes Syria as a “rogue state”, as a country which supports terrorism. 

A war on Syria is viewed by the Pentagon as part of the broader war directed against Iran. President George W. Bush confirmed in his Memoirs that he had “ordered the Pentagon to plan an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and [had] considered a covert attack on Syria” (George Bush’s memoirs reveal how he considered attacks on Iran and Syria, The Guardian, November 8, 2010)

This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil reserves and pipeline routes. It is supported by the Anglo-American oil giants. 

The July 2006 bombing of Lebanon was part of a carefully planned “military road map”. The extension of “The July War” on Lebanon into Syria had been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. It was abandoned upon the defeat of Israeli ground forces by Hizbollah. 

Israel’s July 2006 war on Lebanon also sought to establish Israeli control over the North Eastern Mediterranean coastline including offshore oil and gas reserves in Lebanese and Palestinian territorial waters.

The plans to invade both Lebanon and Syria have remained on the Pentagon’s  drawing board despite Israel’s setback in the 2006 July War:

“In November 2008, barely a month before Tel Aviv started its massacre in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military held drills for a two-front war against Lebanon and Syria called Shiluv Zro’ot III (Crossing Arms III).  The military exercise included a massive simulated invasion of both Syria and Lebanon” (See Mahdi Darius Nazemoraya, Israel’s Next War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon?, Global Research, January 17, 2009)

The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (“regime change”) including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.  

A “humanitarian war” under the logo of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) directed against Syria would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon. 

Were a military campaign to be waged against Syria, Israel would be directly or indirectly involved in military and intelligence operations.

A war on Syria would lead to military escalation.

There are at present four distinct war theaters: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya.

An attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war, engulfing an entire region from North Africa and the Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The ongoing protest movement is intended to serve as a pretext and a justification to intervene militarily against Syria. The existence of an armed insurrection is denied. The Western media in chorus have described recent events in Syria as a “peaceful protest movement” directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad, when the evidence confirms the existence of an armed insurgency integrated by Islamic paramilitary groups.

From the outset of the protest movement in Daraa in mid-March, there has been an exchange of fire between the police and armed forces on the one hand and armed gunmen on the other. Acts of arson directed against government buildings have also been committed. In late July in Hama, public buildings including the Court House and the Agricultural Bank were set on fire. Israeli news sources, while dismissing the existence of an armed conflict, nonetheless, acknowledge that “protesters [were] armed with heavy machine guns.” (DEBKAfile August 1, 2011. Report on Hama, emphasis added)

“All Options on the Table”

In June, US Senator Lindsey Graham (who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee) hinted to the possibility of a “humanitarian” military intervention directed against Syria with a view to “saving the lives of civilians”. Graham suggested that the “option” applied to Libya under UN Secuirty Council resolution 1973 should be envisaged in the case of Syria:

“If it made sense to protect the Libyan people against Gadhafi, and it did because they were going to get slaughtered if we hadn’t sent NATO in when he was on the outskirts of Benghazi, the question for the world [is], have we gotten to that point in Syria, …

We may not be there yet, but we are getting very close, so if you really care about protecting the Syrian people from slaughter, now is the time to let Assad know that all options are on the table,” (CBS “Face The Nation”, June 12, 2011)

Following the adoption of the UN Security Council Statement pertaining to Syria (August 3, 2011), the White House called, in no uncertain terms, for “regime change” in Syria and the ouster of President Bashar Al Assad:

“We do not want to see him remain in Syria for stability’s sake, and rather, we view him as the cause of instability in Syria,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Wednesday.

“And we think, frankly, that it’s safe to say that Syria would be a better place without President Assad,” (quoted in Syria: US Call Closer to Calling for Regime Change, IPS, August 4, 2011)

Extended economic sanctions often constitute a leadup towards outright military intervention.

A bill sponsored by Senator Lieberman was introduced in the US Senate with a view to authorizing sweeping economic sanctions against Syria. Moreover, in a letter to President Obama in early August, a group of more than sixty U.S. senators called for “implementing additional sanctions… while also making it clear to the Syrian regime that it will pay an increasing cost for its outrageous repression.”

These sanctions would require blocking bank and financial transactions as well as “ending purchases of Syrian oil, and cutting off investments in Syria’s oil and gas sectors.” (See  Pressure on Obama to get tougher on Syria coming from all sides – Foreign Policy,  August 3, 2011).

Meanwhile, the US State Department has also met with members of the Syrian opposition in exile. Covert support has also been channelled to the armed rebel groups.

Dangerous Crossroads: War on Syria. Beachhead for an Attack on Iran

Following the August 3 Statement by the Chairman of the UN Security Council directed against Syria, Moscow’s envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin warned of the dangers of military escalation:

“NATO is planning a military campaign against Syria to help overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad with a long-reaching goal of preparing a beachhead for an attack on Iran,…

“[This statement] means that the planning [of the military campaign] is well underway. It could be a logical conclusion of those military and propaganda operations, which have been carried out by certain Western countries against North Africa,” Rogozin said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper… The Russian diplomat pointed out at the fact that the alliance is aiming to interfere only with the regimes “whose views do not coincide with those of the West.”

Rogozin agreed with the opinion expressed by some experts that Syria and later Yemen could be NATO’s last steps on the way to launch an attack on Iran.

“The noose around Iran is tightening. Military planning against Iran is underway. And we are certainly concerned about an escalation of a large-scale war in this huge region,” Rogozin said.

Having learned the Libyan lesson, Russia “will continue to oppose a forcible resolution of the situation in Syria,” he said, adding that the consequences of a large-scale conflict in North Africa would be devastating for the whole world. “Beachhead for an Attack on Iran”: NATO is planning a Military Campaign against Syria, Novosti, August 5, 2011)

 

Military Blueprint for an Attack on Syria 

Dimitry Rogozin’s warning was based on concrete information known and documented in military circles, that NATO is currently planning a military campaign against Syria. In this regard, a scenario of an attack on Syria is currently on the drawing board, involving French, British and Israeli military experts. According to former Commander of the French Air Force (chef d’Etat-Major de l’Armée de l’air) General Jean Rannou, “a  NATO strike to disable the Syrian army is technically feasible”:

“Nato member countries would begin by using satellite technology to spot Syrian air defences. A few days later, warplanes, in larger numbers than Libya, would take off from the UK base in Cyprus and spend some 48 hours destroying Syrian surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and jets. Alliance aircraft would then start an open-ended bombardment of Syrian tanks and ground troops.

The scenario is based on analysts in the French military, from the specialist British publication Jane’s Defence Weekly and from Israel’s Channel 10 TV station.

The Syrian air force is said to pose little threat. It has around 60 Russian-made MiG-29s. But the rest – some 160 MiG-21s, 80 MiG-23s, 60 MiG-23BNs, 50 Su-22s and 20 Su-24MKs – is out of date.

….”I don’t see any purely military problems. Syria has no defence against Western systems … [But] it would be more risky than Libya. It would be a heavy military operation,” Jean Rannou, the former chief of the French air force, told EUobserver. He added that action is highly unlikely because Russia would veto a UN mandate, Nato assets are stretched in Afghanistan and Libya and Nato countries are in financial crisis. (Andrew Rettman, Blueprint For NATO Attack On Syria Revealed, Global Research, August 11, 2011)

The Broader Military Roadmap  

While Libya, Syria and Iran are part of the military roadmap, this strategic deployment if it were to be carried out would also threaten  China and Russia. Both countries have investment, trade as well as military cooperation agreements with Syria and Iran. Iran has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Escalation is part of the military agenda. Since 2005, the US and its allies, including America’s NATO partners and Israel, have been involved in the extensive deployment and stockpiling of advanced weapons systems. The air defense systems of the US, NATO member countries and Israel are fully integrated.

The Role of Israel and Turkey

Both Ankara and Tel Aviv are involved in supporting an armed insurgency. These endeavors are coordinated between the two governments and their intelligence agencies.

Israel’s Mossad, according to reports, has provided covert support to radical Salafi terrorist groups, which became active in Southern Syria at the outset of the protest movement in Daraa in mid-March. Reports suggest that financing for the Salafi insurgency is coming from Saudi Arabia. (See Syrian army closes in on Damascus suburbs, The Irish Times, May 10, 2011).

The Turkish government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan is supporting Syrian opposition groups in exile while also backing the armed rebels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Northern Syria.

Both the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) (whose leadership is in exile in the UK) and the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation) are behind the insurrection. Both organizations are supported by Britain’s MI6. The avowed objective of both MB and Hizb-ut Tahir is ultimately to destabilize Syria’s secular State. (See Michel Chossudovsky, SYRIA: Who is Behind The Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO “Humanitarian Intervention”, Global Research, May 3, 2011).

In June, Turkish troops crossed the border into northern Syria, officially to come to the rescue of Syrian refugees. The government of Bashar Al Assad accused Turkey of directly supporting the incursion of rebel forces into northern Syria:

“A rebel force of up to 500 fighters attacked a Syrian Army position on June 4 in northern Syria. They said the target, a garrison of Military Intelligence, was captured in a 36-hour assault in which 72 soldiers were killed in Jisr Al Shoughour, near the border with Turkey.

“We found that the criminals [rebel fighters] were using weapons from Turkey, and this is very worrisome,” an official said.

This marked the first time that the Assad regime has accused Turkey of helping the revolt. … Officials said the rebels drove the Syrian Army from Jisr Al Shoughour and then took over the town. They said government buildings were looted and torched before another Assad force arrived. …

A Syrian officer who conducted the tour said the rebels in Jisr Al Shoughour consisted of Al Qaida-aligned fighters. He said the rebels employed a range of Turkish weapons and ammunition but did not accuse the Ankara government of supplying the equipment.” (Syria’s Assad accuses Turkey of arming rebels, TR Defence, Jun 25 2011)

Denied by the Western media, foreign support to Islamist insurgents, which have “infiltrated the protest movement”, is, nonetheless, confirmed by Western intelligence sources. According to former MI6 officer Alistair Crooke (and high level EU adviser): “two important forces behind events [in Syria] are Sunni radicals and Syrian exile groups in France and the US. He said the radicals follow the teaching of Abu Musab Zarqawi, a late Jordanian Islamist, who aimed to create a Sunni emirate in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria called Bilad a-Sham. They are experienced urban guerillas who fought in Iraq and have outside finance. They infilitrate protests to attack Assad forces, as in Jisr al-Shagour in June, where they inflicted heavy casualties.” (Andrew Rettman, Blueprint For NATO Attack On Syria Revealed, Global Research, August 11, 2011, emphasis added).

The former MI6 official also confirms that Israel and the US are supporting and financing the terrorists: “Crooke said the exile groups aim to topple the anti-Israeli [Syrian] regime. They are funded and trained by the US and have links to Israel. They pay Sunni tribal chiefs to put people on the streets, work with NGOs to feed uncorroborated stories of atrocities to Western media and co-operate with radicals in the hope that escalating violence will justify Nato intervention.” (Ibid, emphasis added).

Political factions within Lebanon are also involved. Lebanese intelligence has confirmed the covert shipment of assault rifles and automatic weapons to Salafi fighters. The shipment was carried out by Saudi-backed Lebanese politicians.

The Israel-Turkey Military Cooperation Agreement

Israel and Turkey have a military cooperation agreement which pertains in a very direct way to Syria as well to the strategic Lebanese-Syrian Eastern Mediterranean coastline (including the gas reserves off the coast of Lebanon and pipeline routes).

Already during the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This “triple alliance”, which is dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrates and coordinates military command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara. ….

The triple alliance is also coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which includes “many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises. These military cooperation ties with NATO are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” (See Michel Chossudovsky,”Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, August 6, 2006)

Meanwhile, the recent reshuffle within Turkey’s top brass has reinforced the pro-Islamist faction within the armed forces. In late July, The Commander in Chief of the Army and head of Turkey’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Isik Kosaner, resigned together with the commanders of the Navy and Air Force.

General Kosaner represented a broadly secular stance within the Armed Forces. General Necdet Ozel has been appointed as his replacement as commander of the Army the new army chief.

These developments are of crucial importance. They tend to support US interests. They also point to a potential shift within the military in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood including the armed insurrection in Northern Syria.

“New appointments have strengthened Erdogan and the ruling party in Turkey… [T]he military power is able to carry out more ambitious projects in the region. It is predicted that in case of using the Libyan scenario in Syria it is possible that Turkey will apply for military intervention.” ( New appointments have strengthened Erdogan and the ruling party in Turkey : Public Radio of Armenia, August 06, 2011, emphasis added)

Muslim Brotherhood Rebels at Jisr al Shughour Photos AFP June 16, 2011

[Note: this photo is in many regards misleading. Most of the rebel gunmen are highly trained with modern weapons.]

The Extended NATO Military Alliance

Egypt, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia (within the extended military alliance) are partners of NATO, whose forces could be deployed in a campaign directed against Syria.

Israel is a de facto member of NATO following an agreement signed in 2005.

The process of military planning within NATO’s extended alliance involves coordination between the Pentagon, NATO, Israel’s Defense Force (IDF), as well as the active military involvement of the frontline Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt: all in all ten Arab countries plus Israel are members of The Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.

We are at a dangerous crossroads. The geopolitical implications are far-reaching.

Syria has borders with Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. It spreads across the valley of the Euphrates, it is at the crossroads of major waterways and pipeline routes.

Syria is an ally of Iran. Russia has a naval base in North Western Syria (see map).

Establishment of a base in Tartus and rapid advancement of military technology cooperation with Damascus makes Syria Russia’s instrumental bridgehead and bulwark in the Middle East.

Damascus is an important ally of Iran and irreconcilable enemy of Israel. It goes without saying that appearance of the Russian military base in the region will certainly introduce corrections into the existing correlation of forces.

Russia is taking the Syrian regime under its protection. It will almost certainly sour Moscow’s relations with Israel. It may even encourage the Iranian regime nearby and make it even less tractable in the nuclear program talks.( Ivan Safronov, Russia to defend its principal Middle East ally: Moscow takes Syria under its protection, Global Research July 28, 2006)

World War III Scenario

For the last five years, the Middle East-Central Asian region has been on an active war footing.

Syria has significant air defense capabilities as well as ground forces.

Syria has been building up its air defense system with the delivery of Russian Pantsir S1 air-defense missiles. In 2010, Russia delivered a Yakhont missile system to Syria. The Yakhont operating out of Russia’s Tartus naval base “are designed for engagement of enemy’s ships at the range of up to 300 km”. (Bastion missile systems to protect Russian naval base in Syria, Ria Novosti,  September 21, 2010).

The structure of military alliances respectively on the US-NATO and Syria-Iran-SCO sides, not to mention the military involvement of Israel, the complex relationship between Syria and Lebanon, the pressures exerted by Turkey on Syria’s northern border, point indelibly to a dangerous process of escalation.

Any form of US-NATO sponsored military intervention directed against Syria would destabilize the entire region, potentially leading to escalation over a vast geographical area, extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Tajikistan and China.

In the short run, with the war in Libya, the US-NATO military alliance is overextended in terms of its capabilities. While we do not forsee the implementation of a US-NATO military operation in the short-term, the process of political destabilization through the covert support of a rebel insurgency will in all likelihood continue.

This article was updated on August 11, 2011.

Many of the issues raised in the above article are analyzed in detail in Michel Chossudovsky’s 2011 book:

Towards a World War Three Scenario, The Dangers of Nuclear War
Michel Chossudovsky 

For further details click here

Order your copy of this important new book from Global Research here

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

A New War Theater in North Africa
Operation Odyssey Dawn
Nuclear Weapons against Libya? How Real is the Threat?
America’s Long War: The Global Military Agenda
How to Reverse the Tide of War
World War III Scenario
Acknowledgments

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

The Cult of Killing and Destruction
America’s Mini-nukes
War and the Economic Crisis
Real versus Fake Crises

CHAPTER II: THE DANGERS OF NUCLEAR WAR

Hiroshima Day 2003: Secret Meeting at Strategic Command Headquarters
The Privatization of Nuclear War: US Military Contractors Set the Stage
9/11 Military Doctrine: Nuclear Weapons and the “Global War on Terrorism”
Al Qaeda: “Upcoming Nuclear Power”
Obama’s Nuclear Doctrine: The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review
Post 9/11 Nuclear Doctrine
“Defensive” and “Offensive” Actions
“Integration” of Nuclear and Conventional Weapons Plans
Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)
Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran
Global Warfare: The Role of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization
Israel’s Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons
The Role of Western Europe
Germany: De Facto Nuclear Power
Pre-emptive Nuclear War: NATO’s 2010 Strategic Concept
The World is at a Critical Crossroads

CHAPTER III: AMERICA’S HOLY CRUSADE AND THE BATTLE FOR OIL

America’s Crusade in Central Asia and the Middle East
“Homegrown Terrorists”
The American Inquisition
Washington’s Extrajudicial Assassination Program
The Battle for Oil
The Oil Lies in Muslim Lands
Globalization and the Conquest of the World’s Energy Resources

CHAPTER IV: PREPARING FOR WORLD WAR THREE

Media Disinformation
A “Pre-emptive” Aerial Attack Directed Against Iran would Lead to Escalation
Global Warfare
US “Military Aid”
The Timetable of Military Stockpiling and Deployment
World War III Scenario
The United Nations Security Council
The American Inquisition: Building a Political Consensus for War

CHAPTER V: TARGETING IRAN WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Building a Pretext for a Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack
“Theater Iran Near Term”
The Military Road Map: “First Iraq, then Iran”
Simulated Scenarios of a Global War: The Vigilant Shield 07 War Games
The Role of Israel
Cheney: “Israel Might Do it Without Being Asked”
US Israel Military Coordination
Tactical Nuclear Weapons directed against Iran
Radioactive Fallout
“The Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Slated to be Used Against Iran
Extensive Destruction of Iran’s Infrastructure
State of the Art Weaponry: “War Made Possible Through New Technologies”
Electromagnetic Weapons
Iran’s Military Capabilities: Medium and Long Range Missiles
Iran’s Ground Forces
US Military and Allied Facilities Surrounding Iran

CHAPTER VI: REVERSING THE TIDE OF WAR

Revealing the Lie
The Existing Anti-War Movement
Manufacturing Dissent
Jus ad Bellum: 9/11 and the Invasions of Yugoslavia and Afghanistan
Fake Antiwar Activism: Heralding Iran as a Nuclear Threat
The Road Ahead
The Antiwar Movement within the State Structure and the Military
Abandon the Battlefield: Refuse to Fight
The Broader Peace Process
What has to be Achieved

Order your copy of this important new book from Global Research here

 

In the G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany on July 7-8, Donald Trump stands in an awkward position as he meets for the very first time Vladimir Putin.  He also gets the chance to confront Angela Merkel who previously announced strong political and economic ties with China, another powerful opponent of the US. Will this conference result to a peaceful settlement to all unrelenting differences or will it just fan the flame of animosity and indifference? Read our compilation below.

US President Donald Trump set the tone for a summit of bitter and open confrontation by preceding his arrival in Germany with a trip to Poland, which has been sharply at odds with Germany’s rise as the new hegemon in Europe. (Bill Van Auken)

*     *     *

The G20: Is the West Governed by Psychopaths?

By Peter Koenig, July 08, 2017

 “Welcome to Hell!” is the slogan with which G20 protesters greet the self-appointed leaders of the world to their summit on 7 and 8 July 2017 in Hamburg, Germany, under Madame Merkel’s auspices to discuss the calamities of our globe and how to resolve them. Never mind that the distress of Mother Earth has been mostly caused by those who represent the West, and now pretend to fix it.

Breaking, Video: Trump Meets Putin at G20, Ceasefire in Syria is Announced

By Global Research News, July 08, 2017

Putin’s Assessment of Trump at the G-20 Will Determine Our Future

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 07, 2017

The backdrops to the Putin/Trump meeting are the aspirations of Israel and the neoconservatives. It is these aspirations that drive US foreign policy.

Geostrategic Insights Into the Joint Polish-Croatian “Three Seas Initiative”

By Andrew Korybko, July 07, 2017

The joint Polish-Croatian initiative aims to bring together three distinct blocs of countries occupying the strategic space between several of Europe’s seas, which will ultimately work out to the US and China’s benefit while negatively impacting on Russia and the EU..

Trump Speech in Poland Fans Conflict with Germany, Russia

By Patrick Martin, July 07, 2017

The most important passages in the speech, drafted for Trump by his foreign policy team and delivered without any obvious deviations, declared sympathy for the plight of Poland, trapped geographically between more powerful nations, Germany and Russia, sometimes partitioned or overrun by them.

*     *     *

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 Wikimedia Commons

 “Welcome to Hell!” is the slogan with which G20 protesters greet the self-appointed leaders of the world to their summit on 7 and 8 July 2017 in Hamburg, Germany, under Madame Merkel’s auspices to discuss the calamities of our globe and how to resolve them. Never mind that the distress of Mother Earth has been mostly caused by those who represent the West, and now pretend to fix it.

How utterly arrogant – and hypocritical!

In the wake of the summit, police were beating on aggressively against the demonstrators, most of them peaceful, unarmed; but some of them violent and hooded, as old tradition dictates, so they will not be recognized as police themselves or patsies of the police. Many people were hurt, several to the point of hospitalization. And the meeting just began.

At the onset of the summit, Donald the Trump, the chief-psychopath, is running amok declaring with echo, “America First”- “America First” – trying to justify his decision for the US to quit the Paris Climate Accords. In a cheap attempt to hit Russia under the belt, he offered Europe gas sales, so Europe would no longer be ‘hostage’ to Russia. How arrogant, again. The Donald doesn’t seem to have a clue what he is doing, other than thinking the world is his puppet. By far most Europeans rather buy hydrocarbons from Russia than being in the bloody and ruthless claws of the United States of America – and those dark forces that pull the strings behind Washington.

It remains to be seen to what extent the psychopath-in-chief will have his European, Australian and Canadian vassal-psychopaths lined up and dancing to his tune.

Before the summit, ‘informal’ talks between the odd couple, Donald Trump and Angela Merkel, took place. They apparently focused on North Korea, Syria, and Ukraine — all countries where the US is intent to destabilize and push for ‘regime change’ – the sort of interference in sovereign nations’ affairs Trump promised during his campaign he would abandon as President. The dark one-eyed Masters didn’t allow it. And he isn’t man enough to stand up for what he was elected. Well, let’s face it – he could lose his job, or worse.

Nobody has elected the G20, nor the G7. ‘G’ stands for Grand or Great. That’s how they see themselves. Everybody takes them for granted, the self-appointed megalos. Nobody seems to question their legitimacy. People only protest against what they stand for. That the G20 are sidelining the official body, the United Nations, is of no concern. Perhaps, because the UN has itself become a puppet of the invisible Masters, manipulated by their executioners, the US of A. So, has any international court that otherwise could hold them accountable for the crimes they committed over the century, or longer and keep committing. The G7, embedded in the G20, are the aggressing driving force for wars, destruction, merciless killing and perpetual chaos.

The G7 – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and the US – all western nations (Japan follows the western game plan), are also the main creators of terrorism. They fund, feed, train and arm such reputed Islamic terror groups as ISIS / IS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra – and others that fit the model of their war strategy (sic) of the moment.

Yet, it just emerged – would you believe – that the number one item on the rather fuzzy Hamburg agenda was fighting worldwide terrorism. How hypocritical: you create them, fund them, and you fight them. Lying to the people. How much longer will they swallow the lie?

This reminds of the prominent former German Chancellor, Helmut Schmidt’s words, shortly before his death, in an interview on terrorism to the German paper “Die Zeit”, on 30 August 2007: “I suspect that all terrorists, whether they represent the German RAF, the Italian Brigate Rosse, the French, the Irish, Spanish or Arabs, are relatively modest in their disdain for humanity. They are largely surpassed by certain forms of state terrorism.” – When the journalist asked back, „Are you serious? Whom are you referring to?” Schmidt: ”Let’s leave it at that. I really mean what I say“

(http://www.zeit.de/2007/36/Interview-Helmut-Schmidt/seite-7 – in German).

Only western megalo-psychopaths could have thought of ‘creating’, of nominating themselves into an alliance, of which the ultimate goal is to forge a New World Order (NWO), at times also called, One World Order, referring to an unspoken One Anglo-Zionist Government. That’s where we are headed; towards military oppression and financial subjugation of a small Zionist-headed financial and military elite.

It’s still time to wake up, to take our lives into our own hands, shed the mainstream propaganda and blood-thirsty lie-media, ignore them; get out from under the fraudulent privately owned fake dollar monetary system.

There are alternatives available. We have to see them, then choose them. It is up to us to let go of the ever oppressing west. But each one of us, has to see the light, the little spark, that tells him or her – that there is something drastically wrong with the life we live, have been living for the last hundred years, that peace is just around the corner, but we have been duped into wars, after wars, after bloody conflict – and wars again. We are dozed with the idea that conflict and aggression is the Big Normal, as it is always inspired and provoked by ‘others’ – mostly by the east. Yes, we believe it. It’s comfortable, and it would be inconvenient having to admit that we have been living a lie – a blatant lie all or most of our lives. Admitting it, and standing up for justice, would be saving ourselves and civilization – maybe even humanity.

What and who are these G20?

They are the G7 enlarged and disguised in their evil intentions, by 13 other economic power brokers, also often referred to as “threshold countries”, including Russia, China, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa, Australia, South Korea, Turkey and the EU. Spain is a permanent observer. Of course, the (western) world’s key financial enablers and political institutions, like the IMF, World Bank, Federal Reserve and the UN with its regional sub-hubs, are not missing in Hamburg.

The G20 control two thirds of the world population, 90% of the globe’s economic output and 80% of world trade. Their agenda in Hamburg is semi-secret, except for the items that might interest the populace at large, like fighting terrorism. But certainly, under the guise of ‘security and terrorism’, they will also discuss, led by the Trump team, how to subdue renegades, such as Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia and, of course, the eastern most link of the new axis of evil, North Korea. Fortunately, there are Russia and China at the table, and Trump with all his arrogance, may have to watch out for not becoming the laughing stock of the summit.

NATO, economy and terrorism go hand-in-hand. Without terror no wars. Without wars no production of weapons, and without military-security industrial complex, the western world’s economy has reached a dead-end. The US depends for more than 50% of its economic output on the war and security machinery with its associated services. Europe, if she continues her status as a US vassal, will in no time march along the same footsteps. Hence, terrorism is a must. Peace is a no-go.

Soon NATO forces facing the Koreas? – Why not. NATO sounds good; the alliance of the willing – led by Washington, hiding behind the NATO emblem. In the land of the lawless, impunity is borderless.

Did you know, that at the opposite end of the globe, Washington’s foremost neocon vassal, the President of Colombia, has asked NATO for support in the fight against ‘delinquency’ – i.e. the FARC, with whom they signed a fake, make-the-world-believe peace agreement, largely disarmed them as part of the deal, and now FARC has been tricked. President Santos (the Peace Nobel – sounds like Obama and Kissinger!), and his Washington Masters want to completely wipe out that important peasant movement, the only resistance against the US supremacy over their land, and against Washington’s continuous support of the drug cartels.

Never mind that NATO has nothing to do with South America, or with Asia, or the Middle East, for that matter. The atrocious NATO killing machine will do their work in the process of subjugation anywhere in the world, while most people just close their eyes and ears, and remain mute. As the illegitimate G20 and G7 – NATO is just taken for granted. But be aware – it’s a criminal institution made for killing societies and subordinating sovereign nations. Washington’s current plan is controlling Russia, via NATO’s eastern European border aggressions, and China, by constantly provoking and threatening North Korea’s sovereignty.

That’s why the G20 will not miss talking about NATO prerogatives in war and conflict resolutions and, of course, in fighting terrorism. Surely, Russia and China will not fall for it.

After debating supportive mechanisms like wars and the lie-propaganda – Goebbels would be proud – economy and finance will have center stage. How to speed up financial globalization to attain in the shortest span of time ’Full Spectrum financial and monetary Dominance’? – The western economy is running on empty – its main thriving force is greed and instant profit by a few. Privatization of all state assets is part of the final run. The people are left behind. The people, the lot that needs to consume to fulfill for an ever-tinier elite the abject target of greed for ‘more and more’, the insatiable appetite. These people will soon vegetate in a sucked-dry space, robbed of social infrastructure and welfare.

What’s left is the enslavement by debt. To survive, people may commit to the ‘debt-row’, gradually converting into the death-row. As un-behaving countries are forced to do – swallowing debt against being fed minimal rations for survival. Greece is the epitome of this razors-sharp knife that slashed throats as well as the last goblet of the lifeline to survival. Solidarity is nowhere.

The dying beast is lashing out, right and left and above and beneath. It is desperate; itself on death-row, but if it must die, then dying we must all – the deadly grip of the rabies-diseased dog that won’t let go. And won’t let go. And won’t let go to the last minute – or until death reigns over us all. That’s the risk we are running. A nuclear holocaust where, as Mr. Putin said already on a number of occasions, nobody will survive. The G20 know it.

But never forget – whatever the G20 do and decide is without legitimacy, as they themselves are not legitimate. The police in Hamburg has no right to suppress a movement against the illegitimate power of insane dictators that formed a conglomerate of illegitimate gangsters.

The oppressive police in Hamburg, ordered by Merkel, to suppress dissent, is but a forewarning for what is to come when Europe is being fully militarized. For those who are not aware, there is currently a ‘ghost town’ being built by the Bundeswehr in collaboration with NATO, for hundreds of millions of euros, in one of Germany’s most modern military training camps, in Sachsen-Anhalt, not far from Hamburg. Starting in 2018, the artificial town will be ready for training NATO and EU military forces for urban warfare, to suppress possible upheavals and protests in the wake of neofascist economic measures – à la Greece – being forced upon Europe. Merkel and the NATO ‘leaders’ (sic) predict that the people may not just take it.

Therefore, the preparation to suppress possible dissent in European cities. Police and military will not shy away from killing their own brothers. We are witnessing how this is done, and has been done for the last seven years to an entire nation – beautiful Greece, the land that has given us the philosophers, mathematicians and scientists we still laud and admire – and the true concept of democracy which the west has used and abused for its trickery and deceit. Today, what’s left is a pipe-dream; and a powerful slogan being used by the most undemocratic tyrannical nation and her vassals to accuse those who do not bend to their dictate.

The G20s are playing the game as long as they are allowed to. Most of them are aware that it may be their end-game, that the future is in the East, that the West is passé, that it is just a matter of time before the West completes its suicide with greed, aggression and lies.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. 

 

“Alberta and Big Oil are on the wrong side of history. They are betting that the age of carbon fuels will continue for decades. That is unlikely. Alberta must now join the international transition to a low carbon future, or be left behind in a fossil fuel backwater of abandoned oil wells and tar ponds that resemble US rust belt states and coal states.” – Gordon Laxer (June 2016)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Discourse around Canada’s fossil fuel energy reserves typically centres around the environmental hazards associated with such projects, specifically, climate impacts and the hazards associated with pipeline spills and breakages.

Less common is a conversation about the ramifications of continued reliance on such resources from the standpoint of political economy.

Gordon Laxer has made the point that Canada, a supposed ‘energy super-power’ continues to import a third of its oil, that it has no strategic energy reserves in case of shortage, and that big-moneyed interests and corporate trade deals like NAFTA favour satisfying the US market over what makes sense for a cold northern country.

On this special summer edition of the Global Research News Hour, we explore how Canada can not only satisfy its commitments under the Paris Accord and other international climate agreements, but also secure its own energy security without long term costs to the Canadian economy as the world makes the inevitable transition away from carbon-based fossil fuels.

This week’s show consists of a single speech he gave at Winnipeg’s downtown Millenium Library on June 1, 2016.

Gordon Laxer is a Political Economist and professor Emeritus at the University of Alberta. He is the founding Director and former head of the university’s Parkland Institute, a non-corporate research institute that does public policy research to serve the public interest . He is the author of several books, including Open for Business: The Roots of Foreign Ownership in Canada ( Oxford Univ Press 1989) as well as After the Sands. Energy and Ecological Security for Canadians (Douglas & Mcintyre 2015). His Winnipeg talk was sponsored by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Manitoba Office.

NAFTA Renegotiation

For the first time in nearly a quarter of a century, the terms of the North American Free trade Agreement (NAFTA) will be subject to renegotiation with Canada’s partners, the United States and Mexico. The Canadian government is soliciting advise on what the public would like to see in a renegotiated NAFTA.

Gordon Laxer’s main beef with the NAFTA, as explained in his speech, is the energy proportionality clause which compels Canada to continue exporting its resources to the US, even in times of shortages. (Neither the US nor Mexico agreed to such a constraint on their energy security!)

If listeners/readers wish to offer their feedback, they can fill out the on-line form at this link…

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/consultations/nafta-alena/form-formulaire.aspx?lang=eng

The deadline for Canadians citizens to offer their written feedback is July 18th 2017.

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

The following video includes the opening statements of president Trump and president Putin in the presence of the media. A meeting prior to the press briefing had been held.

The remainder of the meeting was held behind closed doors.

President of the United States of America Donald Trump: Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

President Putin and I have been discussing various things, and I think it’s going very well. We’ve had some very, very good talks. We’re going to have a talk now, and obviously that will continue. But we look forward to a lot of very positive things happening for Russia, for the United States, and for everybody concerned. And it’s an honour to be with you. Thank you.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr President,

We have talked on the phone about vital bilateral and international issues several times but, of course, telephone conversations are not enough.

If we want to find positive solutions to bilateral issues and the most important and urgent international problems, such meetings in person are essential.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

…

In the wake of the Trump-Putin Meeting, a ceasefire in Syria was announced.

The cease-fire is slated to go into effect on Sunday noon Damascus time.

On Thursday, Iraqi security forces (ISF), backed up by the US-led coalition, successfully advanced al-Shahwan district in the Old Mosul area in western Mosul and de-facto reached the Tigris River. The goal was to separate ISIS units and to accelerate the collapse of the terrorist group’s defense in the area.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi Federal Police seized an ISIS training center known as ‘Abu Massoud camp’ at al-Bouseif village, south of Mosul. The camp was located 10 meters under the ground and extended along 1,500 meters.

ISIS temporarily cut off the Sharqat-Qayara road south of Mosul after an attack on the positions of Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) there. Five PMU fighters were allegedly killed. The terrorist group also captured a Humvee and a T-72 tank.

Late on Thursday and early on Friday, reports started appearing in social media and pro-government media outlets that ISF have fully liberated the city of Mosul from ISIS. However, no official announcement confirming these allegations has appeared so far. The security situation in western Mosul, including the recently liberated areas of Old Mosul, as well as in eastern Mosul are very complicated. Earlier this week, the Iraqi military said that it had info about at least 100 ISIS suicide bombers operating in Mosul.

Thus, even if the Iraqi military officially declares the victory over ISIS in the city, there will be a lot of work to neutralize remaining ISIS sleeper cells and raid units.

Nonetheless, the formal victory in Mosul will be a major blow to ISIS in Iraq and Syria and will be another important step in liberating the remaining areas controlled by terrorists.

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

The backdrops to the Putin/Trump meeting are the aspirations of Israel and the neoconservatives. It is these aspirations that drive US foreign policy.

What is Syria about? Why is Washington so focused on overthrowing the elected president of Syria? What explains the sudden 21st century appearance of “the Muslim threat”? How is Washington’s preoccupation with “the Muslim threat” consistent with Washington’s wars against Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad, leaders who suppressed jihadism? What explains the sudden appearance of “the Russian threat” which has been hyped into dangerous Russophobia without any basis in fact?

The Muslim threat, the Russian threat, and the lies used to destroy Iraq, Libya, and parts of Syria are all orchestrations to serve Israeli and neoconservative aspirations.

The Israel Lobby in the United States, perhaps most strongly represented in Commentary, The Weekly Standard and The New York Times, used the Septemer 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon to urge US President George W. Bush to begin “a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from Power in Iraq.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century 
See also: http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml

Saddam Hussein was a secular leader whose job was to sit on the anomosities of the Sunni and Shia and maintain a non-violent political stability in Iraq. He, Assad, and Gaddafi suppressed the extremism that leads to jihadism. Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, and under his rule Iraq constituted a ZERO threat to the US. He had been a faithful vassal and attacked Iran for Washington, which had hopes of using Iraq to overthrow the Iranian government.

Removing secular leaders is what unleashes jihadism. Washington unleashed Muslim terrorism by regime change that murdered secular leaders and left countries in chaos.

Fomenting chaos in Iraq was the beginning for spreading chaos into Syria and then Iran. Syria and Iran support Hezbollah, the militia in southern Lebanon that has twice driven out the Israeli Army sent in to occupy southern Lebanon so that Israel could appropriate the water resources.

The neoconservatives’ wars against the Middle East serve to remove the governments that provide military and financial support to Hezbollah. By spreading jihadism closer to the Russian Federation, these wars coincide perfectly with the US neoconservative policy of US World Hegemony. As expressed by Paul Wolfowitz, US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

Israel wants Syria and Iran to join Iraq and Libya in American-induced chaos so that Israel can steal the water in southern Lebanon. If Syria and Iran are in chaos like Iraq and Libya, Hezbollah will not have the military and financial support to withstand the Israeli military.

The neoconservatives have broader aims than Israel’s. The neoconservatives want Syria and Iran in jihadist turmoil so that the neoconservatives can send jihadism into the Russian Federation and into China. China has a Muslim province that borders Kazakhstan. By causing internal problems for Russia and China, the neoconservatives can reduce Russia and China’s abilities to hinder US unilateralism.

That is what Syria is about. It is not about anything else.

The “Muslim threat” appeared suddenly with the 9/11 attack on the WTC and Pentagon. The attack was instantly blamed on Muslims. Although the US government maintained that it had no idea that such an attack was in the works, the US government knew instantly who did it. Quite clearly, it is impossible to know instantly who did an attack about which the government had no idea. In what has become the hallmark of every “terrorist attack,” IDs left at the scene conveniently identified the “terrorists.”

There are now 3,000 architects and engineers who put their reputation on the line by challenging the official story of the collapse of the WTC buildings. According to all known science, the official explanation of the destruction of the 3 highrise WTC buildings is strickly impossible. There is endless evidence online provided not by ignorant presstitutes, conspiracy theorists, and lying politicians, but by real experts. Just go to the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website, to the Firefighters and First responders for 9/11 Truth website, to the Pilots for 9/11 Truth website. Research what some foreign government officials have to say about the absurd story told by the US government. That any percentage of the US population believes the obvious false official 9/11 story is proof of the total failure of education in America. Much of the population is incapable of thought. People simply accept whatever the government tells them regardless of the absurdity of the explanation.

Where did the alleged “Muslim threat” come from? What produced it? 9/11 happened before Washington destroyed in whole or part seven Muslim countries, killing, maiming, orphaning, and displacing millions of Muslims who are now overrunning Washington’s vassal states in Europe. Such wars on innocents could produce terrorists, but 9/11 was prior to Washington’s wars against Muslims.

Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were Washington’s allies against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda most certainly did not have the inside information and inside connections to outwit all 17 US intelligence agencies, the National Security Council, all intelligence agencies of Washington’s NATO vassals and Mossad, and airport security four times in the same hour on the same morning.

Moreover, in the last video attributed to bin Laden by independent experts, bin Laden said he had no motive for any such attack and had nothing to do with it. Generally speaking, real terrorists claim responsibility whether they did it or not in order to build the movement by showing its capability. It makes no sense that “the mastermind” allegedly determined to overthrow the West would disavow the greatest humiliation ever inflicted on a major power. The United States was completely humiliated by its impotence against a handful of Muslims with nothing but box cutters. This humiliation is a world record that will stand forever. It is impossible that the alleged terrorist, bin Laden, would repudiate such an accomplishment.

This fact alone proves that Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

Anyone who believes the official 9/11 story, like anyone who believes Oswald killed JFK, like anyone who still believes that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and Al-Qaeda connections, that Assad used chemical weapons, who believes the Gulf of Tonkin lie, who believes that Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK, that Russia invaded Ukraine, etc., is too far gone to ever be rescued from The Matrix in which they live.

I do not know if the insouciance and gullibility of peoples in the West extends into Latin American, Africa, and Asia. Some of the people in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia, whose governments are slated for regime change by Washington, must be aware that they are not in control of their own fate. But how widely spread is awareness of Washington’s lust for world hegemony? The only signs of awareness are the initial and limited agreements between Russia and China.

To this day, not a single European government has made the connection between Washington’s wars, supported by Europe, and the millions of refugees from Washington’s wars that are overrunning Europe, intent on collecting welfare from European peoples while raping European women. We hear all sorts of complaints about the refugees, but never is a connection made between the refugees and Washington’s European supported wars.

Washington so successfully portrayed itself during the Cold War as peace, justice, and truth astriding the white horse that the world cannot see Satan sitting in the saddle.

Now that Washington’s 16 years of inhumane war against Muslim populations have destroyed the lives of millions of peoples, why aren’t there 9/11s every day? Instead are there only a few alleged terror attacks carried out by individuals, which appear to many to be orchestrated false flag events, such as individuals running over people with trucks in France and England, shooting up a French deli and magazine office. But nothing in the US, “the Great Satan.” Very suspicious.

The orchestrated event of 9/11 was the neoconservative’s “New Pearl Harbor” that provided the excuse for wars that advanced their purpose and Israel’s. It was the neoconservatives themselves who said that they needed a “new Pearl Harbor” in order to begin their wars in the Middle East.

Why don’t Americans and Europeans know this? The answer is because the US and Europe do not have independent medias. They have presstitutes.

Washington created “the Russian threat” when the Obama regime’s frameup of Assad on his alleged use of chemical weapons failed. The UK PM David Cameron pledged Great Britain’s cover for Washington’s invasion of Syria, but the UK Parliament voted no. No more UK coverups for Washington’s war crimes, said the Parliament. Russia stepped in and said, no need for more war. We have an agreement with Syria. We are going to collect all chemical weapons and turn them over to the US for destruction. The US is probably using these chemical weapons turned over by naive Russians for the false flag chemical attacks in Syria.

Stymied in their war aims against Syria, the neoconservatives turned with fury against Russia. How dare the insignificant Russians get in the way of the exceptional, indispensable people! We will teach Russians a lesson! Washington unleashed on the democratically elected government of Ukraine the US-financed NGOs in the amount of $5 billion according to Assistant Secretary of State neoconservative Victoria Nuland.

Not realizing its vulnerability, Russia was focused on the Sochi Olympics and suddenly found that Ukraine had undergone a US coup and was committing violence against the Russian populations in Ukraine. Previously in history Soviet leaders had assigned Russia provinces to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the USSR. These Russians faced with violence by the neo-Nazi government installed in Kiev by Washington demanded to be reunited with Russia from whence they had come.

Russia agreed to take back Crimea because of the Russian Black Sea Naval Base, but refused the other Russian areas, Donetsk and Luhansk. Hoping against all rationality to convince Europe that Russia was non-aggresive, Russia refused the Russian breakaway republics and left them to the mercy of the Kiev neo-Nazis that continue to attack them in violation of the agreements.

The Russian government’s tolerance for provocations and insults makes the Russian government look like a weakling to the American neoconservatives, who continue to demonize Russia and its president and to press for more sanctions and more bases on Russia’s borders. Prior to his meeting with Putin, Trump, according to the BBC, called “on Russia to stop ‘destabilising’ Ukraine and other countries, and ‘join the community of responsible nations.’” How is that for standing truth on its head?

The Russian desire for Western acceptance could end up compromising Russia’s sovereignty. Washington is figuring out how much sovereignty Russia will give up in exchange for being granted acceptance by the West.

The Russians are also endangered by their belief that Muslim terrorism is a world threat. It is a delusion for the Russian government to think they can reach an agreement with Washington to fight terrorism jointly. The Russians simply cannot accept that terrorism is Washington’s weapon directed against them.

The only reason Muslim terrorism exists is that Washington created it. Washington first used jihadism against the Soviet army in Afghanistan. Then against Gaddafi in Libya. Then when Obama’s plan to invade Syria on the trumped-up chemical weapons charge was blocked by the UK Parliament and Russia, Obama sent ISIS to overthrow Assad. General Flynn, who was the director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency stated this matter-of-factly on Al Jazeera. Flynn said it was a “willful decision” of the Obama administration to send ISIS to overthrow Assad. This is why Russia’s hopes of a common front against ISIS never made any sense.

Jihadism is Washington’s best weapon with which to destabilize Russia. Why would Washington help Russia to defeat this weapon?

There is so much fake news and disinformation spread in the Western media that it even affects the Russians, perhaps even the Chinese.

Even Western analysts who reject the official Syria story still buy into the lie that Assad is a dictator.

When Putin meets with Trump, Putin will have to assess whether Trump is a real president or just another front man for the powerful interest groups that run Washington’s empire.

If Putin concludes that Trump is merely a front man, then Putin has no alternative but to prepare for war.

Featured image from Quora

Featured image: Dubrovnik Forum 2016 – the three seas initiative (Source: The Dubrovnik Times)

The joint Polish-Croatian initiative aims to bring together three distinct blocs of countries occupying the strategic space between several of Europe’s seas, which will ultimately work out to the US and China’s benefit while negatively impacting on Russia and the EU.

President Trump was just in Poland to participate in this year’s Three Seas Summit, which is essentially the 21^st-century revival of the “Intermarium” proposal advanced by Poland’s interwar strongman Josef Piłsudski. This initiative sought to position Warsaw as the regional hegemon between the Baltic and Black Seas and essentially restore the geopolitical contours of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth under the guise of “countering communism”. It never got too far off the ground, but its legacy continued to influence Polish strategic thinking into the modern day, which is why Poland decided to expand its present scope to include the Adriatic after joining forces with Croatia last year to unveil the Three Seas Initiative.

The American leader’s presence at this year’s event was hugely symbolic because of the Euro-Realist (smeared by the Mainstream Media as “Euroskeptic”) overtones of the gathering, which are also in line with the President’s own ideology toward the bloc. In addition, it’s popularly accepted that the neoconservative faction of the American “deep state” (it’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies) are exerting heavy influence on Trump’s policies towards Moscow, so they’d be delighted to see the formation of what they hope could someday become just as anti-Russian of a bloc as the original Intermarium that Piłsudski conceived of.

That might not necessarily be the case this time around for a variety of reasons that will be explained in this article, though there’s no denying that the US has an interest in turning this reconstructed strategic entity into its battering ram for dividing the EU and Russia, as well as more effectively adapting its continental geopolitics to take advantage of the contradiction between “New Europe’s” conservatism and “Old Europe’s” liberalism in the Age of New Populism. Let’s take a look at the three preexisting blocs which are consolidating through the Three Seas Initiative, the drivers and limitations to their strategic integration, and a forecast about the geopolitical consequences of the 21^st-century Intermarium in the context of the New Cold War.

Three Blocs Becoming One

The Three Seas Initiative is really all about three blocs pooling their collective political and economic resources together in order to strategically manage their shared interests throughout the present period of global transition. These regional structures are formed more or less along the lines of what the author forecasted in an article for The Duran last year titled “Post-Brexit EU: Between Regional Breakdown and Full-Blown Dictatorship”, albeit with some geopolitical modifications. Here are the three blocs that are coming together under the 21^st-century Intermarium:

The Neo-Commonwealth:

Poland has taken the lead in marshalling its former Lithuanian underlining and the other two Baltic States of Latvia and Estonia on an anti-Russian crusade under Warsaw’s aegis, representing an amended version of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of yore which is just as strongly directed against Moscow as its predecessor was.

Austria-Hungary:

Although no longer the “Dual Monarchy”, the twin Central European power centers of Vienna and Budapest still hold considerable influence over most of their former domain in modern-day Croatia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Slovenia, which are more “balanced” than the Neo-Commonwealth is regarding Russia and have actually remained Moscow’s pragmatic partners despite the “sanctions war”.

The Black Sea Bloc:

Romania and Bulgaria are equally beholden to the EU and Russia for different economic reasons, the former for aid and the latter for energy, though their NATO membership has made them anti-Russian while their disagreements with the EU’s austerity measures and social liberalism have turned their people against Brussels.

Drivers And Limitations

The strategic integration of the Three Seas states is driven by two overriding factors, but it’s also limited by two others, too:

Pickle In The Middle:

Most of the members of the 21^st-century Intermarium are motivated by differing degrees of opposition to the EU and/or Russia, though two countries importantly play the role of balancers by having a relatively neutral position towards both:

*Anti-EU

Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia are opposed to the EU in its current form because of its authoritarianism in enforcing liberal social values and demanding that its members accept the resettlement of what Ivy League researcher Kelly M. Greenhill termed as “Weapons of Mass Migration”.

*Anti-Russian

Poland and the Baltic States vehemently hate Russia because of historical reasons and the present-day fake news narrative being propagated about the country, both of which often manifest themselves in these countries’ political discourses as outright Russophobia.

*Balkans

The Balkan countries of Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania aren’t motivated to join the Three Seas Initiative by any deep-seated anti-EU or anti-Russian sentiments, but they nevertheless feel a degree of animosity towards both which makes them compatible with the other members of this group.

*Balancers

Austria and Slovenia retain high-level and constructive ties with both the EU and Russia, which makes them best-suited for “balancing” between the two sides, and they mostly joined the Three Seas Initiative for the geopolitical reason of integrating with their neighbors in the European Heartland.

Wheeling And Dealing:

The Three Seas Initiative is a useful platform because it gives its members what they believe to be abetter chance for reachingadvantageous arrangements with the four most important Great Powers:

*The EU – Governance

The objective here is to press Brussels to decentralize and democratize, thereby allowing regional blocs (whether as the 21^st-century Intermarium or its three constituent parts) the right to determine their own social and immigration policies.

*Russia – Energy

It’ll be difficult to pull off given the lack of coordination between its members and some of their radically different approaches to Russia, but it would be to the collective self-interest of these states to multilaterally negotiate with Moscow for even lower energy prices than they already presently receive.

*US – Military

All of the 21^st-century Intermarium’s members except for Austria are part of NATO, and the most anti-Russian of them (erroneously) believe that they can exploit the Mainstream Media’s fake narrative about Moscow to receive better military deals from the US after they boost their defense expenditures.

*China – Investment

Every one of the Three Seas Initiative states aside from Austria is a member of the “16+1” cooperation mechanism with China aimed at clinching New Silk Road investments in this part of Europe, which include the Budapest-Piraeus railway that could one day possibly be expanded to Warsaw and Riga.

***

Fellow Travelers:

As the aphorism goes, “the journey is more important than the destination”, and the same logic applies to the members of the Three Seas Initiative as well.

It’s theoretically possible for them to indefinitely retain a ‘quadrilateral balance’ between the aforementioned Great Powers that they want to ‘wheel and deal’ with, but their enthusiasm to do so could markedly fade if they achieve their governance objectives with the EU or begin taking any other ones for granted.

The 21^st-century Intermarium will stay together as long as each of its members are “fellow travelers”, but they might part ways upon reaching their destinations.

Fault Lines:

There are no safeguards other than goodwill and the temporary convergence of overall shared interests to prevent any of the three constituent blocs making up the 21^st-century Intermarium from politically sparring with one another over territory, resources, and leadership.

Although they form different components of the same Western Civilization, the fault lines between and within some of them might preclude prolonged and sustained cooperation, especially as it relates to the distrust that Slovaks and Romanians have for Hungarians, or Lithuanians have for Poles.

Moreover, European fault lines exist beyond the regional blocs that are participating in the Three Seas Initiative, so competition between such groupings as the Swedish-led “Viking Bloc” and Poland’s Neo-Commonwealth over Latvia and Estonia, for example, could create further organizational problems.

Looking Forward

The 21^st-century Intermarium has a decent chance of achieving its objectives vis-à-vis the EU, especially given the Trump Administration’s support of the group’s Euro-Realism, but is less likely to get what it wants from Russia owing to the differing sets of relations that each member has with Moscow.

President Donald Trump Gives an AMAZING SPEECH at Three Seas Initiative Summit w/ Andrzej Duda, July 6, 2017 (Source: whitehouse.gov)

While the US’ prospective LNG shipments to Poland and Croatia won’t ever replace Russian resources, Washington can still negatively affect Moscow’s interests by dumping costly and outdated military wares in Poland and the Baltic States and tightening the operational coordination between all of the Three Seas Initiatives’ members.

On the economic front, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity is expected to succeed in promoting the integration of this 12-member network, which forms most of the 16+1 cooperation mechanism that’s already been in place for a few years.

If the 21^st-century Intermarium can force the EU into decentralization concessions, then China won’t have to worry as much about its investments being held hostage by the political exploitation of regulatory and environmental legislation. This could lead to a surge of Chinese soft power which helps multipolar forces counteract some of the prevailing unipolar influence being wielded over the European Heartland by the US.

Taking all of that into account, observers shouldn’t be under any false impressions because the 21^st-century Intermarium only exudes an illusion of geopolitical independence, though the reality is a lot more complicated.

The emerging bloc is militarily unipolar, economically multipolar, and utterly confused about its energy policy. There’s close to no chance that the member states of the Three Seas Initiative will ever politically integrate with one another, but the US is greatly fostering their military integration while China is doing the same with their economic one.

All things considered, Central and Eastern Europe arequickly moving past their traditional role as the geopolitical battleground between Western Europe (EU) and Russia, and are increasingly becoming the object of competition between the US and China in the New Cold War, with these two Great Powers vying for the pivotal Polish core which forms the nucleus of the latest regional integration project to sprout up in this strategic space.

Final session of Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) at Funkturm, Berlin (Source: cia.gov)

In 1950, a group of intellectuals founded an organization called the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) with the aim of consolidating an anti-totalitarian intellectual community around the globe. Suspicions about the CCF’s origins are as old as the organization itself. At its first event, the eponymous Congress for Cultural Freedom held in West Berlin in 1950, Gerhart Eisler — then a member of the Volkskammer (people’s chamber), later in charge of the East German communications commission — called the delegates (among them Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, and Sidney Hook) “literary apes” and “American secret police.”

The CCF’s connections with the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were definitively established 16 and 17 years later in reports by The New York Times and Ramparts magazine, respectively: the CIA, operating through a series of dummy foundations, had been instrumental in organizing and funding the CCF. Those revelations sparked new debates about the propriety of spy organizations sponsoring culture, which have waxed and waned in intensity ever since, but never fully disappeared.

One class of scholarship about the Congress for Cultural Freedom and the role of the CIA has been investigative and denunciatory; the other, analytic and skeptical. Frances Stonor Saunders’s Who Paid the Piper? (1999) and Joel Whitney’s more recent Finks (2015) belong to the former category: they argue that the CIA manipulated Cold War culture to the detriment of the global left. They understand the CIA as an instrument of the United States ruling class, and the CCF as its representative on the international intellectual field. But other scholars, without disputing the CCF’s hegemonic intentions, are less sure about its actual impact. In his book Cold War Modernists, published in 2015, Greg Barnhisel found relatively little editorial interference by the CCF in the operations of its flagship English-language journal Encounter. Hugh Wilford’s The Mighty Wurlitzer (2008) argues that even when the CIA tried to call the tune, it did not always get what it wanted. In my own book on the subject, Neither Peace nor Freedom (Harvard University Press, 2015), I argued that the CCF produced unexpected and contradictory effects in Latin America in its pursuit of intellectual hegemony, as when it helped Fidel Castro come to power in Cuba.

Campaigning Culture and the Global Cold War, a new volume edited by Giles Scott-Smith and Charlotte Lerg, promises to go a fair way toward resolving these disparate views of the Congress for Cultural Freedom. The CCF did all sorts of things: holding conferences and concerts, subsidizing books and travel, even running a news service. But its core activity was to sponsor a large suite of magazines published on six continents, from Africa to Australia. Campaigning Culture and the Global Cold War brings together 15 examinations of CCF-affiliated journals, with each chapter written by an author with specific area or topic expertise. This permits the book to present a new level of detail about what the CCF’s magazine projects published, how they interacted with CCF headquarters in Paris, and how they were received. Taken in combination, the chapters produce a somewhat contradictory picture. They suggest that there was indeed quite a bit of interference from Paris, that it sometimes didn’t matter very much, and that when it did matter it frequently decreased the effectiveness and cultural influence of the magazine in question.

The CCF had a kind of default political position, best represented by what it considered its most important magazine, the London-based Encounter. That magazine was urbane and combative, culturally modernist (even as modernism was losing its subversive edge), and aligned politically with the moderate social democracy of the right wing of the British Labour party. Co-edited by the poet Stephen Spender, Encounter published Bertrand Russell, W. H. Auden, Mary McCarthy, C. P. Snow, Nancy Mitford, and Isaiah Berlin, among others. It sided with the United States in the Cold War, of course, but was critical of specific United States policies and of McCarthyism. In style and in its imagined ideal community, the model was basically Partisan Review of the late 1930s and early 1940s. Indeed, the New York intellectuals cast a long shadow over CCF operations as the sort of people and the sort of culture it thought the rest of the world needed. While Partisan Review itself was never a full-fledged CCF magazine, it was one of several that the organization helped support during the Cold War years by making bulk purchases, guaranteeing it a stable revenue stream.

John Clinton Hunt, Michael Josselson and Melvin Lasky. (Source: Spartacus Educational)

Michael Josselson, the CIA’s primary representative within the CCF, was equally loyal to the CCF as an institution as he was to the CIA; his papers show that he didn’t want the organization used for covert espionage and was reluctant to interfere too directly in Encounter’s day-to-day dealings. The number of documented cases of Josselson truly spiking content in Encounter can be counted with the fingers of one hand. (The most notorious was “America! America!,” a caustic essay about United States culture penned by Dwight Macdonald. Axed by Encounter, it was later published by the CCF’s Italian magazine, Tempo presente, which shared Macdonald’s dim views of the merits of United States culture.) Encounter was unusually successful for a CCF magazine: its circulation peaked around 30,000 copies, it lost only a third of those subscribers after the CIA scandal, and published into the 1990s, long after the CCF had ceased to exist in any form. A few of the other magazines also outlived their patron: Minerva, which focused on science and society, is still extant; so is Quadrant, Australia’s most prominent conservative magazine.

But those exceptions aside, the one thing that emerges consistently from these portraits is that the CCF’s magazines were generally poorly managed and dependent on their subsidies for their very survival. Nor were they held to a very strict ideological standard: even if they consistently irritated or ignored the Paris secretariat, they could still sometimes bumble along for years. Cuadernos, the CCF’s first Spanish-language effort, is a case in point: it was distributed in Spain and Latin America from 1953 until 1965. Edited throughout most of its lifespan by a Spaniard living in exile, it was frequently tone deaf and reactionary. It defended not only military coups in Latin America but even the Spanish conquest; and its argument that Latin America was a part of the West failed to attract much of an audience among left-leaning intellectuals. The Mexican satirist Jorge Ibargüengoitia, in one of his short stories, describes Cuadernos as having “a decidedly anti-Communist air; but on studying it carefully, I began to suspect that it was just the opposite; that is, an apparently anti-Communist magazine, made by the Communists, to discredit the anti-Communists.” Even people sympathetic to its basic political project did not regard the magazine highly. Unlike with Encounter, Josselson meddled constantly with Cuadernos, but his interventions did not improve the situation.

Other publications trundled on for years without ever pleasing Josselson or finding an audience. Science and Freedom, the predecessor of the more enduring Minerva, became the personal project of George Polanyi, the son of the chemist and philosopher of science Michael Polanyi (who is the brother of political economist Karl Polanyi). Josselson and his deputies tried to shape Science and Freedom by sending books for review and suggestions for articles, but they were usually ignored. Josselson wanted the magazine to focus on threats to science in the communist world, while George Polanyi was more interested in threats to academic freedom in the West, and even printed an article comparing the situation of Chinese academics under Mao favorably to the situation of those in non-communist countries. But if that article infuriated the Paris headquarters, they might have consoled themselves that circulation remained vanishingly low. Despite all of the problems, however, Science and Freedom lasted seven years.

Other publications also failed to approach the success and the model of Encounter. Austria’s Forum and Australia’s Quadrant both developed a conservative anti-communism, rather than the lightly socialist version that Josselson personally favored and considered essential for outreach to intellectual elites. Forum was also sharply critical of United States culture, which undermined the CCF’s goal of producing a transatlantic intellectual community. Other publications, like Japan’s Jiyu, Italy’s Tempo presente, and India’s Quest, were too tied to the particular visions of their editors, or the particular fortunes of minor political movements to exert any broad influence over the culture in their countries.

The closest that the CCF came to publishing truly influential cultural journals on the model of Partisan Review’s glory days came through its efforts to overhaul its “Third World” operations during the 1960s. There, magazines like Mundo Nuevo (published in Paris for Latin America), Ḥiwār (Beirut, Lebanon), Black Orpheus (Nigeria), and Transition (Uganda) all tapped into important local currents and supported truly enduring works of fiction and poetry. Mundo Nuevo published several authors of the boom in Latin American letters: Mexico’s Carlos Fuentes was interviewed in the first issue, and a prepublication chapter of Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude appeared in the second. Chinua Achebe and Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o’s anti-colonial novels Arrow of God and A Grain of Wheat had their original publications in the pages of Transition, as did Alex La Guma’s anti-apartheid novel The Stone-Country in Black Orpheus; both were important publications in the cultural renaissance associated with a rapidly decolonizing Africa.

Even in these relatively successful cases, though, the influence of the CCF’s agenda should not be exaggerated. Black Orpheus had no contacts with the CCF until 1962, five years after its creation, when support from the Nigerian government dried up. Mundo Nuevo, which began in 1966, was mostly funded by the Ford Foundation, which meddled far more directly than the CIA ever did. The aims of these magazines were only partially linked to those of the CCF or the CIA; all of them were swimming in existing cultural currents, not creating them. And while they were literary successes, it’s less clear that they were political successes for the CCF. As Unsī al-Ḥājj, a contributor to Ḥiwār, put it in a 1966 article responding to the revelations of CIA involvement with the CCF:

“Who sees himself laughing at the other in this game, the Marxists who got the CIA to spread their ideas, or the CIA who made Marxists write in an ‘American’ journal?”

***

What, then, does it all amount to? The preponderance of evidence that emerges from this book and other recent work on the CCF suggests that its history cannot be reduced to one of CIA interference. The magazines that were effective in consolidating an intellectual community did so because underlying conditions produced groups of people receptive to the outlooks they represented. And what could make a magazine more important, like Preuves in France, was not its inherent quality but having its positions and prejudices confirmed by events, such as the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956.

Congress for Cultural Freedom, conference in Berlin 1960. Third from the left: Willy Brandt, at that time reigning mayor of Berlin. (Photo: Cmacauley / Wikimedia)

None of that means that the CCF’s efforts were irrelevant to Cold War politics. They would not have existed without them. But its project of replicating the political and moral community of the New York intellectuals was not one that was likely to survive the multiple acts of cultural and linguistic translation that it would require. There is no reason to believe that it should have been otherwise. Artistic modernism and United States–aligned liberal anti-communism had a small natural constituency in a world that, by and large, had other concerns.

In a way, it is comforting to know that the CCF’s project was self-limiting, that state power can only go so far in setting the agenda for intellectual culture. Campaigning Culture and the Global Cold Warshows that the liberal anti-communist position would have had a hard time sustaining itself without its CIA backing. The CCF represented a serious investment in culture and intellectual life on the part of the CIA, but the layers of distance required to maintain secrecy and relative organizational autonomy made it more difficult to realize its objectives. (This may have been part of the plan all along, but its cunning should not be overstated.) Most CCF magazines did not find audiences and were not influential. Those that did were not necessarily so because of the CIA, nor did they singlehandedly shift the center of gravity for the world’s intellectuals. And whatever the fate of the global left during the Cold War, its struggles had more to do with the contradictions of actually existing socialism than the force of the magazines and conferences arrayed against it. Giles Scott-Smith and Charlotte Lerg’s Campaigning Culture and the Global Cold War provides good evidence that something similar could be said for liberal anti-communism, whose limitations became increasingly clear in spite of the magazines and conferences arrayed on its behalf.

But even if it is possible to overstate the success and influence of the CIA, the CCF continues to demand our attention, 50 years after the Ramparts scandal put an end to its ability to be considered a serious participant in intellectual debate. Why should that be? No one frets much about the United States Information Agency’s magazine Problems of Communism, even though it published some of the same writers as Encounter. The reasons are probably multiple. Perhaps the history of the CCF inspires a form of jealousy from today’s intellectuals, who would like to imagine a golden age when people like them were important enough to be co-opted by the powerful. Perhaps it provides a ready explanation to the (correct) observation that artistic and literary recognition is unfairly distributed. It certainly raises questions about what it means that the CCF’s form of moderate social democracy could have been supported by the same organization that overthrew governments in defense of capitalist imperialism.

All of this would be moot if the CCF’s magazines and other output had lacked all merit. But the output was high enough in quality, independent enough, and important enough to the intellectual history of the 20th century that the moral problems raised by the CCF remain fascinating and partially unresolvable. Its history suggests that the midcentury intellectuals whose work filled the pages of these journals, brilliant though they were, should not have their status inflated to the point of distortion. Ironically, the same thing that made them important — their ability to participate in a seemingly world-historic conflict of ideas — was what compromised their integrity.

Patrick Iber is assistant professor of history at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He is the author of Neither Peace nor Freedom: The Cultural Cold War in Latin America.

On June 27th, Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept, headlined “Latest Example of Media Recklessness on the Russia Threat”, and he documented gross misrepresentations, including many outright fabrications, in the ‘news’ reporting regarding the alleged ‘Russian’ ‘hacking’ of ‘the vote’ and other alleged manipulations, of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, by the Russian government; and these media-lies and other fabrications constituted the ‘news’ as supposed facts instead of fabrications, on CNN, MSNBC, Slate, C-Span, Fortune, Washington Post, New York Times, and Britain’s Guardian, just to cite the examples that Greenwald described — big-name media, including ‘reporting’ by Pulitzer-prize journalists. 

Greenwald concluded that,

“blatantly inane anti-Trump conspiracists and Russia conspiracies now command such a large audience because there is a voracious appetite among anti-Trump internet and cable news viewers for stories, no matter how false.”

And, he said:

“A related, and perhaps more significant, dynamic is that journalistic standards are often dispensed with when it comes to exaggerating the threat posed by countries deemed to be the official enemy du jour. That is a journalistic principle that has repeatedly asserted itself, with Iraq being the most memorable but by no means only example.”

To him, this massive false ‘news’ reporting is innocent, and the motivation for it comes from the audience, not from the journalistic organizations that are doing it. However, strong evidence exists that it’s not innocent, at all — that it is systematic, and includes all of America’s major ‘news’media. But understanding what motivates it, requires digging far deeper than Greenwald did.

Furthermore, Greenwald’s reference to “Iraq being the most memorable” earlier example of this phenomenon, ignores the key fact: that in the Iraq ‘WMD’ or false reporting of weapons of mass destruction, issue, the problem was the U.S. press’s stenographic reporting of the Administration’s lies as if they were automatically truths, whereas today the ‘news’media are pouring forth with their own false concoctions, which sometimes cite as their sources people who are in the opposite (now out-of-power) political Party. No longer is the fake ‘journalism’ stenographically reporting what is being alleged by the White House. Now much of it is stenographically reporting the allegations by the political opposition to the White House.

On June 28th, Gallup bannered, “In US, Confidence in Newspapers Still Low but Rising”, and opened:

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• 27% say they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in newspapers

• 24% have high confidence in television news

• 16% have high confidence in news on the internet

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Despite an ongoing controversy over “fake news,” more Americans this year (27%) say they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in newspapers than did so last year (20%). Although confidence in newspapers is up from last year’s record low, it remains lower than it typically was in the 1980s and 1990s.

Newspapers are one of 16 institutions Gallup tested in a June 7-11 poll. The jump of seven percentage points from 2016 is the largest one for any institution — though newspapers only tie for 11th overall on the list, based on Americans who have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence.

From a long-range perspective, confidence in newspapers hasn’t been high at any point over the past 30 years; the highest was 39% in 1990. The 27% who express confidence this year is the highest recorded since 2011.

Democrats primarily are driving the overall increase in confidence in newspapers this year from last year’s all-time low. In 2016, 28% of Democrats had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in printed media, but that percentage rose to 46% this year. Sixteen percent of Republicans last year had confidence but, in contrast to Democrats, that has edged down to 13% this year.

Gallup got closer to the truth than did Greenwald: Instead of this matter being driven by the audience, the response by the audience is now varying in accordance with the particular audience’s politics.

Another interesting finding by Gallup there, was that “Americans’ Already-Low Confidence in Internet News Declines,” while confidence in newspapers is soaring: “The jump of seven percentage points from 2016 is the largest one for any institution.” 

Newspapers are the core of the traditional newsmedia, and the tradition until recently has been that the broadcast media (radio and TV) base their news upon what the prestigious newspapers — New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal — post on their latest front page. Gallup’s finding is that the American public is increasing its respect for those print media, the very media that are actually leading in introducing today’s false ‘news’ reporting (as Glenn Greenwald and many others have pointed out), and Gallup also finds that the public are losing respect for online articles, even though only in an article online (such as you now are reading) is it even possible for a reader to click directly through to a source, and to evaluate for oneself, whether or not that source is at all trustworthy. The U.S. public are responding to the rampant false reporting in the print ‘news’media, by increasing its trust in those media, and by decreasing its trust in news that (like here) is being received online and can thus be web-searched in order to check out whether or not it is reliable. This reaction — trusting the reports that rely only upon (their own, actually shaky) ‘authority’ — is perverse, but it’s what Gallup is finding. The same mainstream ‘news’ media that the U.S. aristocracy used for deceiving the American people into believing that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was a danger to the U.S. in 2003, and that did the same to Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and has been trying to do the same to Bashar al-Assad since then — and that wants to do it ultimately to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin — continues on with undiminished prestige and ability, to do the same ad nauseum.

The argument that will be made here is that neither the public nor the press-commentators has a truthful understanding of what is happening, nor why, and that there really is a nefarious truthful explanation of all this, an explanation that the public needs to understand. The owners of newsmedia consciously hide their motive from the public, in order to prevent the public from understanding international relations — the explanation for which is driven by the controlling stockholders of international corporations, not by national interest (nor by any public’s interest). The fallacious news-reports that will be examined here will be from mainstream and traditional media, but will be different from the ones that Greenwald discussed; and the focus here, as opposed to other articles that have been written about America’s trashy ‘journalism’, will be on the methods of deceit that are being employed by the press — intentional deceit, for business-purposes:

***

If you’re an American, do you trust the Washington Post, which headlined on June 23rd, “Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault”, and which reported there that “The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump”? That article linked to that newspaper’s earlier articles demonizing Russia’s President (such as “Putin ‘ordered’ effort to undermine faith in U.S. election and help Trump, report says”). It stated that, as a consequence of this ‘election assault’: “Obama faced a successor who had praised WikiLeaks and prodded Moscow to steal even more Clinton emails, while dismissing the idea that Russia was any more responsible for the election assault than ‘somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds’.” (The WP’s phrase ‘election assault’ presumes a reader’s belief in what the newspaper is conveying in this article — the reader is supposed to assent to that belief prior to reading the article, which article is clearly intended to reinforce this belief.) 

President Obama was portrayed in that WP article as a modern-day real-world Hamlet, wracked by indecision — as having been deficient in his antagonism against Russia, too much of a peacenik, up against that horrible demon:

In political terms, Russia’s interference was the crime of the century, an unprecedented and largely successful destabilizing attack on American democracy. It was a case that took almost no time to solve, traced to the Kremlin through cyber-forensics and intelligence on Putin’s involvement. And yet, because of the divergent ways Obama and Trump have handled the matter, Moscow appears unlikely to face proportionate consequences.

The phrase “proportionate consequences” isn’t defined there, but some Democrats, and even a few neoconservative Republicans, have called what Russia allegedly did, an ‘act of war’ against the U.S.; and, thus, ‘proportionate consequences’ in that context would be extremely profitable for firms such as Lockheed Martin — which donated more to Hillary Clinton than to any other politician in 2016. (That team lost. But President Trump nonetheless has gifted them enormously. Is he trying to buy them away from the Democrats?)

***

Or, do you instead trust the independent investigative journalist Robert Parry, who headlined, online-only, on June 29th, “NYT Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard”? He noted that

“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.”

He pointed out that only four intelligence agencies had signed onto that report, and that “the false claim [of ‘17’] 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.”

Furthermore, the independent washingtonsblog had headlined on June 23rd, “Russia Hacking Allegations Driven by a Serial Liar”, and took aim there against one of the Washington Post’s few identified sources demonizing Russia and Putin, Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan. This article said “Brennan is a proven, documented liar,” and then linked to numerous occasions in which Brennan had, demonstrably, lied, to Congress, and others. Then, the article closed:

Postscript: The other intelligence official behind many of the Russian hacking claims – James Clapper – is also a confirmed liar. And see this and this.

Clapper was yet another of the few named sources for the WP’s eight-thousand-word-plus featured article demonizing Putin and making him to blame for Trump’s being the current U.S. President.

***

The print and broadcast U.S. newsmedia (such as the WP) have portrayed as virtually certain, Vladimir Putin’s having wanted to sway, and the vague possibility that he might have swayed, the 2016 U.S. electoral outcome, and (some of them even say) perhaps even been the chief person who made Donald Trump President. The conclusion of these, the mainstream U.S. newsmedia, is that the U.S. government under President Trump needs to be far more aggressive against Russia than it is. They’re promoting: America needs more nuclear weapons, and more missiles to deliver them, and certainly needs more of the cloud-computer services that the owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos (via his Amazon.com), supplies to the CIA and U.S. Pentagon. Lots more of that. 

However, on June 30th, the top headline at the Republican Party’s Fox News Channel was “Sanders investigation: Bernie’s wife attempted to evict disabled group home residents, report claims” — nothing pertaining to Russia. It’s played down by Republican sites. They don’t defend Russia; they simply play down the entire issue.

***

America has two Parties, the Democrats, who used to be liberal but (due to America’s increasing corruption) have become only neoliberal and neoconservative (which are virtually the same); and the Republicans, who used to be aristocratic conservative but have become now populist conservative and aristocratic conservative (but both controlled by Republican aristocrats, and likewise virtually the same). Although extensive polling shows that the American public is none of those but mainly progressive, there is no longer representation for progressives in the U.S. federal government (except by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, one of the two members of the U.S. House who represents Hawaii — as a Democrat, and she had delivered the nominating speech for Bernie Sanders at the Democratic National Convention in 2016).

The print and broadcast U.S. newsmedia say that this U.S. government is somehow a ‘democracy’, and that no question should be published to the contrary of such an allegation. What, then, is a “dictatorship,” if that government’s being a ‘democracy’ is not to be questioned? Is a “dictatorship” a government that’s imposed upon the public, rather than represents what the public wants? Is the U.S. such a government? Is Russia? 

On 6 March 2016, the WP bannered, “How to understand Putin’s jaw-droppingly high approval ratings”, and opened, “Russian President Vladimir Putin has an 83 percent approval rating.” It found a way to blame Russian culture for this: In conversation with a Russian official who advises Putin, the WP reporter managed to quote (with no follow-up as to what he actually meant), “How can you understand what to do if you can’t understand the people?” This wasn’t taken by that reporter as a favorable reflection upon the Russian people. Yet, the article did not blame pollsters for Putin’s high rating: “The Kremlin is so ratings-conscious that it frequently commissions polls on the same topics from several firms simultaneously, pollsters said.” And, besides: “It is a development that has flummoxed Western nations and frustrated Russia’s motley band of oppositionists. Some of them say that Russians are too scared to speak their minds to pollsters. Others claim that the poll numbers are manipulated, although most Western polling firms arrive at similar figures.” It linked there to the Pew figures, which concerned only Russians’ satisfaction-level with Putin’s international policies, and which showed “Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) also express confidence in his ability to handle international affairs.” While the Pew survey asked questions about Russians’ satisfaction with the nation’s domestic affairs, no approval-rating for Putin was published by Pew on those matters — only the Kremlin itself, apparently, did that. But why would a ‘dictatorship’ be so concerned to satisfy the public? Isn’t that supposed to be the way a democracy is?

U.S. President Trump’s recent job-approval ratings range around 40%, with around 53% disapproval. At this time in his predecessor’s, Barack Obama’s, Presidency, it was closer to around 60% approval, 30% disapproval. No American President in modern times has had above 80% job-approval, except for George W. Bush, immediately after the 9/11 attacks (which resulted from his failure, or worse), and his father, immediately after the 1991 “Gulf War” forced Saddam Hussein’s forces out of Kuwait (which U.S. involvement was based not only on Saddam’s invasion but on U.S. lies, including the “Nurse Nayirah” hoax). Each of those two peaks above 80% was fleeting; Putin’s scoring above 80% is routine for him, because it’s based on his long-term performance, not on lies.

Furthermore, in terms of the performance of Russia’s economy under Putin, the results have been surprisingly higher than the forecasts, not only recently, but even before the economic sanctions were placed against Russia.

If a nation’s leader’s doing what that nation’s public wants that leader to do is a reflection of the degree to which that nation is a democracy, then a person would be hard-pressed to say that the U.S. is a ‘democracy’, and to say that Russia isn’t — unless that person is a propagandist for the U.S. government, of course (since no dictatorship calls itself a dictatorship; they’re all ‘democratic’). But, if a nation’s ‘news’media are propagandists for its government, then can that nation really be a democracy?

What else than that it’s not, can explain the fact that the most-preferred U.S. Presidential candidate in 2016 was actually the progressive Bernie Sanders, and that his Party’s leadership, the Democratic National Committee, rigged the primaries (and expert analyses also showed this, and more of this) so that his opponent, Hillary Clinton won the nomination? The DNC won the Democratic Party primaries. That’s a dictatorship. But, if this is the case, then doesn’t it likewise make sense that the ‘news’media that were propagandizing for the Democratic Party, would now be blaming Russia (bane of America’s aristocrats — the funders of America’s elections — both left and right), just as does Ms. Clinton herself? They won’t blame themselves unless they are forced to — and they’re not. Unfortunately, however, since all of America’s print and broadcast media (owned and controlled by aristocrats) support one or the other of the two Parties (and never any progressive), only a few independent online newsmedia, such as the present one, can publish this demonstrable fact.

And, consequently, the Americans who receive most of their ‘news’ from the print and broadcast media, are virtually mental slaves of the aristocrats who control those ‘news’media, and they cannot see outside their channeled tunnel, which was designed by agents of those aristocrats. A good example of this tunnel-vision is displayed by the passionate Democratic Party blogger, Joseph Cannon, whose Cannonfire blog headlined on June 24th, “Blame Obama”, and he took uncritically the WP’s “Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault”. He also, trustingly, quoted there other Party propagandists, who were saying, in response to that WP propaganda, such things as,

“The idea that the Obama administration withheld the fact that the Russians were ratfcking the election in order to help elect a vulgar talking yam is a terrible condemnation of the whole No Drama Obama philosophy.”

Now, they were starting to eat their own, in order not to see (nor acknowledge) that they’d been dupes all along — and not fools of Russia’s aristocracy nor leader, but only of America’s. For these fools, ‘democracy’ in the U.S. consisted only of the Democratic aristocracy, in its petty competition against the Republican aristocracy, to deceive and exploit the U.S. public. That’s not real progress. It’s more of the same, even when the Party-label gets switched — it is, in the real sense, a one-party government. This government doesn’t give the public what it wants; this regime gives them, instead, only what they will tolerate.

So, the operative standard here is no longer a government that the public approves, but instead one that they tolerate. The government is calibrated to meet this lower standard. It meets this standard because the oligarchs who control it are also in control of the ‘news’media. To control the ‘news’ that the public receives, is to control the public.

In order to understand how the U.S. came to be this way, I recommend, without reservation, the monumental 700-page fully documented 10-chapter book, and the mirroring 10-part documentary series, The Untold History of the United States, by historian Peter Kuznick, and documentarian Oliver Stone — a breakthrough account of the 20th Century that accurately exposes the history that America’s aristocracy (via their agents) have always kept hidden from the American public.

The documentary presentation of this history is breathtaking, the best documentary I’ve seen. It can be purchased, but it is, at least now, also able to be viewed free online. Here are the first two chapters (and chapter 2 covers the most fatally important period, when WW II ended and the post-War world, starting with the Cold War, began): 

1: https://vimeo.com/136182100

2: https://vimeo.com/136182101

I have separately published online an account of how the Cold War ended in 1991 on the Soviet side with the termination of the USSR and of its communism and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance, while U.S. President G.H.W. Bush privately instructed America’s allies, starting on the night of 24 February 1990, that the U.S.-NATO side would be secretly continuing the war against the rump remaining nation, Russia, until Russia itself is conquered and becomes a part of the U.S. empire.

All U.S. Presidents afterward have been carrying out that plan. It’s crucial history, which in my opinion is not adequately explained elsewhere, and which needs to be known in order to be able to understand accurately U.S.-Russia relations after 1990. The Kuznick-Stone series only touches upon it, but is entirely accurate and displays the results of that plan, up till around 2012. 

The remaining 8 chapters are also very gripping, because they display the way in which what is shown in chapter 2 has played out, extending right into Barack Obama’s first Administration. However, Obama was hiding his plans for crippling Russia, until his successful re-election, at which point he publicly exposed by his actions, that he actually agreed with Mitt Romney’s assertion made (and mocked by Obama) during the campaign, that “Russia, this is without question America’s number one geopolitical foe.” So, the history continues on after when Kuznick-Stone end. And here are the remaining 8 chapters of that:

3: https://vimeo.com/136256488

4: https://vimeo.com/143509988

5: https://vimeo.com/148421741

6: https://vimeo.com/151432899

7: https://vimeo.com/154794997

8: https://vimeo.com/album/3810613/video/159082231

9: https://vimeo.com/album/3810613/video/161845469

10: https://vimeo.com/album/3810613/video/162599340

I think that if America’s Founders, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and then topped it off with the U.S. Constitution, were to learn about this America, today, they would say:

“We did not conquer the British aristocracy in order to establish our own. These people are usurpers; this is not the country that we founded.”

Even merely reading the Preamble to the Constitution, the part of the document that asserts the public’s sovereignty here, makes this intention of the Founders absolutely clear. There has been in America a secret counter-Revolution, and it has succeeded. The U.S. today has the highest incarceration-rate in the world (except for Seychelles, whose total population is only 92,000). In China,

“The total number of prisoners held, 1.6 million, is second to that of the United States despite its population being over four times larger.”

But routinely, the U.S. ‘news’media treat China as a dictatorship, and the country they deceive as being ‘the land of the free’. Look at the chart there, “Incarcerated Americans, 1920-2014”: it shows that the prison-population was gradually rising (along with the nation’s population) until it reached a half-million around 1980, and then (starting with Reagan) just skyrocketed, to above two million in 2000, and it’s still above that, but no longer soaring; and that period, of around 1981-2002, also happens to be the very same period that the only scientific investigation into whether or not the U.S. is a democracy examined, and the study (which still is the only one ever done) found that the U.S. definitely is an aristocracy, not a democracy: it found that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”

The common word to refer to such a nation is that it’s an “oligarchy” or a nation that’s ruled by its aristocracy; or, in short (and the most ordinary term), the country is an “aristocracy” instead of a “democracy.” So: did America’s Founders conquer the British aristocracy in order to establish their own? The founding documents say no — this is not the country they founded. It is a very alien government, nothing of what the Founders had intended. It’s been stolen — removed from its foundation, to a very alien place.

This will be very difficult for Americans to believe, because we have been so inundated, for so long, by the lies from the American aristocracy. But, if a reader wants to explore and test-out in more detail the ramifications of this in a specific case — that of an American couple who lived and worked in Libya and travelled extensively throughout Libya until the U.S. and its allies destroyed that country in 2011, and who have presented their written account, “The truth about Gaddafi’s Libya, NATO’s bombing, and the Benghazi ‘consulate’ attack”, and who were then interviewed about it in a podcast, and who have, since at least 2014, been advertising their services as “housesitters” in Dallas — then, the reader will find, in that case, an account of America’s invasion of Libya that is almost diametrically the opposite of what Americans have been told, and the reader can then judge that test-case, by considering which historical narrative (the standard one, or this very opposite one) is the likelier one to be true.  

Whom do you trust — reporters such as Robert Parry and the writers at washingtonsblog and the “Signs of the Times” blog, or instead ones such as are employed by the Washington Post and by the New York Times? The answer will tell your politics. But if you click onto the sources here, you’ve now read a summary of what you will find. And it’s not what the owners of (and advertisers in) the mainstream media want you to believe. It is American samizdat.

***

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

After six years of fighting a brutal and long war against foreign-backed terrorist proxy forces, the Syrian army – and its allies – have made significant gains in recent months. The Syrian army’s recent triumphs include liberating many areas in the Homs province, reaching the Iraqi border in what was described as a “strategic turning point in the war,” in addition to securing the Aleppo province from ISIS. It is clear that the Syrian army has the upper hand in the conflict, a fact that the hawks in Washington, London, Brussels, Riyadh and Tel Aviv find too difficult to stomach. 

As the Syrian army prevails on the ground, capturing territory from the militants in the process, hundreds of thousands of Syrians are returning to their homes. As Andrej Mahecic, the spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN Refugee Agency, said in a press briefing at the end of June, many Syrians are returning “to their homes” partly due to a “real or perceived improvement in security conditions” in many regions recently liberated:

“[The] UNHC is seeing a notable trend of spontaneous returns to and within Syria in 2017. Aid agencies estimate that more than 440,000 internally displaced people have returned to their homes in Syria during the first six months of this year. In parallel, UNHCR has monitored over 31,000 Syrian refugees returning from neighbouring countries so far in 2017. 

The main factors influencing decisions for refugees to return self-assisted mostly to Aleppo, Hama, Homs, Damascus and to other governorates are primarily linked to seeking out family members, checking on property, and, in some cases, a real or perceived improvement in security conditions in parts of the country.” 

Although the conflict is far from over, and the rebuilding of Syria will likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars, many Syrians can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. The defeat of foreign-backed mercenaries and the stabilization of Syria has always been of central importance to help solve part of the refugee/migrant crisis that has gripped Europe in recent years.

Short of any extremely reckless action by the West and its allies, the Syrian army will continue to liberate large parts of the country from the foreign-backed militants, paving the way for more internally and externally displaced Syrians to return to their homes. In their desperation however, the enemies of Syria may again stage a false flag chemical weapons attack and blame it on the Syrian government, in an attempt to justify a major military intervention to turn the tide.

The Need to Resist Balkanization 

The second option available to the enemies of Syria is to continue the agenda of attempting to Balkanize Syria into different micro-states and mini-states, with the West clearly using Kurdish factions in an attempt to further this strategy. Ideally, the enemies of Syria wanted to force regime change in Damascus and then Balkanize the country into multiple rump states, although with regime change looking increasingly unrealistic, Balkanization in itself has become a central objective of the West.

There is literally an abundance of evidence that supports the thesis that Balkanization is a major goal of the West and its allies. In 1982, Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist who had close connections to the Foreign Ministry in Israel, wrote an article titled: “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.” In the document, Yinon detailed how the “dissolution of Syria” into “ethnically or religiously unique areas” was a primary objective of Israel:

“Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short-term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan” (p.11, point 22).

A decade later, an article appeared in an extremely influential US publication which echoed the strategy advocated by Yinon. Published in the 1992 issue of Foreign Affairs, the magazine of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), the article was titled: Rethinking the Middle East, and was written by Bernard Lewis, the British-American historian, neoconservative and CFR member. In the article, Lewis outlines how many Middle East states could disintegrate into a “chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties:”

“Another possibility, which could even be precipitated by fundamentalism, is what has of late become fashionable to call ‘Lebanonization.’ Most of the states of the Middle East—Egypt is an obvious exception—are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation state. 

The state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties. If things go badly and central governments falter and collapse, the same could happen, not only in the countries of the existing Middle East, but also in the newly independent Soviet republics, where the artificial frontiers drawn by the former imperial masters left each republic with a mosaic of minorities and claims of one sort or another on or by its neighbours.” 

In 2013, the former US Secretary of State and CFR member, Henry Kissinger, revealed his desire to see Syria Balkanized into “more or less autonomous regions” whilst speaking at the Ford School:

“There are three possible outcomes. An Assad victory. A Sunni victory. Or an outcome in which the various nationalities agree to co-exist together but in more or less autonomous regions, so that they can’t oppress each other. That’s the outcome I would prefer to see. But that’s not the popular view…. I also think Assad ought to go, but I don’t think it’s the key. The key is; it’s like Europe after the Thirty Years War, when the various Christian groups had been killing each other until they finally decided that they had to live together but in separate units. So that is the fundamental issue, and we’re beginning to move towards that” (from 27.35 into the interview).

Then at the end of 2015, Foreign Affairs published an article titled: Divide and Conquer in Syria and Iraq; Why the West Should Plan for a Partition. It was written by Barak Mendelsohn, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Haverford College and a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. In the article, he argues that the “solution” to the current crisis in Syria and Iraq is the Balkanization of these countries into multiple micro-states, creating an “independent Sunni state” (or Sunnistan) in the process: 

“The only way to elicit indigenous support is by offering the Sunnis greater stakes in the outcome. That means proposing an independent Sunni state that would link Sunni-dominated territories on both sides of the border. Washington’s attachment to the artificial Sykes–Picots borders demarcated by France and Britain a century ago no longer makes sense. Few people truly believe that Syria and Iraq could each be put back together after so much blood has been spilled. A better alternative would be to separate the warring sides. Although the sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias was not inevitable—it was, to some extent, the result of manipulation by self-interested elites—it is now a reality.” 

This is just a snapshot of the evidence that proves that the enemies of Syria want to Balkanize the country, with the Brookings Institution being another US think tank that has advocated this strategy, in one form or another, ad nauseam. Officials in Syria are well aware of this plan however, that is why the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, has repeatedly emphasised that he wants to recapture all of Syria.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of  The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image from New Eastern Outlook

Featured image: Pro-democracy protests in Nepal (Source: GEOCITIES.ws)

Listen to our Monday morning commentary 7:45 am on WBAI NY, 99.5 fm, livestreaming worldwide www.wbai.org 

Nepal’s 28 million citizens have waited 20 years for the elections that finally took place during recent weeks (with the final 10 percent of ballots still being counted). These are nationwide elections for city, ward and village chairpersons, mayors and councils– positions vacant for two decades. These newly elected officials might offer some order and hope to citizens’ largely stagnant lives for too long. The democracy they had welcomed with the overthrow of the monarchy brought them little beyond party and ethnic squabbles and ineffective governance from Kathmandu, their corruption-infected capital.

The U.S. public and American media are usually fixated on human trafficking, Hindu goddesses, Buddhist monks and Himalayan lore when pausing momentarily to glance at Nepal. The U.S. State Department has shown little interest in the country’s determined although lumbering course into democracy as well.

This infant republic was created in 2008, brought about in large part by a hard-fought Maoist revolution that forced the government to sign a cease fire and accept Maoist participation in the nation’s governance. A plethora of parties fighting for dominance led to unsteady coalitions, while a succession of Maoist and Marxist-Leninist leaders shared a fragile leadership, almost by rotation. Not the color of democracy the U.S. would endorse and celebrate. Even when the 240 year old monarchy was abolished in 2008, there was no audible cheering in Delhi, London or Washington.

Nevertheless this awakened people forged indomitably ahead. While the central government operated by patching together a constituent assembly to function as a parliament, divvying up the leadership among the major parties to solidify the democracy, a new constitution for the republic was essential. A constitution would define election zones and administrative districts, allocate seats, qualify candidates and voters, and set standards for the campaign and polling processes of the new democracy. Meanwhile identity politics became an increasingly contentious issue, further delaying accord on the constitution.

Finally in 2015 the constitution was voted in, paving the way for these elections. After 20 years without representative local government, citizens–from isolated mountainous regions to densely populated tropical plains, in every city and village–have their opportunity to try out democracy in their own neighborhood.

This long anticipated event drew many aspiring newcomers to declare their candidacy: young challengers, women (by law entitled to 30% of seats), and dalit (discriminated castes) who, like women, had not previously considered leadership positions. On its side, the citizenry has proved surprisingly engaged in this election. Farmers took precious time from planting season and faced hazardous travel conditions during the monsoon rains, to cast their ballots.

Unhampered by their infancy as a democracy and aware of the opportunity to counter a pervasive culture of squabbling pretenders and corrupt party politics, Nepalis today are somehow optimistic about new possibilities. They still feel the effects of the vacuum in leadership in the aftermath of the 2015 earthquake. Because no local authorities were in place to systematically coordinate aid, compensation and repairs of damaged buildings and roads were neglected or haphazardly managed.

An astonishing average 70% turnout at the polls has surprised many observers. Especially city people did not expect their uneducated citizens and villagers they had judged as ‘politically illiterate’ to exhibit such keenness. Kathmandu residents closely following the results interviewed in recent days seemed optimistic. Villagers’ response is also impressive because travel is hazardous during the monsoon rains; and this is the planting season when farmers, women and men who constitute majority of the population, are occupied in their fields.

As for the results, beyond the high turnout, there have been some upsets in party standing: first, we see generally lower support across the country for the Maoist Party; it registers a weak third place in the polls. Maoists played a major role in Nepal’s transition to democracy and the establishment of the republic after the 2006 cease fire with their leaders holding the premiership at various times since then. But during their dominance over the past decade, they’ve earned a reputation for corruption on the same scale as other parties.

With almost all the results tabulated for the 15,000 posts being contested, the outcome is clear and consistent nationwide. Leading the polls unequivocally with 133 local units is the Unified Marxist-Leninist (UML or MLN) in coalition with the Communist Part of Nepal (CPN). (Note: In regards to the leftist designation of Maoist and UML, none are as socialist as might be expected: e.g. none have carried out land reform.) They’re followed by wins in 115 localities by the centrist Congress Party which dominated politics in Nepal’s pre-republic era. What surprises B. Shrestha, a Nepali colleague contacted by phone is the outcome in the Terai (the plains area bordering India). There, the UML is leading, taking precedence over small regional ‘ethnic’ parties.

The results seem to be a turnaround for the region which had taken a hostile stance towards the dominant parties and held up the signing of the constitution. Its embrace of the UML-CPN is a sign that the Terai is more firmly a member of the republic. (On another front, poor showing by the royalist party suggests that Nepal’s monarchy is truly put to rest.)

Many women candidates succeeded in wining both mayoral and deputy mayoral positions. Their success follows a constitutional mandate and the standard set by three women in Nepal’s top positions, including president, in the central government. This will surely become a watershed for an increased presence of women not only at the national level but also in local leadership.

Last October, as the American presidential campaign was drawing to a close, I joined a family of Sherpa friends around a warming wood stove at their family home in the mountains. When conversation turned for a few moments from their own party politics to the U.S election, someone commented:

“Well, if in 240 years the Americans haven’t worked out everything, Nepal, in less than 15 years, isn’t doing so badly.”

As the Trump administration seeks to place its offensive against North Korea and China at the centre of the two-day G20 summit of world leaders that begins in Hamburg, Germany, today, trade conflicts will be very much present.

The most explosive issue is whether the US takes action under 1962 legislation that allows the president to limit steel imports on “national security” grounds. This has been described as the “nuclear option” on trade.

The US administration has been considering a report ordered by Trump in April on the impact of steel imports. It was initially thought the president would make an announcement on whether to invoke the legislation before the G20 met, but a decision has been delayed until after the summit.

While Chinese imports are the main target, any measures will also hit European steel producers, amid warnings such action would provoke retaliatory action by the European Union. Speaking on conditions of anonymity, a French official told reporters in a briefing on the summit that if measures were directed against European exports,

“we would obviously react very quickly, and we are getting prepared.”

The Trump administration’s threatened measures on steel, part of its “America First” agenda, are being driven by major US steel corporations, with the support of the steel industry trade union bureaucracy.

Speaking to Bloomberg, John Ferriola, the chief executive officer of Nucor, the largest US steel producer, said that for US steel firms to make the necessary return on capital they needed to operate at 85–87 percent capacity. This meant that imports should occupy 10–15 percent of the market. At present, imports make up about 26 percent of the US market.

Source: osha.gov

Apart from China, the countries most affected would be Brazil, Canada, South Korea and members of the European Union. China maintains that its exports to the US are largely lower-grade steel, which US firms do not want to produce.

The steel issue is only the sharpest expression, to this point, of a much wider conflict that goes to the very nature of trade relations among the major powers.

This underlying conflict broke into the open at the G20 finance ministers’ meeting in March when US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin vetoed communiqué wording that spoke of the need to “resist protectionism.”

Since then, a form of words has been used at other high-level economic meetings, including the G7 summit in late May, to cover up the breach by referring to free trade that is “fair and mutually beneficial.” Some variation of this wording is likely to be adopted at Hamburg.

While the drafters of the G20 communiqué haggle over the wording, however, the differences are widening as evidenced by the US withdrawal from the Paris climate change accord. Following the G7 summit in May, German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that the days when Europe could rely on “others” were “over to some extent” and “we Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands.”

The differences with the US have become even more explicit since then.

Last week, Merkel predicted “very difficult” talks over trade and climate change at the G20 meeting and spoke of “obvious” disagreements with the US.

“Whoever believes the problems of this world can be solved by isolationism and protectionism is making a tremendous error,” she told the German parliament.

In an interview with Die Zeit, published on Wednesday, Merkel elaborated further.

“While we are looking at the possibilities of co-operation to benefit everyone, globalisation is seen by the American administration more as a process that is not about a win-win situation but about winners and losers,” she said.

The Trump administration is particularly targeting Germany, China and, to some extent, Japan—the countries with the largest trade surpluses with the US—insisting that the present global trade order is working to their benefit at the expense of the US.

On the European side, in the lead up to the German elections in September, Merkel is under pressure from the opposition social democrats, who are calling for a more aggressive stance against the US. On Wednesday, SPD parliamentary leader Thomas Oppermann urged Merkel to isolate Trump at Hamburg, saying “appeasement” would lead “to the erosion of Western values.”

The growing tensions between the US and Europe were underscored on Wednesday when the European Union and Japan announced overall agreement on a trade deal. Both sides have agreed to the broad framework of a pact, with many details still to be worked out.

The timing of the announcement, on the eve of the summit, was highly significant. Negotiations have been underway for more than four years and many issues have still to be ironed out. The announcement was made in order to send a clear message to the US.

Claudia Schmucker, head of the globalisation program at the German Council on Foreign Relations said:

“In my view it will be 19 against one at the G20, and the European Union will try to take over the role of the US in respect to trade. It’s a direct answer to what Trump stands for.”

The EU-Japan talks were effectively put on hold while Japan negotiated with the Obama administration over the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But Trump’s scuttling of the TPP, in one of his first presidential acts, and the breakdown of negotiations between the EU and the US over a trade and investment agreement, clearly led to decisions in Tokyo and Brussels to push ahead.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), has tried to tread a fine line between the conflicting interests of the US, Europe and other major powers. In a briefing note to the summit, IMF head Christine Lagarde said that while growth prospects for the world economy were strengthening, they could be jeopardised without greater co-operation.

In remarks directed to the US, she said “no country is an island” and called on the G20 “to strengthen the global trading system and reaffirm our commitment to well enforced rules.”

On the other hand, reflecting the Trump administration’s criticism of Germany’s persistent trade surpluses, she called for Germany to undertake greater public spending. A “more expansionary fiscal stance in Germany” would raise potential output and have “positive spillover effects to other euro area economies where there is still cyclical slack.”

Such calls for a greater balancing of the world economy will fall on deaf ears. The Trump administration will take no notice of pleas to reverse its “America First” agenda, any more than Germany will ease its constrictions on government spending and the maintenance of budget surpluses, which it regards as the foundation of its economic and financial strength.

The G20 became the premier global economic forum following the 2008 financial crisis, with pledges to promote greater collaboration. Almost a decade on, it has become a battleground for the assertion of the economic interests of each against all.

The war in Libya was caused not so much by any internal dissent but rather by the West’s need for continued economic expansion, which Western elites view as part and parcel of the post-Cold War “end of history”, a still-potent messianic ideology which gives the West the license to attack anyone, anywhere, to achieve its mercantilist objectives, and which gives the necessary humanitarian “fig leaf” for the benefit of the politically correct faction of Western societies.

Naturally, politically correct Westerners have been unbothered by the “humanitarian interventions” invariably making the situation far worse, and Libya has not been an exception. Since the fall of the regime of Muammar al-Gaddafi, Libya has not experienced any political, financial or even social stability, as the country is witnessing a state of constant fighting between all parties despite the absence of any religious or sectarian differences between the populations. Libya turned from one of the richest countries in the world to a failed state.

The current war in Libya began in 2014, with most of the fighting being between the internationally-recognized Tobruk-based Libyan Interim Government centered on the House of Representatives that was elected democratically in 2014, an Islamist National Salvation Government founded by the General National Congress based in Tripoli city, and the UN-backed Government of National Accord also based in Tripoli.

The Libyan Interim Government has the allegiance of the Libyan National Army under the leadership of General Khalifa Haftar and enjoys the support of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates directly, with indirect support from both the United States, Britain and Russia, with the latter country’s affinity to Haftar clearly demonstrated when the Libyan general boarded the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier in January 2017, as the ship was returning home from its combat mission off the coast of Syria. It is a secular entity and has the sole legitimate power in Libya. Since 2014, Egypt has supplied many light and heavy weapons to the Libyan National Army led by Khalifa Haftar, which included several MiG-21 fighters. The United Arab Emirates also provides financial support to Haftar and has a small airbase in eastern Libya, including AT-802 turboprop light attack aircraft and WingLoong UAVs which appear to be operated by Erik Prince’s Academi (formerly Blackwater) Private Military Company.

The emergence of the Libyan Interim Government was made possible by the withdrawal of House of Representatives support for the Government of National Accord, whose power has since greatly decreased.

Instead, the chief opponent of the LIG is the Islamic government of the General National Congress, also called the Salvation Government,  which is led by the Muslim Brotherhood with support from a coalition of Islamic groups known as the Dawn of Libya. It is believed that one of the combat groups of the General National Congress was involved in the assassination of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens in 2012. The Muslim Brotherhood are also accused of providing political cover to ISIS during its expansion in Libya before 2014, which is a plausible accusation considering Qatar’s tangible support to both ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood.

It too enjoys international support by Qatar, Turkey, and Sudan, with the former two countries playing roles identical to they played in the Syrian conflict. Qatar’s considerable contribution includes financial support to the General National Congress and smuggling arms using C-130 military cargo planes in cooperation with Sudan, while Turkey has smuggled arms to the Dawn of Libya using ships. Turkey also benefits from illegal oil trade with the militia, according to unconfirmed reports.

Since 2014, ISIS has had strong influence in much of Libya, especially in Darnah east of Banghazi, but this influence of the terrorist organization has shrunk over time. However, Libya is one of the bases of recruitment and money laundering for ISIS, where ISIS is believed to have received indirect support from Turkey, Qatar and the General National Congress. Moreover, ISIS views Libya as an operating base from which to stage expansion into countries of the Sahel and to aid ISIS cells operating in Tunisia and Egypt.

Completing the list of warring parties, Tuareg forces control southwestern Libya, including Amazigh and Ghat area, and are considered indirect allies of the General National Congress.

Given the balance of forces outlined above, the conflict in Libya would have come to a close years ago had it not been for the direct involvement of the Qatar-Turkey alliance, whose aggressive acts against Syria had likewise escalated that conflict. To be sure, the Qatar-Turkey alliance was one of convenience, with the two parties pursuing different objectives which simply happened to be not mutually exclusive.

For Turkey, the aim of the game at the time was neo-Ottomanism. Both Syria and Libya are, after all, parts of the former Ottoman Empire, with the former being wrested from its grasp by the French and the British at the end of World War I, and the former falling to Italy in Italo-Turkish War of 1911-1912. For Qatar, the objective was establishing oneself as a regional power player not only independent of Saudi Arabia but also equivalent to it, a task that would have been greatly facilitated by establishing Qatar-friendly regimes in Libya and Syria, extending Qatar’s control over the region’s hydrocarbons, and gaining access to new markets in Europe. That final point of the Turkey-Qatar strategy was welcome by European factions favoring continued eastward expansion because the Qatari gas pipeline could be used as a political weapon against Russia.

However, that coalition proved too weak to overcome the resistance of legitimate government forces in Libya and Syria, particularly after the direct Russian military involvement in Syria spelled the end of the “Assad must go” campaign, and it never managed to secure the support of the United States for either of its objectives. The US, for its part, attempted to sponsor its own jihadists in Syria or favored the Saudi-led efforts. Therefore it was only a matter of time before either Turkey or Qatar realized its strategy was doomed and sought to pursue a different course of action. Turkey proved the weaker link in that coalition thanks to, ironically, US enlistment of the Kurds as its proxy army in Syria. Faced with an impossible to dislodge Russian presence in Syria, Turkey opted to change its aims to become an “energy gateway” to Europe by joining forces with Russia in the form of the Turkish Stream pipeline.

Worse, while initially the West was generally in favor of any and all forms of “Arab Spring”, including the Turkish-Qatari efforts in both Syria and Libya, by 2016 it was becoming clear the downsides were outweighing the positives. The refugee crisis, in particular, that became a potent political issue threatening the unchallenged liberal status quo had forced a re-evaluation of the policy, lest the likes of Front National or AfD come to power in Europe. Even the US, which did not receive a flood of Middle East refugees, was affected.  On April 11, 2016, Obama was forced to admit that Libya was the “worst mistake” he had committed during his presidency as the mistake was that the United States did not plan for the post-Gaddafi era. He was not doing it because of any sorrow for the citizens of countries he despoiled, but rather because the resulting chaos was now negatively affecting Hillary Clinton’s chances to win.

But it was Donald Trump who delivered what surely will be a fatal blow to Qatar’s international ambitions, first by giving a green light to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states to pounce on Qatar, and then directly accusing it of sponsoring terrorists. The ensuing blockade of Qatar meant that the country’s leaders would have little time or money to continue financing militants in Libya or Syria. Indeed, shortly after the Qatar blockade was imposed, the Russian military stated the war in Syria, other than the fighting against ISIS, had practically ground to a standstill.

Considering that Turkey and Qatar have been the main obstacles to ending the war in Libya, Turkey’s defection followed by the US-authorized Saudi political and economic assault on Qatar have implications not only for Syria but also for Libya. Indeed, there are already many signs the political situation in Libya is evolving. Arguably the biggest development in recent months was the release of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, Muammar Gaddafi’s son, by a Tobruk-based militia upon a request from the House of Representatives. With Saif al-Islam Gaddafi being wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged atrocities committed by the Libyan government during the 2011 war, the fact of his release indicates the political fortunes are now favoring the House of Representatives and Marshal Haftar, a shift also suggested by British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s statements in support of Haftar playing  an important role in Libyan politics and the new French President Macron’s admission the war in Libya was a major mistake.

But here the Western officials seem to be following the trends rather than making them, as the root cause of the shift appears to be the sudden weakening of Qatar’s positions in the region. Egypt is a clear beneficiary of that weakening and is intent on pressing its advantage, to the point of pro-Sisi Egyptian media actually advocating bombing of Qatar. The Qatari disarray is also made apparent by LNA’s recent announcement that the Qatari opposition has provided the LNA with a list of Libyan citizens who worked for Qatar’s intelligence services.

Qatar’s situation is not an enviable one. For the time being Turkey’s military support and the US unwillingness to allow Saudi Arabia to utterly devastate Qatar are enough to allow it to maintain a brave face. But in the longer term it needs to find an accommodation with at least one of the key power players in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, US, or…Russia. The fact of growing Turkey-Russia cooperation on a variety of issues and Qatar’s outreach to Russia in the form of a foreign minister visit and the simplification of visa rules for Russian citizens, suggests that Qatar is at least contemplating realigning its alliance membership. However, considering that all of the three above-named powers are on the opposite side of the barricades as far as Libya is concerned, it seems unlikely Qatar can maintain its proxy war there even with Turkey’s support. Therefore, almost no matter what Qatar decides to do next, it will have no choice but to write off Libya as a total loss, an act that will hasten the end of this tragic six-year war.

Voiceover by Oleg Maslov

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video above

Featured image: Mikis Theodorakis, “Fabrik” Hamburg, 1971 (Source: Heinrich Klaffs / Wikimedia Commons)

In an article entitled “No to the new Crime!”, Mikis Theodorakis is denouncing the “illegal”, as he characterizes it, “International Conference on Cyprus”, held those days in Geneva. (1)

The composer, a world known symbol of the struggles for Freedom and a resistant himself, against both the Nazi-occupation of Greece and the colonels’ junta, is characterizing the Geneva Conference as criminal, illegal, contrary to the European Law and likely to lead to the abolition of the Republic of Cyprus.

For Theodorakis, this illegal Geneva Conference and the abolition of the Republic of Cyprus currently being attempted are part of preparations for a new great war against Iran and, behind that, against Russia. For the purposes of this war it is necessary, he writes, for the West to have full control of Cyprus, Crete and mainland Greece.

Theodorakis deplores the decision of the Greek and Cypriot governments to participate in such a conference, in this way according recognition to the role and say of third countries on Cyprus. At the same time, in a dramatic personal appeal to Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, he calls upon him to reflect on the responsibilities he is undertaking as he is led towards a treacherous action against Cyprus, bringing a national disaster upon the Greek people.

What is the Geneva Conference?

The Geneva Conference, which provoked the anger of a man who constitutes one of the Greek national symbols, is formally organized by the UN Secretary General Guterres, but essentially is the achievement of  the neocon former Assistant Secretary of State of the United States Victoria Nuland (the architect of the Ukrainian crisis), with the willing assistance, as ever, of the European Commission and its president Juncker and for the purpose of abolishing Democracy in Cyprus and making the island a colony of the United States, Britain and Israel.

This was all foreshadowed in the previous draft resolution of the Cyprus problem, the so-called Annan plan, rejected in a referendum in 2004. That plan provided – as now – for full equation of the Greek Cypriot majority (82%) and Turkish Cypriot minority (18%). Because, of course, in all likelihood it would not have been possible to take any decision, provision was made for appointment by the UN Secretary General of foreign officials and judges who would govern the state and even appoint their successors!!!

In view of the international situation and the forces usually operating and influencing the UN Secretary-General, he would necessarily appoint only officials and judges enjoying the confidence of the United States and Britain, and indirectly also of Israel because of the influence that that state has on  American and British diplomacy in the Mediterranean.

Greek government spokesman Dimitris Tzanakopoulos says peace talks in Geneva to solve the Cyprus problem were making “positive progress” but crucial issues remained open. Tzanakopoulos said Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras would attend the talks in Geneva “if there was a prospect for a solution.” (Source: in-cyprus.com)

The reason that the Geneva Conference is being convened now is the low probability that Cypriot citizens would vote in favour of such a “solution” in a referendum. In essence the Conference is usurping the constituent power of the Cypriot people and transferring it to third countries!!! Because they cannot take the Cypriot state away from its citizens on the basis of their own vote, they are attempting to do so with the signatures of the President of Cyprus and the Greek government.

If such a goal is achieved, if Cyprus will be transformed into a colony of the “Sea Powers”. This would constitute a colossal strategic victory for the American-British-Israeli neoconservative “Empire of Chaos”, which is responsible for the wars that have virtually demolished the Middle East over the last 15 years.

It will also represent a strategic defeat not only for the Greek people but also, indirectly but clearly, for the most vital interests of Russia in Europe and the Middle East, as well as for the prospect of a democratic and independent Europe.

The EU will be taking another momentous step towards conversion into a totalitarian structure, with the transformation of a second member-state, after Greece, into a protectorate.

Mr. Guterres seems to be coveting the distinction of another Portuguese politician, Barroso, who through participation in the meeting in the Azores assisted in preparations for the invasion of Iraq. Now Guterres in Geneva is launching preparations for the great war against Syria and Iran.

Three states are participating in the Geneva Conference: Britain, Turkey and Greece. Both Britain and Turkey have waged bloody wars against Cyprus to block its independence. Τhe state whose fate is being decided at this Orwellian Conference, namely the Republic of Cyprus, is not officially represented! The President of Cyprus is there as the leader of the “Greek Cypriot community” (!), a terminology introduced to Cyprus by British colonialists.

The Cypriot President consented to this conference despite the protests of the Cypriot public. The consent was extracted under intense pressure from Victoria Nuland and against a background of media controversy over his being blackmailed with the case of the Russian oligarch Lebedev, whose affairs were managed by Anastasiades’ law firm and whose fate depends on the American courts and the American government. (2)

As for the government in Athens, financially at the mercy of its creditors since the capitulation of 2015, has handed over all of its foreign and defense policy to the US and Israel, despite Greece’s traditionally strong ties with the Arab world and with Russia.

Notes

1. The article of Mikis Theodorakis in Greek can be found here

http://www.mikistheodorakis.gr/el/politics/1400/?nid=5270

2. http://www.defenddemocracy.press/%ce%b1nastasiades-under-pressure-to-abolish-now-his-own-state-and-bring-turkey-into-the-eu/

Climate change means colder winters, heavy rains and lots of environmental hazards for many people. But for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), climate change means uninhabitable weather conditions, forced migration and loss of traditional income. It is a real threat that might make the region uninhabitable.

The MENA region is considered the world’s driest region: it is the home to six percent of the world’s population yet it contains 12 countries that face extreme water scarcity – including Tunisia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Algeria.

According to The World Bank, the MENA region has less than two percent of the world’s water supply.

Climate change is already affecting the MENA region in dire ways, but it is expected that climate change will cause extreme heat to spread across more of the land for longer periods of time.

This will make some countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia uninhabitable because it will create humid heat conditions at a level incompatible with human existence.

It will also play a major role in reducing growing areas for agriculture – which is one of the most important sectors in the region.

The rising temperatures will keep increasing the pressure on crops and water resources, which will eventually lead to an amplified level of migration and risk of conflict.

The MENA region has experienced a tremendous amount of environmental hazards due to climate change effects.

Between 2006 and 2010, Syria experienced extreme droughts that turned 60 percent of the country into dry desert, making large regions to become economically impoverished.

In 2013 heavy and continuous rains in most of Sudan have led to floods that destroyed 25,000 homes and left hundreds of thousands of people with no work, home, or even family.

The UAE has also suffered a lot from climate change effects: in 2008 at least three people were killed and 350 injured in a horrific 60 vehicle pile-up due to heavy fog.

In 2016, Tunisia’s rainfall dropped by 30 percent causing agricultural losses of nearly two billion dinars.

It is clear now that the MENA region has no option but to go “green”. Adaptation along with mitigation measures will be essential to build up the resilience needed to cope with the changes.

There is an urgent need for governments to invest in new clean-energy innovations that will effectively reduce greenhouse gases emission and halt rising temperature.

Morocco has been a good example on this by making climate change adaptation a national priority and setting the country on a path to green growth.

The country made a strategy called Green Morocco Plan which is focused on agricultural adaptation and sustainable water and land management.

Tunisia is another good example of a country that is well on its way, since it recently decided to include the protection of environment in its new constitution.

Bahrain opened its first solar plant factory this year which shows the government interest in renewable energy investments.

MENA’s climate is ideal for renewable energy technologies, the abundant sunshine and open spaces could be a perfect source for sustainable power sources such as solar and wind power.

Some countries in the region are setting good examples and moving forward with their plans for a better environment.

Others are still depending on fossil fuel industries as their main source of energy, with the leading role for this part going to Saudi Arabia, holding a large part of the region from tackling the issue in a proper way.

The people who have little to no contribution in the issue of climate change are the one suffering the most from its effects.

Therefore, tackling climate change should be every countries’ first priority, because by standing up against climate change we are laying the foundations for a more stable future and less poverty.

This is absolutely necessary if we want to make sure the next generation will have a chance to live in a good environment.

This article originally appeared on Climate Tracker. 

The two-day G20 summit convenes in Hamburg, Germany today, dominated by global economic and political crises, threats of military confrontation and multisided geostrategic conflicts. The atmosphere resembles nothing so much as a meeting between greater and lesser mobsters in which no one knows who will be the first to shoot.

First held in 2009 in London, the G20 Summit was supposed to serve as a forum for a collective effort by the major powers to rescue world capitalism from the financial meltdown begun on Wall Street in 2008 and to ward off the danger of protectionism. Today, under the impact of the ever-deepening and insoluble capitalist economic crisis, the conflicts between these powers have become so advanced, severe and unconcealed that there is every reason to believe that this could be the last of these world gatherings.

US President Donald Trump set the tone for a summit of bitter and open confrontation by preceding his arrival in Germany with a trip to Poland, which has been sharply at odds with Germany’s rise as the new hegemon in Europe. Hosted by one of the most right-wing governments on the European continent, he delivered a fascistic speech warning of the collapse of “our civilization” and calling for a struggle “for family, for freedom, for country, and for God.” Invoking Polish resistance to German occupation in the Second World War, Trump left no doubt that he was seeking to align the US with Poland in order to pursue American imperialism’s present-day rivalry with Germany.

Trump also addressed the 12-central and east European nation “Three Seas Initiative Summit” in Warsaw, a body that follows in the tradition of the so-called Intermarium alliance formed in the 1920s by various fascistic and nationalist regimes directed against both the Soviet Union and Germany and supported by the US.

The agenda of the White House echoes the statement of then-US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who in 2003 denounced France and Germany for failing to support the US drive to war against Iraq, dismissing them as “old Europe” and indicating that Washington was oriented to a “new Europe” composed of the former Warsaw Pact states in the east.

A decade and a half later, the geostrategic conflicts exposed by the divisions over Washington’s criminal war against Iraq have metastasized, affecting every area of relations between Europe and America and playing out on a global stage.

Trump comes to Hamburg as the personification of the backwardness, criminality and parasitism of America’s ruling financial oligarchy. His aim is to use the threat of war, from a potentially world catastrophic attack on North Korea to an equally dangerous confrontation with Iran and Russia in Syria, to bludgeon US imperialism’s rivals into submission to his administration’s economic nationalist, “America First” agenda.

Trump, however, is by no means alone in pursuing an aggressive imperialist agenda. German Chancellor Angela Merkel held her own meeting in the run-up to the G20 summit with China’s President Xi Jinping, both invoking free trade and climate change, condemning protectionism and implicitly opposing the policies of the Trump administration. Merkel embraced Beijing’s “One Belt, One Road” project of developing infrastructure for transport and energy networks linking China to Central Asia, Russia, all of Europe and the energy resources of the Middle East, an initiative viewed by Washington as an existential threat.

Source: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung / Creative Commons License

Xi’s government, confronting growing military pressure from Washington both on the Korean peninsula and in the South China Sea, is seeking to forge closer bonds with a rising and increasingly independent—both politically and militarily—German imperialism.

To the same end, he preceded his trip to Germany with a two-day visit to Moscow, where he and Putin defied Washington’s demands that China starve North Korea into submission after Pyongyang’s test firing of an ICBM. Instead, they issued their own demands for the US to remove its antiballistic missiles from South Korea and halt its provocative military exercises on the peninsula.

Meanwhile, on the very eve of the summit, the European Union and Japan announced the conclusion of a free trade pact that would encompass a third of the world’s GDP. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe declared that the agreement demonstrated “our strong political will to fly the flag for free trade against a shift toward protectionism.”

“Although some are saying that the time of isolationism and disintegration is coming again, we are demonstrating that this is not the case,” European Council President Tusk added.

The agreement has been struck at the expense of US-based transnationals and both statements were clearly directed against Trump, who on the eve of the summit wrote on Twitter:

“The US made some of the worst trade deals in world history. Why should we continue these deals with countries that do not help us.”

With the continuously escalating conflicts between the economic powers that constitute the core of the world economy, the increasingly open and acrimonious divisions within the NATO alliance itself, and the forging of multiple pacts directed at furthering the interests of one or another power against its rivals, the situation resembles more and more that described by Lenin during World War I in which the imperialist powers were “enmeshed in a net of secret treaties with each other, with their allies, and against their allies.”

The rising threat of war and the breakdown of international institutions that were created in the aftermath of the United States’ emergence from World War II as the dominant imperialist power are the end product of processes that have matured over the quarter century since the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The emergence of what US strategists described as a “unipolar moment” set the stage for a series of imperialist wars and interventions in which US imperialism sought to exploit its military advantage to counterbalance its declining position in the world economy.

While these wars shattered Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and other countries, claimed millions of lives and unleashed the greatest refugee crisis since World War II, they utterly failed to alter the fortunes of US imperialism.

Now, a new stage of the crisis has been reached in which Washington’s global rivals are challenging US imperialism’s global hegemony.

Underlying these increasingly dangerous developments are the fundamental contradictions of the world capitalist system between, on the one hand, globally integrated and interdependent economy and its division into antagonistic national states, and, on the other, between the socialized character of global production and its subordination, through the private ownership of the means of production, to the accumulation of private profit by the ruling capitalist class.

An abandoned theater in Hamburg, Germany, is a protest site in anticipation of Friday’s G20 summit. (Source: UPI.com)

Imperialism’s only means of resolving these contradictions is through a new world war that poses the destruction of humanity. These same contradictions, however are laying the foundations for a revolutionary upsurge of the working class on an international scale.

As the International Committee of the Fourth International spelled out in its 2016 statement “Socialism and the Fight Against War”:

“The great historical questions arising from the present world situation can be formulated as follows: How will the crisis of the world capitalist system be resolved? Will the contradictions wracking the system end in world war or world socialist revolution? Will the future lead to fascism, nuclear war and an irrevocable descent into barbarism? Or will the international working class take the path of revolution, overthrow the capitalist system, and then reconstruct the world on socialist foundations? These are the real alternatives confronting humanity.”

Featured image from Wikimedia Commons

Donald Trump delivered a speech in Warsaw Thursday morning, but it will be studied far more carefully in Berlin and Moscow. So hostile was the population of the Polish capital to the visit by the US president that the ruling (Law and Justice) PiS party, which shares Trump’s outlook of semi-fascistic nationalism, had to bus in supporters from the rural areas to make a respectable—and suitably enthusiastic—crowd.

The speech touched several bases required of any US president, and particularly Trump, battered by months of allegations by the intelligence apparatus and media—aimed at pushing him to take a more aggressive stance against Moscow—that Russia intervened into the US presidential election to favor his candidacy. He reaffirmed, in categorical fashion, the obligation of the US government under Article Five of the NATO charter to respond militarily to any attack on any member of NATO.

Trump had previously cast doubt on the possibility of the US going to war with Russia, a potential nuclear cataclysm, in response to a border clash in Estonia, Lithuania or Latvia, the three Baltic republics ruled by viciously anti-Russian right-wing governments. Article Five does not cover Ukraine, which is not a NATO member.

The US president claimed that his previous criticisms of NATO were sparked by the disparity between the US financial contribution and those of its European allies, and that this had been vindicated by a flood of promises of greater military spending from these countries. He then added,

“To those who would criticize our tough stance, I would point out that the United States has demonstrated not merely with words but with its actions that we stand firmly behind Article 5, the mutual defense commitment.”

Trump also singled out Russia for criticism, declaring,

“We urge Russia to cease its destabilizing activities in the Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes, including Syria and Iran, and instead join the community of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and defense of civilization itself.”

The most important passages in the speech, drafted for Trump by his foreign policy team and delivered without any obvious deviations, declared sympathy for the plight of Poland, trapped geographically between more powerful nations, Germany and Russia, sometimes partitioned or overrun by them. The speech was delivered at the site of a memorial to the Warsaw uprising by the Polish Home Army in 1944, which was bloodily suppressed by the Nazis.

Trump himself knows next to nothing of the geography or history of Poland, or any other country, for that matter. These lines were undoubtedly prepared for him by the National Security Council and fascistic aides like Stephen Bannon, and the clear purpose of the material was to fan the flames of anti-German and anti-Russian sentiment, both in Poland and more broadly in Europe.

This is in keeping with the new orientation of US foreign policy, which regards the European Union as a major economic and (potentially) strategic adversary dominated by Germany, and therefore makes common cause with the EU members most antagonistic to Brussels—first of all Britain, which is pursuing Brexit, and secondly Poland, which has repeatedly clashed with the EU over the ultra-right and antidemocratic measures of the PiS government.

Trump deliberately associated himself with the viciously anti-immigrant policies of the PiS, claiming that, like his own administration, the government in Warsaw was not persecuting immigrants but rather fighting terrorism, which both Trump and the PiS identify with the Muslim countries and Muslim minorities in Europe and the United States.

Trump invoked religion repeatedly as the key to the history of the Polish people, claiming that the collapse of the Stalinist regimes should be dated on June 2, 1979, when “one million Poles gathered around Victory Square for their very first mass with their Polish Pope,” and “one million Poles sang three simple words: ‘We Want God’.”

He continued,

“Their message is as true today as ever. The people of Poland, the people of America, and the people of Europe still cry out ‘We want God’.”

Actually, Europe is a largely secular society, and Poland is a relative backwater with its powerful Roman Catholic hierarchy and priest-ridden rural population—the price paid for decades of persecution of socialist and left-wing thought by the Stalinist bureaucracy.

From his glorification of (Christian) religion, Trump went on to demonize Muslims, declaring,

“We are confronted by another oppressive ideology—one that seeks to export terrorism and extremism all around the globe. America and Europe have suffered one terror attack after another.”

He urged Russia to join the Western powers “in our fight against common enemies and in defense of civilization itself.”

In perhaps the most remarkable passage of a fascistic speech, Trump announced he has identified “yet another danger … invisible to some but familiar to the Poles: the steady creep of government bureaucracy that drains the vitality and wealth of the people.”

In one paragraph, the US president managed to conflate the danger of ISIS terrorism and the apparently equal menace of environmental regulations by the EPA. He told his audience,

“We must work together to confront forces, whether they come from inside or out, from the South or the East, that threaten over time to undermine these values and to erase the bonds of culture, faith and tradition that make us who we are.”

There was a definite anti-Semitic subtext in the speech, thinly disguised by a perfunctory one-sentence reference to the Holocaust and the extermination of the Jews of Poland. But there was no mistaking the undertones of an address that hailed the Polish people, their culture and religion—the word “Polish” appears 25 times in the seven-page text of the speech—and makes exactly one reference to the Jews, and no mention of anti-Semitism. In addition, Trump did not visit either the memorial to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising or the recently opened Museum of the History of Polish Jews, honored as the 2016 European Museum of the Year.

The speech referred to the Holocaust—the systematic murder of six million Jews, half of them in Poland—as merely one in a list of “evils beyond description.”

The speech was concluded on a note likely supplied by Bannon, a devotee of the pronouncements of Mussolini and other Italian fascists. Trump argued

“the defense of the West ultimately rests not only on means but also on the will of its people to prevail and be successful and get what you have to have. The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.”

The evocation of “will” as the decisive category is significant. It is not for nothing that Leni Riefenstahl’s propaganda film on the German Nazi Party’s 1934 congress in Nuremberg was given the title “Triumph of the Will.” Trump may not know, but Bannon certainly does, the fascist pedigree of this particular piece of right-wing rhetoric.

Featured image from @SebastianLedwon/Twitter via Encyclopedic News

It is essential to constantly remind ourselves, that war, apart from a very few exceptions, is a symptom of madness. Yet war is a disease which is largely taken for granted; considered ‘normal’ and unless it involves a large swathe of humanity, ignored. How did we allow ourselves to be trapped by such insanity?

In 2017, wars are as prevalent as ever. They are being manifest in the Middle East, in Africa, in South America, and in a lesser form, in almost all countries of the World. They are the result of a failure to recognize that killing another is actually killing one’s self. A failure to grasp that humanity is a collective made up of millions of individuals, all of whom share a common ancestry and, on a subconscious plain, a common aspiration and destiny.

There is no victory in war. War is an admission of defeat. When humans resort to mass killing of each other we see an expression of failure, never success. Not so long ago war was glorified and, for the victor, held up as an expression of supreme national pride. In fact, such an attitude was predominant in the species for thousands of years.

However two World Wars put an end to the hubris. The levels of destruction were so great and so many millions died brutal and ugly deaths, that a kind of ‘war weariness’ set-in amongst the survivors, and a new sense of the futility of it all became integrated into societies which had undergone the experience. The world looked like it might have learned its lesson; people had pounded each other, and the natural environment, into a sickening pulp, and there was no glorious aftermath. Just a sense of what ‘peace’ could actually mean.

There were – and are – still some who find war ‘exciting’, whose own lives are too dull and routine to find any thrill in the act of daily living. They look-on at wars in foreign territories as extensions of their own angst and frustrations. Such individuals find temporary comfort in watching others die.

This condition is more prevalent than many might realize; it is symptomatic of a world crushed by meaningless routine and managed by those lacking any manifest vision of something more deeply fulfilling to awaken starved imaginations.

Of course, a history of war will reveal that whole civilizations were born and dissolved via victory and defeat on the battlefield. It was believed that these blood baths were a price worth paying for the great accumulation of national wealth which followed them, if one was on the winning side. It is sobering to reflect that much of the fine architecture of old Europe is a result of plundered wealth.

War is made no less destructive by the fact that it can now be carried out by people sitting in air conditioned ‘cockpits’ in Houston. People trained to kill ‘at a distance’. People whose chance of being themselves attacked by those they target, being pretty much nil. This type of killing is one step away from the ‘robotic soldier’, the envisioned battle field of the future and a direct of extension of the war games kids (and adults) play on their electronic gismos.

But look, it’s still the same underlying disease. It’s still the fascination with the idea of somehow ‘coming out on top’ and having it over ‘an inferior’. It’s still reveling in destruction, on all plains of planetary life.

Children play war games. I used to play ‘Cowboys and Indians’. I was indoctrinated into ‘war thinking’ from a very early age. It was just after World War Two, and life in Britain was steeped in stories of heroism carried out by ‘our boys’ against the Nazis. Toy soldier armies ranged against each other across the sitting room floor as parents looked on with quiet acceptance. We soon graduated on to ‘cap guns’ and staged mock battles around the garden bushes and trees.

But nobody got killed in these ‘war games’ and the ground wasn’t turned into a sea of craters and toxic mud by our childhood antics. Other matters eventually attracted our curiosity and interest, and the guns and bows and arrows were dumped, unlikely to be seen again.

If mankind would only grow up, the same situation would repeat around the world. Adult individuals, blessed with a little responsibility and the slimmest glimmer of wisdom, would ‘move on’ to areas of interest that expressed an eagerness to support the planet, and not destroy it. A wish to explore new horizons of consciousness, and not to regress into thoughtless thuggery. A desire to meet and enjoy the company of other races and nationalities, and not to put a gun to their heads.

How can this madness have gone on so long? How can war still ‘be taken for granted’ in 2017?

Even those who argue vociferously for cutting back excessive CO2 emissions on the planet, don’t call for an end to war and ‘war games’ that are responsible for a large part of these emissions. They fail to realize that here is to be found the single largest transmission of toxic CO2 when set against any other global activity. I’m including a brief summary of the US position in 2013, just to illustrate the point:

“According to its own study, in 2013 the Pentagon consumed fuel equivalent to 90,000,000 barrels of crude oil. This amounts to 80% of the total fuel usage by the federal government. If burned as jet fuel it produces about 38,700,000 metric tons of CO2. And the Pentagon’s figures do not include carbon produced by the thousands of bombs dropped in 2013, or the fires that burned after the jets and drones departed. ” (Counter Punch).

Most environmentalists and climate change campaigners also ‘take war for granted’, it seems. It has been etched into our bones by an endless indoctrination process. A process whose symptoms can also be found in the way we are urged to be ‘aggressive’ and ‘competitive’ in order to make progress within the demands of the status quo. How much of what is called ‘education’ is about bringing out our creative potential instead of our aggressive potential? And how much is about cramming us with the means to ‘succeed’ in the mostly cut throat world of business and indeed, almost all professions?

We see the symptoms of aggression in daily life, and fail to question it. Is it any wonder that we fail to question war?

War is the most favored tool of the controlling powers. It supplies the coffers of the military industrial complex with an endless demand for production of weapons. The state then gets the pay-off and looks for another war to keep the cycle of death going. It is also a valuable diversionary tool for distracting the general public, while unpopular and controversial issues are pushed through the system, with only a few noticing.

Of course a great prize for warmongers in general, is anticipation of the breaking out of mother of all wars. And indeed, the ever looming threat of genocide never seems far off at the hands of those who play with power the way children play with their toy guns and swords, but without any of the child’s creativity. Today, in the USA in particular,  megalomania has become wedded with a sort of Russian Roulette approach to who might present the next useful target for a bombing run or drone attack.

Witness how high the stakes get set in this fiendish game. Witness the Russian Federation and President Putin being ever further provoked by the West to take an aggressive step that could trigger a mega war scenario. The vicious taunting, without a shred of evidence to give it credence, is a mark of the madness which all too often grips those in power. Those who are determined to diminish all of life to a poisoned arrow of fabricated fear, which, if ever launched, would take all of humanity with it.

Let us be sure to keep a close eye on those whom we elect to administer our countries. The intoxication which comes with power is a very dangerous addiction, particularly when the play things at such people’s disposal are weapons of mass destruction. We need, more than ever, to be able to recognize the symptoms of megalomania and not confuse it with ‘strong leadership’. It is a major weakness in the delivery of what is called democracy, that so many people are still so easily fooled by those ‘standing for election’.

We are being pushed by ‘anti-life’ forces, some of whose origins are less than human, to see the planet and its people as expendable. To accept lies, deception and crude power-play as something akin to ‘normal’. To feel that it is not in our powers to bring deep change to a washed-out and degraded status quo. To believe that war is an ‘acceptable’ way of shifting around the totems of power.

It’s time we not only woke up, but got out of bed too. The hour is late, and this should add a significant degree of urgency to our endeavors. Mankind is blessed with deep powers of positive potential and these powers are far greater than the force which drives the war mongering anti-life minority. We are close to a tipping point in the growth of conscious awareness amongst caring human beings.

The key will be to channel this awareness into taking measures to regain control of our destinies.

To rid this world of those who hold its fate in their numb, insensitive hands. To act in unison and to defy all efforts to divide and conquer our growing sense of purpose and endeavor.

We can and we will, put an end to the madness of war. We must not wait for war to put an end to us.

This article first appeared on www.connorpost.com

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, a writer and international activist. He is currently President of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside. Julian is also the author of two acclaimed titles: ‘Changing Course for Life’ and ‘In Defence of Life’. You can purchase these books and read more at www.julianrose.info

The First Deputy Foreign Minister of the Syrian Arab Republic Faisal Mekdad said on July 4, that the United States had carried out a missile strike at the Shayrat airbase guided by one more White Helmets’ fake made specifically to compromise the Syrian authorities.

Deputy Minister stressed the government of Syria has a report photo and video materials of which confirm the guilt of the militants. Mekdad also noted that Washington should carefully study the possible actions of the official Damascus and its allies in response to any new aggression.

Against the backdrop of the fighting terrorists in Raqqa and Mosul, the Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) offensive and the overall situation in Syria have been developing positively for Damascus. The parallel process of peaceful settlement in Astana and Geneva is also bearing fruit. Such tendencies in the military-political and the military-diplomatic spheres cause a very serious negative reaction among the enemies of the Syrian people. Therefore, the U.S. is trying to take the initiative away from the Government of Syria by the brute force and the military intervention.

The provocations that have been taking place since 2011 throughout almost the entire period of the military operations in Syria, unfortunately lead to a negative reaction and unreasonable aggressive actions on the part of the United States very often.

It is especially outrageous from the U.S. to declare a possible preparation for a new chemical attack by the SAA and subsequent White House’s response against the background of the use of white phosphorous munitions by the U.S.-led International Coalition in Raqqa which is prohibited by the international law. It is also worth noting the recent terrible airstrikes of the still the same coalition in the village of Kishik Zyyanat in the southern countryside of Hasaka province on July 4, which resulted in death of nine civilians.

At the same time, the militants of various terrorist groups helped the U.S. to increase tensions by carrying out terrorist attacks in Damascus. Such actions can only be described as an attempt to disrupt the peace process. It looks like ‘someone’ stubbornly does not want to sit at the negotiating table and to return to a peaceful life. It is obviously in the interest of terrorists, some representatives of the so-called moderate opposition and the United States to continue to torment Syria with the war in the hope that the official Damascus will surrender.

On the contrary, the Syrian Arab Army on Monday announced a ceasefire in the southern provinces of the country until July 6. In order to support the peace process, military operations in Daraa, Kuynetra and Suwayda were stopped. Such actions prove the fact that, Damascus seeks peace and negotiations no matter what, unlike the U.S. and rebels. In so doing, these acts of terrorism and information warfare generated in tandem are unlikely to frighten the will of the Syrian people for peace. It is because of these efforts that the talks in Astana were held quite successfully, no matter what.

Kazakh Foreign Minister Kairat Abdrakhmanov noticed that the participants had taken yet another important step towards peace and stability on the Syrian land. The guarantor countries, in turn, expressed their satisfaction with the process of determining the boundaries of the de-escalation areas and decided the joint working group would finalize all the operational and technical conditions of all the de-escalation areas. Thus the process of the political settlement continues.

Apparently, in order not to increase the already serious flows of disinformation aimed at disrupting the process of the peaceful settlement the reliability and validity of information received from all the sources including notorious international organizations and Governments must be carefully weighed and analyzed by the U.S. The White House should work out more peaceful strategy of their behavior in the Middle East and Syria in particular if they really want to highlight their commitment to peace as they usually declare.

The actions of the U.S. and their allies below therefore address this issue:

#1. Total BS: Fake Chemical Attack!

A lot of media raised the storm of a new chemical attack being prepared by the Syrian Government.

Who is the real film-maker?

People started organizing public opinion polls as it is something like a reality show.

What the masterminds were planning to do next?

The Free Syrian Army (FSA) just faked news of one more Syrian Arab Army’s chemical attack in Ayn-Tarma (Ein Tarma, also spelled  Ain Terma, is a suburb of Damascus in Syria, located 3 kilometers east of Old Damascus, just north of the Barada River, within an area called the Eastern Ghouta), exactly five days after the U.S. statement on the matter.

It is understandable as the film about chemical attack and chemical weapons (CW) has already been produced and the reporters are ready. “Coming this July on pro-opposition channels, a new reality show!”

The video to be analyzed by imaging experts is available here.

You see, the movie was already made and somebody just paid to raise a storm about the allegedly tragedy.

The reaction of the Syrian High Command was not long in coming:

The SAA’s top command denies all accusations of preparing chemical attacks stressing that the Government Army has never used chemical weapons in the past, and would never use it in the future. The SAA does not have any chemical weapons, so the information campaign of the West is nothing but lies and deception.

Below are some comments from Twitter:

This might be a “justification” for another U.S. strike after a new Oscar for fake video (like White Helmets) is awarded.

Who may believe that Assad decided to start using chemical weapons after 6 years of war and now that the SAA is winning invaders?

Which country has killed more civilians in the Middle East, Syria or the U.S.?

It all means that the Rebels are in danger of losing the battle of Ayn-Tarma, and Jobar two. Only the brainless believe this ‘Chemical Weapons’-campaign.

#2. The International Coalition Takes Lives

According to Inside Syria Media Center’ military correspondents, the Air Force of the U.S.-led International Coalition attacked Kishik Zyyanat village in the southern countryside of Hasaka province on July 4. As a result of the new massacre committed nine civilians were killed.

In addition, not so long ago the aircraft of the Coalition carried out three other air strikes at the city of al-Mayadin (It is a city in eastern Syria. It is the capital of the Mayadin District, part of the Deir ez-Zorr Governorate. Mayadin is located about 44 kilometers southeast of Deir ez-Zor) and also at the village of At-Deblyan, on June 28, killing at least 90 civilians including women and children. Incidents resulted in considerable material damage.

Official Damascus has repeatedly accused the U.S. and its allies of striking at the civilian infrastructure and civilians in Syria under the pretext of fighting terrorism.

#3. The Terrorist Attack in Damascus

According to Reuters, there was a powerful explosion today at the Tahrir Square in the center of Damascus on July 2. As a result, eight people lost their lives and at least 12 sustained injuries of various levels of severity. For the lives of the latter’s are now fighting doctors. They have brought quality medical care.

At present time you are investing billions of dollars, euros, rubles, yens, yuans etc. on the research of the functioning of human brain. You all compete in the development of weapons enabling remote control of the human nervous system, organism and mind. You have developed systems capable of killing people in large areas of the planet or producing pains and sicknesses in them, damaging DNA of evolving organisms, altering people‘s states of mind, their emotions and even thoughts.

At the same time you are hiding the existence of those weapons from your citizens by subjecting them to your National Security Information legislations while training operators of those weapons on unwitting citizens of your states. While claiming to promote democracy, human rights or  humanism, you have created a world, where human freedom, human health and human life have no protection whatsoever against attacks committed by your own agencies. Even the political or democratic events in your countries can no longer be trusted, due to your secret possession of those weapons.

Should you continue in the policy of secrecy of those weapons, the world will be evolving toward a new totalitarian system, where citizens will have no defense against mental or physical cruelty of their governments.

Therefore we call on you to declassify those weapons, to create legislations which would protect the citizens of your countries against such attacks and to create agencies, which, in cooperation with human rights organisations, would detect energetic attacks on your citizens and search for their sources.

You are defending secrecy and classification of those weapons by the possible war that may erupt between some of you, but it only proves again that your desire for power outweighs your proclaimed effort to promote democracy or to search for stability and security in the world. Your inability to establish reasonable, polite and non-violent relationships among yourselves again proves that at least some of you (especially the USA) are seeking a totalitarian power in the world.

Despite your unwillingness to stop this insanity, we have confidence that your citizens’ growing awareness of your possession and use of those weapons will make them oblige you to enact the legislation we are proposing.

Signed by:

The Worldwide Campaign Against Electronic Torture, Abuse And Experimentation
Australia

ICATOR – International Coalition Against Electronic Torture And Robotization of Living Beings
Belgium

Toronto Targeted Individuals
Canada

Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and torture with mind control technologies
China

Spolek za zákaz manipulace lidské nervové soustavy radiofrekvenčním zářením
Czech Republic

EUCACH
European Coalition Against Covert Harassment Europe

ADVHER
Association de Victimes de Harcèlement Électromagnétique et en Réseau
France

TCVN
Technological Crime Victims Network
Japan

STOPEG Foundation
STOP Electromagnetic weapons and Gang stalking
Netherlands

STOPZET
Stop Zorganizowanym Elektronicznym Torturom
Poland

Stop organized electronics tortures and killing weapons on new physical principles – Moscow Committee for the Ecology of Housing.
Russia

White TV
Sweden

Les
London End Stalking
United Kingdom

TIA
Targeted Individuals Association
United Kingdom

ICAACT –
International Center Against Abuse of Covert Technologies
United States of America

PACTS, International
People Against Covert Torture and Surveillance, International
United States of America

ACOFOINMENEF
Associazione contro ogni forma di controllo ed interferenza mentale e neurofisiologica
Italy

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has continued advancing against militants in the area of Ayn Tarma east of Damascus.  According to pro-government sources, the SAA has liberated 10 more buildings in the direction of the Ayn Tarma roundabout.

Syrian Air Force warplanes carried out 13 air strikes on the positions of Faylaq al-Rahman and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in Ayn Tarma and Jobar areas.  The SAA killed more than 15 HTS fighters and destroyed a vehicle. Faylaq al-Rahman was able to damage an SAA tank and to destroy a BMP vehicle.  The militants claimed that they repelled the SAA push in eastern Damascus.

On Wednesday, Russian Tu-95MS strategic bombers struck ISIS targets in Syria with X-101 cruise missiles. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the cruise missile strike destroyed three large arms and ammunition depots, and a terrorist command center near the city of Uqayribat in the province of Hama. The strike was made from a range of about 1,000 kilometers.  The Tu-95MS bombers took off from an airfield in Russia.

According to experts, an intense bombing campaign in the Uqayribat area preceedes a large anti-ISIS operation aimed at liberating the whole eastern Hama countryside from ISIS.

The US-led coalition announced that the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have captured 18% of Raqqah city so far.  The SDF allegedly advanced in Old Raqqah and took control of the road leading to Saif al-Dawla Mosque in the middle of the city.

According to opposition sources, US service members are participating in the battles alongside SDF members.  ISIS claimed that 12 SDF fighters were killed on Wednesday in Sukarat, Souk al-Hal, and Sour Baghdad in eastern and southern Raqqah.

Voiceover by Harold Hoover

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video above

The latest missile test by North Korea was damned by the US as a serious threat to global security. Not surprising. All the right minds with the right awareness of global affairs substantially know that these ballistic missile programs of North Korea are but for defense, never for first strikes. Will the US use this act as a pretext for a pre-emptive move against North Korea? Global Research has compiled some good reads below for your thoughts.

On Tuesday, the DPRK conducted its latest ballistic missile test. Secretary of State Tillerson lied, calling it an ICBM launch, “represent(ing) a new escalation of the threat to the United States, our allies and partners, the region, and the world.” (Stephen Lendman)

*     *     *

North Korea vs. America: Trump’s Better Things to Do?

By Kim Petersen, July 06, 2017

Trump has spent 166 days of his life in office (at time of this writing) “doing” (more accurately having others do at his direction, and the same distinction would hold for Kim Jong-un) these supposedly better things that others might not deign to do.

The Long, Dirty History of U.S. Warmongering Against North Korea

By Christine Hong, July 06, 2017

Almost seventy years ago, we entered into a war with North Korea that has never ended. At the time, only a handful of Americans raised their voices in opposition. Let’s not let the historical record reflect our silence now.

Even a US ‘Surgical Strike’ Against North Korea Could Lead to Full-Scale War

By Jason Ditz, July 06, 2017

Even administration officials readily admit that a full-scale war with North Korea is “a war we don’t want.” After almost 70 years of armistice, North Korea has retaliatory capabilities that would devastate South Korea, killing millions, and the large US military contingent in South Korea would be sitting ducks.

North Korea and the “Axis of Evil”

By S. Brian Willson, July 06, 2017

It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long “hot” war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerence of another.

Provocative US Response to Latest North Korean Missile Test

By Stephen Lendman, July 06, 2017

North Korea threatens no one, not America or any other nation. Russia’s Defense Ministry explained the Tuesday launch flew around 535 km, reaching an altitude of 510 km before falling harmlessly into the Sea of Japan – calling the missile an intermediate-range ballistic one, not an ICBM.

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: Museum of Capitalism (Source: CityLab)

Museums that house a collection can do so with two consequences: they approve and collaborate with the subject matter (the Tate’s pandering to Tracy Emin’s menstrual, sex stained bed, as a case in point), or stridently take issue with it, lecturing visitors. (The Holocaust museum.)

The Museum of Capitalism tells its visitors of a mission to educate “this generation and future generations about the ideology, history, and legacy of capitalism.” In so doing, there is more than a scant suggestion that we have somehow moved into something after capitalism.[1]

Walking to its location near Jack London Square is ample preparation. It is desolate and coarse: sterile, cold buildings, suddenly punctuated by a wine shop teaming with patrons and tasting options; run down sheds suddenly turned into sharp apartment complexes in spurts of gentrification.

Appropriately enough, the museum is housed within an Oakland waterfront office building, a pop-up exhibition featuring a range of themed items ranging from the Capitalist Bathroom Experience (we all defecate, don’t we?) to Mindfulness techniques for the baton wielding, trigger-happy police force. Visual artists predominate. Even the building itself is revealed as an anatomised version of capitalism, ushering the viewer to move through set pieces of power and production.

The museum suggests a counter, a form of resistance against the state. The premise is obvious enough: it is the state that has done more than anything to provide the conditions that enable capitalism to flourish, be it through military industrial complexes, policing, land use, labour and commodities. As Darwin Bondgraham notes,

“this museum of capitalism is also a museum of government under capitalism.”[2]

But there is nothing to suggest the transcending of capitalism, despite the valiant attempt to consider alternatives through feminist discourse, anarchism, environmental regeneration, and community solidarity. A range of these are supplied in Oliver Ressler’s multi screen showing “Alternative Economics, Alternative Societies” (2003-2008).

Inevitably, there are a range of displays that poke fun at corporate misbehaviour, though this is done with degrees of savage humour and sombre consideration. Yet this is the United States, and Oakland is a belt where enterprise and the capitalist urge exist like viral excitements. Outside the museum is the waterfront with glistening boats that are gaudy rather than tasteful, monsters on the sea that float defiantly.

No matter. The museum’s website insists on the wisdom of Raymond Williams:

“To be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing.”

The capitalist project, a point signaled at in the exhibits, was propagandised as not something of despair, but promise. It was erroneously tied to the notion free markets would somehow entail sound democratic practice and more accessible responsible representatives. What did happen, in time, was a surrender of that relevant representation, a literal sell-out to the boardroom, the corporatocracy.

What, then, of this form of human organisation that seems, in the scheme of existence, a short one? The museum does not necessarily promote a world instead of capitalism, or after it. There is, in fact, a significant contemporary dimension to what is on show.

This contemporary dimension features installations that speak of the casualties of capitalism. The sub-prime mortgage catastrophe, the names of banks closed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, can be viewed as corpses of finance.

The destruction of the singular experience that current processes of capitalism inflict is also evident in Chip Lord’s nine-channel video installation “Peak Air Travel: To & From” (2016). The modern global airport city entails the leveling of uniqueness into a dreary, drone-like existence. It brings to mind a remark made by British comedian Paul Merton: to go to an airport in China is never to leave one, terrifying as they are in their identical construction.

There is a final irony netted by the museum’s display. While being free, the cost has to borne in some way. Tipping, the private customer initiative always encouraged in the United States to pad out poor wages, is encouraged. And the museum itself has been appropriated as part of the regenerative theme of capitalism behind the district’s new “image”.

As Jack London Improvement District Executive Director Savlan Hauser claimed,

“Jack London is an established waterfront destination, but has lacked this kind of cultural anchor… a Museum of Capitalism is the kind of thing our neighbourhood has been missing.”[3]

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

Notes

[2] https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/seeing-state-power-inside-the-museum-of-capitalism/Content?oid=7843611

Any truthful way to say it will sound worse than ghastly: We live in a world where one person could decide to begin a nuclear war — quickly killing several hundred million people and condemning vast numbers of others to slower painful deaths.

Given the macabre insanity of this ongoing situation, most people don’t like to talk about it or even think about it. In that zone of denial, U.S. news media keep detouring around a crucial reality: No matter what you think of Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, they hold the whole world in their hands with a nuclear button.

If the presidents of the United States and Russia spiral into escalating conflicts between the two countries, the world is much more likely to blow up. Yet many American critics of Trump have gotten into baiting him as Putin’s flunky while goading him to prove otherwise. A new barrage of that baiting and goading is now about to begin — taking aim at any wisps of possible détente — in connection with the announced meeting between Trump and Putin at the G-20 summit in Germany at the end of this week.

Big picture: This moment in human history is not about Trump. It’s not about Putin. It’s not about whether you despise either or neither or both. What’s at stake in the dynamics between them is life on this planet.

Over the weekend, more than 10,000 people signed a petition under the heading “Tell Trump and Putin: Negotiate, Don’t Escalate.” The petition was written by RootsAction to be concise and to the point:

“We vehemently urge you to take a constructive approach to your planned meeting at the G-20 summit. Whatever our differences, we must reduce rather than increase the risks of nuclear war. The future of humanity is at stake.”

A war between the world’s two nuclear superpowers could extinguish human life on a gigantic scale while plunging the Earth into cataclysmic “nuclear winter.”

“Recent scientific studies have found that a war fought with the deployed U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals would leave Earth virtually uninhabitable,” wrote Steven Starr, a senior scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility. “In fact, NASA computer models have shown that even a ‘successful’ first strike by Washington or Moscow would inflict catastrophic environmental damage that would make agriculture impossible and cause mass starvation.”

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists explains why, since last year, it has moved the risk-estimate “Doomsday Clock” even closer to apocalyptic midnight — citing as a major factor the escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Russian governments.

So, the imminent meeting between Trump and Putin will affect the chances that the young people we love — and so many others around the world — will have a future. And whether later generations will even exist.

I put it this way in a recent article for The Nation:

“Whatever the truth may be about Russian interference in the U.S. election last year, an overarching truth continues to bind the fates of Russians, Americans and the rest of humanity. No matter how much we might wish to forget or deny it, we are tied together by a fraying thread of relations between two nations that possess 93 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. Right now it is not popular to say so, but we desperately need each other to enhance the odds of human survival.”

In that overall context, stoking hostility toward Russia is, uh, rather short-sighted. Wouldn’t it be much better for the meeting between Trump and Putin to bring Washington and Moscow closer to détente rather than bringing us closer to nuclear annihilation?

Norman Solomon is the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.”

Licensed under Creative Commons. The original source of this article is CounterPunch.

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Twitter: @kimpetersen.

The Saudi/UAE campaign against Qatar quickly turned into a mess. Qatar did not fold as had been expected. There was no plan B. The instigators of the plan have now to fear for their head.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar have all build up and pamper extremists groups fighting in other countries. They supply money, weapons and political and media support to various kinds of murderous Takfiris. Unlike the other three, Qatar not only supported arch-conservative Salafists but also groups aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB do not accept the primacy of the Arab absolute monarchs. They provide an alternative way of governing by adopting some democratic participation of the people. That makes them an imminent danger to the Saudis and other family dictatorships. The military dictator of Egypt, which joined the Saudis on the issue, had led a coup against the elected MB government of his country.

In the view of the Saudis and the other three Qatar had to be reigned in. While its media arm Al-Jazeerah Arabic promotes the sectarian and anti-Iran positions the Saudis support, it also promotes the Muslim Brotherhood. That needed to be stopped.

On June 5 the four countries launched a boycott and blockade of Qatar. Three weeks later they issued a list of demands to Qatar which could be summed up as “surrender your sovereignty or else …”. The “offer” was designed to be refused. It practically demanded total capitulation while threatening more sanctions and even war.

As MoA predicted on June 7, two days after the spat started, Qatar did not fold. It has hundreds of billions in monetary reserves, international support from its liquefied gas customers and allies, and it secured supplies and support from Turkey and Iran. It simply did not response to the “offer” in time for the ultimatum’s end.

The Saudis blinked first. On Sunday the ultimatum was prolonged for two days. Yesterday Qatar responded with its own demands which were, like the “offer”, designed to be refused. It also announced that it would increase its liquefied gas exports by a third which threatens to take market share and income away from the Saudis. It reminded the UAE that 80% of its electricity supplies depend on natural gas delivered from Qatar.

Today the Saudis, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain met to discuss further consequences and new measures against Qatar. The Gulf media predicted more sanctions.

But the gang of four decided to do … nothing:

The foreign ministers of four Arab countries, meeting in Cairo, said they regretted Qatar’s “negative” response to their list of demands.
…
The Saudi foreign minister said further steps would be taken against Qatar at the appropriate time, and would be in line with international law.
…
The meeting came as the deadline for Qatar to accept the list of demands or face further sanctions expired.

This is a huge embarrassment for the clown princes of the UAE and Saudi Arabia. They, Mohammad bin Zayed and Mohammad bin Salman, are the instigators of the campaign against Qatar. The meeting today had to deliver some penalty against Qatar for not giving in to any demand: some additional significant sanctions , a more intense blockade, some threat of military strikes. But the meeting came up with … nothing.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed visits Saudi Arabia, on the right is Mohammad bin Salman (Source: Pinterest)

The clown princes had shot their wad on the very first day. They could not come up with any new measures that were agreeable. Kuwait and Oman reject to push Qatar out of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the UAE would lose all its international businesses in Dubai should the Qatari gas supplies, and thereby its electricity, shut down. An additional blockade of Qatar is impossible without the agreement of the U.S. Russia and other big states.

Such a huge loss of face will have consequences. When the Saudi clown prince launched the war against Yemen he expected, and announced, that Sanaa would fall within days. Two years later Sanaa has not fallen and the Saudis are losing the war. Qatar was expected to fold within days. But it has enough capital and income to sustain the current situation for many years to come. The war against Yemen and the sanctions against Qatar were indirectly aimed against Iran- the Saudis’ cpsen arch-enemy. But without investing even a dime Iran is now the winner from both conflicts. MbS, the Saudi clown prince, has twice proven to be a terrible strategist who endangers his country.

The Saudi King Salman and his son said that neither of them will take part in the upcoming G-20 meeting in Hamburg. Rumors have it that they fear an imminent coup should one of them leave the country.

No one should be surprised if the Salman era finds a bloody end within the next week or month.

The new Israeli law giving police power to block websites that purportedly publish “criminal” or “offensive” content follows a similar blockade of various websites in Palestine by the 13-year president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas – all in the name of “law and order”, “peace” and “fighting terrorism”.

The equation is simple and has long been propagated by Israel through its hasbara apparatus: Palestinian armed resistance to Israel’s oppression equals terror. Hasbara misinformation against Palestine and Palestinians on the Internet is legitimate paid work in Israel; Palestinian outlets speaking for the Palestinian struggle for liberation are illegitimate (criminal) forms of expression and activity:

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”. [Source: Israel’s Illegitimate Tactics Against Palestinian Armed Resistance vs. Legitimate Global Security Concerns]

Israel is taking advantage of a world-wide political development concerning freedom of expression that is meant to combat terrorism. Turning the tables around in a typical Zionist tactic of portraying itself as victim, Israel is exploiting this global dilemma in how to balance freedom of expression in legitimate arenas with hate-mongering – especially the kind reflecting intolerance and populism that might foment acts of violence and terrorist “cell formation”.

But there is a big difference between websites that educate on Israel, share facts that expose Israel’s Apartheid regime in Palestine and influence opinions to stand up for Palestinian rights and liberation on the one hand, and websites that spew hatred with the objective of inciting terrorism and wanton destruction on the other.

In blocking websites that expose its illegitimacy, the Israeli Government is also continuing a long tradition of brainwashing its own Jewish population with Zionist dogma and myth, in the same way it mobilized to “educate” American Jews after 1967, when Zionist myths began to unravel “as a result of Palestinian history books published in English, such as Nafez Nazzal and Ibrahim Abu-Lughod’s work, as well as an increasingly visible Palestinian armed resistance movement.” [Source: On American Zionist Education: An excerpt from ‘The Politics of Teaching Palestine to Americans’]

Since the failure of the so-called two-state “solution” (or Oslo Accords) to the problem of partitioning Mandate Palestine in 1948 and the creation of a Jewish state on a territory of Palestine, there has been a significant shift in how Israel is perceived worldwide, especially in connection with its claim to being the only democracy in the Arab world.

As Ilan Pappe explains in Ten Myths About Israel, Israel was never a democracy before or after 1967, when it occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip and annexed East Jerusalem:

Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. In fact, it’s not a democracy at all. … The myth that a democratic Israel ran into trouble in 1967 but still remained a democracy is propagated even by some notable Palestinian and pro-Palestinian scholars — but it has no historical foundation. … Systematic cruelty does not only show its face in a major event like a massacre. The worst atrocities can also be found in the regime’s daily, mundane presence. … The litmus test of any democracy is the level of tolerance it is willing to extend towards the minorities living in it. In this respect, Israel falls far short of being a true democracy… Israeli Land Policy Is Not Democratic. …The Occupation Is Not Democratic… Destroying Palestinians’ Houses Is Not Democratic. … Crushing Palestinian Resistance Is Not Democratic. …Imprisoning Palestinians Without Trial Is Not Democratic. … What we must challenge here, therefore, is not only Israel’s claim to be maintaining an enlightened occupation but also its pretense to being a democracy. Such behavior towards millions of people under its rule gives the lie to such political chicanery. [Source: No, Israel Is Not a Democracy]

Having been founded by settler-colonial European and East European Zionist Jews, whose political vision was very much shaped by the Western civilization from where they originated (including the practice of European sovereignty, domination and subjugation over non-Western peoples), Israel has always boasted of being a Western-style democracy.

Israel has also angled to be compared favorably with the Arab world’s democratic deficit, directly and indirectly implying that the obstacle to democratic change in the Arab world was to be found, not in the region’s historical institutional framework, but rather in “Arab culture” – i.e., Islam itself. [For a discussion of this latter hypothesis, see Eric Chaney’s article, Democratic Change in the Arab World, Past and Present: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2012a_Chaney.pdf]

Mandate Palestine today is under Israeli sovereignty – all of it. It is true that the Palestinian Authority has administrative control of the West Bank and Hamas has a similar control in the besieged Gaza Strip since 2006, when it won the legislative elections and then was prevented from governing.

But such control is severely limited and contingent on Mahmoud Abbas’s continued cooperation with Israel’s “security needs” over and above the much more urgent needs of the Palestinian people to realize their rights, especially self-determination and dignity.

Unfortunately, the United States and its foreign policy allies vis-à-vis Israel, the European Union and Great Britain, have long enabled Israel’s brutal policies against the Palestinian people. Under the Oslo Accords (1993) and the Paris Protocol (1994), aid to the Palestinian territories was “militarized” to complement (not fight against) the vast US military aid given to Israel to secure its own territory in Palestine.

In other words, aid to Palestinian Arabs ignored the human reality of a people struggling to survive for seventy years – first their ethnic cleansing and denial of return to their own land and homes and then occupation, annexation of East Jerusalem, siege of the Gaza Strip, and uninterrupted and continuing Jewish colonization meant to complete their dispossession.

Today over 12 million people live in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip – primarily Jews and Palestinian Arabs, both Christian and Muslim. As estimated in 2014 by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), there are 6.08 Palestinian Arabs currently living in the Palestinian territories, including Israel (worldwide, Palestinians number an estimated 12.37 million).

Each one of these people, and not only Jews, is entitled to full human rights, “including religious liberty; freedoms of expression and association; equal opportunity regardless of ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, etc.; and due process of law.” That includes access to information on the Internet.

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 Globes English

Although one of the provisions of the Minsk Agreements is the withdrawal of all foreign military entities from Donbass, Ukraine and its Western allies headed by the US continue to relentlessly allege a Russian military presence in the region. For its part, Russia has denied such allegations, responding that it is an observer country to the same extent that the other countries that signed the Minsk Agreements are, i.e., Germany and France.

However, reports periodically come from Donbass which allow us to take a fresh, sober look at the real situation on the ground there. Just recently in conversation with Donbass militia volunteers, I repeatedly heard accounts of Western troops present in the ranks of the Ukrainian army in the capacity of instructors or as active fighters. Meanwhile, the Americans and Canadians do not hide the fact that they are training the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ units (such as at the Yavoriv polygon in the Lvov region), but they categorically refuse to admit that their servicemen (usually from commando units) are present at the frontline and fighting on the side of the UAF. On the other hand, my friends from the DPR army have reported that they have especially often observed Canadian and Polish troops present at the frontline. 

Fresh information just arrived the other day from the Lugansk People’s Republic. The LPR’s Ministry of Internal Affairs’ hotline received a call from a resident of the town of Popasnaya (under Ukrainian control), who said that English-speaking, foreign troops have appeared in the town. The caller described them as dressed in white and grey NATO camouflage and armed with foreign small arms. 

LPR intelligence sources have since released the following report:

“According to preliminary findings, the unknown troops in question are US citizens and call themselves American volunteers. They have brought with them some kind of electronic equipment stored in metal boxes and suitcases. At the present moment, these mercenaries are awaiting the arrival of voltage converters since their hardware is not designed to work with 220 voltage networks.”

While accusing Russia of meddling in the conflict in Donbass, the Americans, Canadians, and their European NATO allies are directly involved in the conflict, specializing in training the UAF in sabotage and terroristic warfare, as well as electronic intelligence and radio-electronic warfare. The UAF does not wield such expertise and equipment in the likes of what the American army and NATO countries’ armies boast – and which has now apparently surfaced in Donbass. 

Translated by J. Arnoldski

Featured image from Fort Russ

Featured image: U.S. Vice President Mike Pence with Army Gen. Vincent K. Brooks at the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea, April 17, 2017. (Source: D. Myles Cullen / Progressive.org)

As the latest North Korea crisis unfolded, and Donald Trump swapped campaign plowshares for post-inauguration swords, Americans took to the streets demanding that the President release his tax returns and then marched for science. There were no mass protests for peace.

Although the substance of Trump’s foreign policy remains opaque, he had campaigned on an “America First” critique of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s liberal interventionism in Libya and, to his own party’s mortification, blasted George W. Bush’s neoconservative adventurism in Iraq.

Once in the White House, though, Trump announced he would boost the U.S. military budget by a staggering $54 billion and cut back on diplomacy, while pushing the United States to the brink of active conflict with North Korea. None of this provoked a major backlash. To the contrary, Trump’s surprise bombing of Syria, which, his administration declared, doubled as a warning for North Korea, garnered him across-the-aisle praise from hawks in both parties and his highest approval ratings so far.

The American public’s quietism with regard to the prospect of renewed U.S. aggression against North Korea is remarkable. It stands in stark contrast to the broad anti-war galvanization in the post-9/11 lead-up to the U.S. war in Iraq and the widespread protests against the Vietnam War in an earlier era.

To some degree, it recalls the muted mid-twentieth century political terrain that led to the Korean War—a brutal, dirty, and unresolved conflict that set the model for subsequent U.S. intervention. One of the few voices of opposition, Paul Robeson, in a critique that resonates to this day, lambasted his fellow citizens’ “meek conformity with the policies of the war-minded, the racists, and the rich.”

That “the maw of warmakers [was] insatiable” in Korea, as Robeson remarked in 1950, could be seen in the massive devastation of human life. The Korean War was an asymmetrical conflict in which the United States monopolized the skies, raining down ruin. Four million Koreans—the vast majority of them civilians—were killed. Chinese statistics indicate that North Korea lost thirty percent of its population. In North Korea where no family was left unscathed by the terroristic violence of the Korean War, anti-Americanism thus cannot be dismissed as state ideology alone.

More than almost anyone in the world, North Koreans know intimately what it means to be in the crosshairs of the American war machine. In May 1951, writer and activist Monica Felton observed that in the course of her travels through North Korea as part of an international fact-finding delegation,

“the same scenes of destruction repeated themselves over and over again . . . . The destruction, in fact, is so overwhelming that if the war is allowed to continue—even for another few months—there will be nothing left of Korea. Nothing at all.”

It is no coincidence that the phoenix serves as one of North Korea’s national emblems.

Then, as now, Korea rested in the hazy recesses of American consciousness, mostly out of sight, mostly out of mind. When recently asked to comment on the catastrophe that would ensue were Trump to authorize a preemptive strike against North Korea, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, responded with chilling candor:

Yes, it would be terrible, but the war would be over there. It wouldn’t be here. It would be bad for the Korean peninsula, it would be bad for China, it would be bad for Japan, it would be bad for South Korea, it would be the end of North Korea but what it would not do is hit America.

Although famously at odds with Trump on numerous other matters, Graham here captured the pyrrhic spirit of the President’s “America First” foreign policy, a self-privileging worldview that allows for untold ruin and suffering so long as they remain far from our shores.

Graham’s statement is in keeping with the time-honored American tradition of envisioning apocalypse for North Korea—a tradition that survived the Cold War’s end and has served as through-line across successive U.S. presidencies. In recent days, we have been told that the United States must entertain all possible scenarios against North Korea as an interloper in the nuclear club, including a preemptive nuclear strike.

It has been drilled into our heads that North Korea poses a clear and chronic danger, a threat not just to the United States and its allies in Asia and the Pacific, but also to all of humanity. Yet as Donald MacIntyre, Seoul bureau chief for Time magazine during the George W. Bush era, has observed, when it comes to North Korea, Western media has faithfully adhered to a “demonization script” and in so doing has helped to “lay the groundwork for war.” Conditioned by jingoistic portraits of the North Korean enemy—“axis of evil,” “outpost of tyranny,” “rogue state”—and complacent in our displacement of risk onto them, not us, we consent to North Korea’s extinction in advance.

Instability in Korea has, for several decades, lined the pockets of those who profit from the business of war. Indeed, the Korean War rehabilitated a U.S. economy geared, as a result of World War II, toward total war. Seized as opportunity, the war enabled the Truman administration to triple U.S. defense spending, and furnished a rationale for the bilateral linking of Asian client states to the United States and the establishment of what Chalmers Johnson called an “empire of bases” in the Pacific. General James Van Fleet, the commanding officer of UN forces in Korea, described the war as “a blessing” and remarked, “There had to be a Korea either here or some place in the world.”

As Cumings writes:

[I]t was the Korean War, not Greece or Turkey or the Marshall Plan or Vietnam, that inaugurated big defense budgets and the national security state, that transformed a limited containment doctrine into a global crusade, that ignited McCarthyism just as it seemed to fizzle, and thereby gave the Cold War its long run.

Fast-forward to the present: the portrait of an unpredictable nuclear-armed North Korea greases the cogs of the U.S. war machine and fuels the military-industrial complex. Within Asia and the Pacific, this jingoistic portrait has justified the accelerated deployment of missile-defense systems in Guam and South Korea, the strategic positioning of nuclear aircraft carriers, the sales of military weapons, war exercises between the United States and its regional allies, and a forward-deployed U.S. military posture. Even as China is without question the main economic rival of the United States, an armed and dangerous North Korea furnishes the pretext for a heavily militarized U.S. presence in the region.

While trains were used to transport U.S. Soldiers and their equipment during the Korean War, trains in North Korea were targets of attack by U.S. and other U.N. forces. Here, U.S. forces target rail cars south of Wonsan, North Korea, an east coast port city. (Source: U.S. Army Military History Institute / Wikimedia Commons)

Unsurprisingly, few media outlets have reported on North Korea’s overtures to the United States, even as these, if pursued, might result in meaningful de-escalation on both sides. To be clear: peaceful alternatives are at hand. Far from being an intractable foe, North Korea has repeatedly asked the United States to sign a peace treaty that would bring the unresolved Korean War to a long-overdue end.

It has also proposed that the United States cease its annual war games with South Korea—games, we must recognize, that involve the simulated invasion and occupation of North Korea, the “decapitation” of its leadership, and rehearsals of a preemptive nuclear strike. In return, North Korea will cap its nuclear weapons testing. China has reiterated this proposal. The United States maintains that its joint war games with South Korea are simply business as usual and has not seen fit to respond.

With the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism rearing their heads in our current moment, we have cause to be gravely concerned. During his recent anti-North Korea tour of Asia and the Pacific, Vice President Mike Pence grimly stated, “The sword stands ready,” with no sense that plowshares might be in the offing. The implication in the Trump administration’s words (“all options are on the table,” “rogue state,” “behaving very badly”) and deeds (the U.S. bombings of Syria and Afghanistan) is that force is the only lingua franca available, and that with North Korea, we must learn war over and over again.

Almost seventy years ago, we entered into a war with North Korea that has never ended. At the time, only a handful of Americans raised their voices in opposition. Let’s not let the historical record reflect our silence now.

Christine Hong is an associate professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and an executive board member of the Korea Policy Institute. She has spent time in North Korea, including as part of a North American peace delegation.

Even administration officials readily admit that a full-scale war with North Korea is “a war we don’t want.” After almost 70 years of armistice, North Korea has retaliatory capabilities that would devastate South Korea, killing millions, and the large US military contingent in South Korea would be sitting ducks.

At the same time, the Trump Administration is eager to play up their readiness for war, and belief that they have myriad military options, which is raising concerns about the possibility of a limited engagement, or some sort of surgical strike.

Experts, however, seem virtually unanimous in their opinion that a limited military exchange wouldn’t be limited for long, with North Korean retaliation likely in the case of any attack, with the situation progressively escalating into the full-scale war.

Exactly how North Korea would respond to a limited attack is anyone’s guess, with many hoping he wouldn’t immediate “go nuclear.” Yet few doubt that they’d respond in earnest with their substantial conventional arsenal,  and that the US would respond to their response, and so on.

This is particularly true because even the most limited US attack on them will necessarily be seen as “the beginning of the end,” with bigger attacks only a matter of time, and the US giving the impression that a military exchange is their end-game.

Jason Ditz is news editor of Antiwar.com.

Featured image from Antiwar.com

The public is being poisoned, disease rates are spiraling, waterways are contaminated, soil is being degraded, insects, birds, invertebrates and plant diversity are in dramatic decline. Humanity and the planet are being poisoned for profit.

We are experiencing an assault on life by the agrotoxins industry, which is in fact contributing to a sixth mass extinction. Armed with a harmful chemical cocktail of highly profitable agrotoxins, ranging from disease-causing glyphosate to bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticides, biocide manufactures are waging biological and chemical warfare on us all under the guise that they are serving humanity by helping to feed the world.

They promote the message that their products are essential to our survival. They promote a fundamentally ecologically, socially and economically damaging model of agriculture facilitated by Washington, the World Trade Organization, World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

They say that without their agrotoxins and chemical-dependent (GM) seeds, crops would be ravaged by pests or yields would be too low. They use smear campaigns directed towards critics and employ public relations and corporate-funded science in an attempt to mask their sheer ignorance of the real, long-term damage their proprietary inputs are having.

And all the while, research is being shaped to sideline what is really happening. Drugs companies and biocide manufacturers are joined at the hip. They fund research and research institutes and help shape a narrative about disease courtesy of compliant media organisations or media organisations which they actively fund, such as the Science Media Centre.

The integrity of public institutions is comprised due to the political influence and financial clout of corporations like Monsanto and Bayer. They distort science, hijack agencies co-opt or position people in key roles (for example see this and this regarding the Trump administration) and engage in forms of criminality that should in a better world see their CEOs being hauled into court for their part in facilitating crimes against humanity and the natural environment (see this too, which provides some graphic images of the consequences of agrotoxins in South America).

Evaggelos Vallianatos worked for the US Environmental Protection Agency for 25 years and says that morally bankrupt governments and regulatory agencies have allowed companies to destroy honeybees, essential pollinators, for decades. He says that the triumph of the aggressive form of farming promoted by the agrotoxin corporations has meant the sidelining of science and the formal, state-supported addiction of farmers to pesticides. He adds that the petrochemicals industry drafted the pesticide laws in the US and Europe and stated:

“Such blatant power grab infused everything about pesticides with loopholes, secret to the public but crystal clear to the industry and most regulators, politicians, and environmentalists. Testing pesticides for health and ecological effects became a brutal abuse of science. It is a display of concern in a strategy of deception. For example, the massive fraud of the Industrial Bio-test Laboratory made no difference to the corruption engulfing the “registration” of farm sprays. Registration equals government approval with little if any reliable data. From the 1950s to the 1970s, IBT made up most of the results of testing hundreds of pesticides, drugs, and a myriad of other chemicals. Despite the public revelation of the gangster-like behavior of this American lab, and no doubt questionable practices in countless other labs all over the world, nothing happened to eliminate lab corruption.”

Lapdog politicians and prominent agencies and individuals protect the culprits. Some attack critics for fear-mongering, pretending to care for people while their actions expose them as hypocrites. Well-paid people in public office serve these companies, not the public. Equally well-paid career scientists and pseudo-journalists act as corporate mouthpieces.

Little wonder then that on 28 June 2016, the unelected European Commission unilaterally announced that the license for glyphosate was to be extended for 18 months without meaningful restrictions. This was after member states repeatedly could not reach an agreement to renew the approval.

Unfortunately, the biocide industry is a growth industry (which of course neoliberal apologists – regardless of the consequences – will no doubt hail as being good for ‘gowth’ or ‘development’). From the US and Argentina to India, the industry has rolled out its seeds and poisons with devastating impacts on people’s lives and the environment.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food Hilal Elver criticises global agricultural corporations. She concurs with others by saying their pesticides are unnecessary for feeding the world. In response, these companies engage in fear mongering and smears in an attempt to denigrate alternative approaches to agriculture that have no need for such companies and their chemicals.

In a recent report, Elver and Baskut Tuncak were severely critical of the global corporations that manufacture pesticides, accusing them of the “systematic denial of harms”, “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics” and heavy lobbying of governments which has “obstructed reforms and paralysed global pesticide restrictions”.

The authors say pesticides have “catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society as a whole”, including an estimated 200,000 deaths a year from acute poisoning. They conclude:

“It is time to create a global process to transition toward safer and healthier food and agricultural production.”

Elver says,

“The corporations are not dealing with world hunger, they are dealing with more agricultural activity on large scales.”

In other words, they are not feeding the world but shaping global agriculture to suit their interests, regardless of the impact on world hunger, food security, health and the environment.

Environmental campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason has been compiling evidence about agrotoxins and corporate influence for years. Her numerous documents cite peer-reviewed research, expert opinion and official reports and statistics. Her analyses are based on science and her findings and conclusions are placed into appropriate historical, political, economic and sociological contexts.

Most of her documents comprise open letters to key agencies and officials, and most of the responses she receives – when she does receive a response – are standard soundbite public relations or something that might well have been written by the pesticide industry.

Rosemary Mason writes to Guy Smith of the National Farmers’ Union

In a new 13,000-word open letter to the National Farmers’ Union (containing all relevant supporting evidence), Mason outlines many of the issues discussed above. It would be pointless to attempt to cover everything Mason says in detail. Readers can access the letter themselves to look at the data and the arguments she puts forward to make her case.

She reiterates many of the points she has previously made, not least pertaining to the devastation of her nature reserve in South Wales and the corrupt practices of agencies in the US, UK and Europe that have ignored the science and impacts of glyphosate in order to ensure it remains on the commercial market.

In her letter, she notes that in June 2017 Guy Smith stated that there is no scientific consensus on a three-year study on neonicotinoid insecticides and bees. He quoted the UK Science Media Centre (SMC), an agency that calls upon lobbyists to pose as experts.

In discussing the SMC, Mason quotes Colin Macilwain, a science policy writer, who says:

“The London SMC was set up because UK scientific leaders were upset that environmentalists had successfully fought the introduction of genetically modified food; they felt that the UK media were too susceptible to environmental scare stories about new technologies.  Despite the fears of the SMC founders, the British press — led by the BBC, which treats the Confederation of British Industry with the deference the Vatican gets in Rome — is overwhelmingly conservative and pro-business in its outlook. It is quite unperturbed by the fact that SMC sponsors include AstraZeneca, BP, Coca-Cola, L’Oreal, Monsanto, Syngenta (as well as Nature Publishing Group) but not a single environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) or trade union.”

Mason then proceeds to discuss the disturbing impacts on humans and the environment of endocrine and nervous system disrupting chemicals. She also highlights how numerous scientists and important scientific findings have been ignored or attacked because they offended industry interests.

As with her previous open letters, Mason brings to Guy Smith’s attention the verdict of the Judges of the International Monsanto Tribunal and the worrying findings about loss of biodiversity contained in State of Nature Report 2016 compiled by 50 organisations.

Mason quotes Guy Smith as having said

“intensification of farming had ended in the early 1990s.” that farmers “were using less fertiliser and pesticides than ever.”

However, Mason provides evidence to show that pesticide residues on British food are increasing annually. Moreover, pesticide usage statistics show a massive increase in glyphosate between 2012 and 2014.

Mason wrote to NFU President Meurig Raymond on 22 October 2015. In his response, Raymond defended the rights of farmers to use chemicals to protect their crops even though Mason had informed him that they were damaging the brains of children. Mason says that it is though the pesticides industry drafted the reply.

In her letter, Mason highlights the links between Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the agrotoxin sector and how research funding and the narrative about disease has been distorted to protect the industry. She shows how Syngenta, AstraZeneca and the UK government have a mutually beneficial relationship with each other at the expense of the British people: one corporation promotes cancer, the other tries to ‘cure’ it.

Glyphosate and other pesticides earn billions for the industry, while pharmaceutical companies enrich themselves from the sales of statins, anti-hypertensives, antidepressants, diabetic medication, anti-cancer drugs, weight -reducing drugs, vaccines and drugs to treat dementia etc.

Mason a good deal of space to inform Guy Smith about the specific chemicals that cause various diseases. She notes that glyphosate is a carcinogen and refers to Prof Chris Portier of the International Agency for Research into Cancer who wrote to President Juncker to say that EFSA’s studies on glyphosate were flawed.

Mason’s take-home points include:

1) The EU has been brainwashed by industry as have UK farmers due to the industry’s aggressive tactics.

2) Governments are more concerned with protecting industry interests than public health or the environment.

3) Monsanto is in big trouble. It faces many lawsuits in the US about glyphosate causing cancer and false advertising that glyphosate doesn’t affect humans.

4) Monsanto is likely to end up in the International Criminal Court accused of ecocide and possibly genocide.

5) By the time Monsanto has been hauled through the courts, industry shills and agencies might think twice before saying glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer.

The CEOs and board members of companies like Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta, as well as key co-opted figures in various government and regulatory bodies, should be made to answer for the health- and environment-destroying actions they facilitate (see this on Bayer and this on Monsanto). While capitalism as a system fuels many of the problems outlined by Mason and we must challenge it, when faced with potential long-term jail sentences, certain figures might begin to think twice about the devastating consequences of their actions.

“The US is setting up its military bases in the territories that were liberated from Daesh by our fighters during the fight against terrorism,” – Senior Representative of the US armed, proxy, SDF forces.

With very little fanfare from the western media, the US is quietly creating a hostile military footprint inside Syria.

By establishing a chain of airbases, military outposts and missile bases inside Syria, the US is illegally, stealth-occupying a sovereign nation. The number of US military installations in Syria has increased to eight bases according to recent reports, and possibly nine according to one other military analyst.

We should also not forget the malevolent presence of Israel in the criminally annexed southern Syrian territory of the Golan Heights. This could just as easily be included in the list of US military outposts inside Syria.

Two regional intelligence sources disclosed mid-June that the US military moved a new truck-mounted, long-range rocket launcher from Jordan to a US base in al-Tanf in Southeastern Homs, near the Iraqi and Jordanian borders, stepping up its presence in the area.

The sources said the (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems – HIMARS) had moved into the desert garrison, which saw a buildup in recent weeks as tensions escalate after the US-led coalition struck positions of the Syrian forces to prevent them advancing toward the al-Tanf base.

“They have arrived now in al-Tanf and they are a significant boost to the US military presence there,” one senior intelligence source said, without elaborating. “The HIMARS had already been deployed in Northern Syria with US-backed forces battling ISIL militants”, he added.

The missile system’s deployment at al-Tanf would give US forces the ability to strike targets within its 300-kilometer range. ~ FarsNews

A report in FarsNews today goes so far as to suggest that the US has now established a total of six military air-base facilities. This might represent wishful thinking on behalf of the geopolitically ambitious Kurdish factions who are seeking establish an independent state inside Syria [it must be noted that many Syrian Kurds oppose this agenda and have remained loyal to Syria]:

“The US has set up two airports in Hasaka, one airport in Qamishli, two airports in al-Malekiyeh (Dirik), and one more airport in Tal Abyadh at border with Turkey in addition to a military squad center in the town of Manbij in Northeastern Aleppo,” Hamou said.

In March 2016, a Reuters report also discussed the US establishment of military air-bases in North East Syria, in Hasaka and in Northern Syria, in Kobani. Both areas that are controlled by Kurdish forces, maintained by the US, and championed by Israel in their bid for statehood and independence from Syria which would inevitably entail the annexing of Syrian territory.

“The Erbil-based news website BasNews, quoting a military source in the Kurdish-backed Syria Democratic Forces (SDF), said most of the work on a runway in the oil town of Rmeilan in Hasaka was complete while a new air base southeast of Kobani, straddling the Turkish border, was being constructed.” ~ Reuters

US CENTCOM were quick to deny such a blatant violation of International law with familiar doublespeak that left room for the interpretation that the US was indeed preparing to empower its Kurdish proxies in their bid for “independence”.

“Our location and troop strength remains small and in keeping with what has been previously briefed by defense officials,” he said in a statement. “That being said, U.S. forces in Syria are consistently looking for ways to increase efficiency for logistics and personnel recovery support.” (Emphasis added)

In April 2017, CENTCOM announced that they were “expanding” the airbase in Kobani:

“The Air Force has expanded an air base in northern Syria to assist in the fight to retake the city of Raqqa from the Islamic State, U.S. Central Command said. The base is near Kobani, which is about 90 miles north of Raqqa, the last urban stronghold for ISIS in Syria. It gives the United States an additional location to launch aircraft to support U.S. and other anti-ISIS forces in the campaign to recapture the city, said Col. John Thomas, a spokesman for Central Command.”

The following video was taken from Operation Inherent Resolve Facebook page. A United States Air Force MC-130 crew prepares for a resupply airdrop over an undisclosed location in Syria. Watch ~

Airmen from the 621st Contingency Response Group have been deployed to modify and “expand” the Kobani airbase, with the stated intention of supporting anti-ISIS coalitions on the ground in Syria.

The fundamental flaw with US Coalitions is that they do not include the Syrian Arab Army, Russia and their allies who have been systematically fighting ISIS & NATO state extremists, since the start of the externally waged war against Syria. The US coalition is, in reality, an uninvited, hostile force, violating Syria’s territorial integrity, operating under the false pretext of combating ISIS while many reports expose the collusion between US coalition command & forces and ISIS.

On the 18th June, the US downed a Syrian fighter jet, on an anti-ISIS mission. The Syrian jet was brought down in Rasafah, in the southern Raqqa countryside.

The “flagrant attack was an attempt to undermine the efforts of the army as the only effective force capable with its allies … in fighting terrorism across its territory”, the statement said. “This comes at a time when the Syrian army and its allies were making clear advances in fighting the [Islamic State] terrorist group.“ ~ Syrian Arab Army statement

US Airforce illustration showing how the Contingency Response Group operates. 

With this increase in US military activity inside Syria, the number of civilian deaths under US coalition airstrikes has also been dramatically increasing. CENTCOM has admitted responsibility for the deaths of 484 civilians in their alleged anti-ISIS operations in Iraq and Syria but it is extremely likely that this figure is being artificially lowered from its realistic level:

29th June: Eight civilians were killed and others were injured in a new massacre committed by the aircrafts of the US-led international coalition on al-Sour town in northern Deir Ezzor.

Local and media sources confirmed that warplanes of the US-led coalition launched raids on civilians’ homes in al-Sour in the northern countryside of Deir Ezzor province, claiming the lives of eight people and injuring many others. ~ SANA

US Military Footprint is Strategically Placed

The US military footprint has been strategically placed inside Syria. The US has been waging a war against the sovereign nation of Syria for over six years in an attempt to secure “regime change” and the creation of a suitable puppet regime, compliant to US hegemony in the region. It has failed. Its multiple proxies have been consummately driven out and forced to retreat by the Syrian Arab Army and its allies. A recent article in the Duran demonstrates the Russia effect on the battles to liberate Syria from the clutches of NATO and Gulf state terrorists.  The following two maps were taken from the article:

Situation in Syria at end of June 2017. 

September 2015, just before Russia launched their legal intervention against terrorism in Syria at the invitation of the internationally recognised Syrian government.

Based on information regarding the US military bases in Syria, even with some variation ref numbers of bases versus outposts, we can pinpoint the main areas of concern for Washington:

– Hasaka: Abu Hajr (Rmaylan), Kharab al-Jeer, Hasaka Dam
– Raqqah: Kobane, Tal al-Samn
– N. Rural Aleppo: Kharab Keshk, Jadbiy'yat
– Tanaf

— Elijah J. Magnier (@ejmalrai) July 4, 2017

The US bases are concentrated in the areas controlled by their currently, preferred proxies, the SDF in the north of Syria and the Maghawir al Thawra  & Southern Front militant forces, close to Al Tanf on the Syrian border with Iraq:

In a recent article for the American Conservative, political analyst, Sharmine Narwani laid out the US agenda, in establishing a military camp at Al Tanf and the abject failure of this military strategy:

“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.”

In the North, we can speculate that the US is trying to create optimum conditions for an autonomous Kurdish region and the eventual partitioning of Syria, following the already skewed US road map.  According to Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor of Political Science at Russia’s Finance University, Kurds control 20% of Syrian territory, when ISIS is defeated the likelihood is that they will want to declare a “sovereign” state.  This would play into, not only US, but primarily Israel’s hands.

The US/Israeli agenda has clearly been to form a buffer zone inside all Syrian borders from North to East to South preventing Syrian access to neighbouring country borders & territory and reducing Syria to a geopolitically isolated, internalized peninsular. This plan was discussed by Syriana Analysis:

“We’ve even set up a base at Al Tanf in the southern part, it’s an American base within the country of Syria,” Black said. “You can’t get a more obvious violation of international law than to actually move in and set up a military base in a sovereign country that has never taken any offensive action towards our country.” ~ Senator Richard Black

The US is relentlessly flaunting international law, as it has throughout this protracted conflict – it has established, inside Syria, almost as many bases as it has set up in its regional, rogue state allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Syria, a country that the US has been punishing for over six years, via economic, media and militant terrorism. The lawlessness of the US hegemon has now reached epic proportions and threatens to engulf Syria and the region in sectarian conflict for a while yet thanks to its Machiavellian meddling in a sovereign nation’s affairs on almost every front.

However, the US has consistently underestimated its foe and apparently failed to factor in the Russian military capability. On Wednesday, Russian Tu-95MS strategic bombers struck ISIS targets in Syria with X-101 cruise missiles, as reported by South Front.

“The strike was made from the range of about 1,000 kilometers. The Tu-95MS bombers took off from an airfield in Russia.” 

Result of X-101 cruise missile strikes carried by Tu-95MS against #ISIS targets in #Syria. pic.twitter.com/8UojQ8TO0Y

— Aldin Abazović ?? (@CT_operative) July 5, 2017

From a practical military perspective, the US is out of its depth in Syria and no amount of proxies are going to change that fact, it remains to be seen to what extent the US will further bury itself in a swamp of its own making before it concedes defeat to the steadfastness of the Syrian people, the Syrian Arab Army and the Syrian state.

As Paul Craig Roberts has said recently:

“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 capable of understanding the limits to their power.

But the Western World has no such people.”

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

Here’s what’s most important to understand. Following cessation of hostilities on the Korean peninsula in late July 1953, an uneasy armistice persisted to this day.

A heavily fortified 2.5 mile Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) separates North and South. Occasional incidents occur.
Truman’s war never ended. Its origin was misreported.

Repeated US-orchestrated cross-border provocations by South Korea against Pyongyang got the DPRK to respond in self-defense – its legitimate right under international law.

Peace on the peninsula hasn’t existed since 1950. Trump’s bullying and provocative behavior threatens Korean war 2.0.

He’s risking an unthinkable nuclear conflict, one nuclear power against another, assuring devastating consequences if war on the peninsula is launched – assuring losers, not winners.

Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs are solely for defense, not offense. Throughout its history, it never attacked another country.

It’s legitimately concerned about possible US-launched war on the peninsula. It’s wanted normalized relations with Washington and the West for decades.

US administrations from Truman to Trump refused. Tensions remain high. Occasionally things escalate. Washington bears full responsibility every time – clear evidence it rejects diplomatically ending decades of hostile relations toward the DPRK.

Its sovereign independence is the issue, not its leadership. Washington wants all nations subservient to its interests – color revolutions and aggressive wars its strategies of choice to achieve its objectives.

On Tuesday, the DPRK conducted its latest ballistic missile test. Secretary of State Tillerson lied, calling it an ICBM launch, “represent(ing) a new escalation of the threat to the United States, our allies and partners, the region, and the world.”

North Korea threatens no one, not America or any other nation. Russia’s Defense Ministry explained the Tuesday launch flew around 535 km, reaching an altitude of 510 km before falling harmlessly into the Sea of Japan – calling the missile an intermediate-range ballistic one, not an ICBM.

The US Pacific Command reported the same information. Tillerson ignored it, willfully heightening tensions. Calling North Korea a “global threat” gives Washington an excuse for more provocative behavior.

On July 4, US Forces Korea issued a statement, saying the

“Eighth US Army and Republic of Korea (ROK) military personnel conducted a combined event exercising assets countering North Korea’s destabilizing and unlawful actions on July 4.”

“This exercise utilized the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) and the Republic of Korea Hyunmoo Missile II, which fired missiles into territorial waters of South Korea along the East Coast.”

“The system can be rapidly deployed and engaged. The deep strike precision capability enables the ROK-US Alliance to engage the full array of time critical targets under all weather conditions.”

“The ROK-US Alliance remains committed to peace and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula and throughout the Asia-Pacific. The US commitment to the defense of the ROK in the face of threats is ironclad.”

Fact: Threatened by possible US aggression, programs pursued by North Korea’s military aim solely to defend the nation if attacked.

Fact: America and its rogue allies are “committed to” endless wars of aggression and other disturbing provocations, “not peace and prosperity” anywhere – the latter for its privileged class and cronies exclusively.

Fact: Nations America targets belligerently, and others menaced by its bullying and aggressive behavior, threaten no one. Their sovereign independence leaves them vulnerable. Washington wants them transformed into US vassal states, their resources plundered, their people subjugated.

Resolving decades of US hostility toward Pyongyang requires diplomatic outreach by both sides.

The DPRK is willing to engage responsibly any time. Like its predecessors, the Trump administration is not. War on the Korean peninsula remains an ominous possibility.

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.